Soheil Karkhanechi

Following a decision granting leave to proceed with secondary market misrepresentation claims and certifying a class action, the parties disputed the settlement of the order, the certification of the primary market subclass's financial outlook claim, and costs.

The court held that the primary market subclass's claim remained certified, as importing a merits-based leave test into the certification criteria was improper.

The court settled the order in accordance with the plaintiff's draft, declined to clarify findings of fact, and awarded the plaintiff $950,000 in costs based on overall success.

This endorsement addresses two production issues in a proposed class action for misrepresentation under the Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act.

The plaintiff sought production of (1) a podcast audio or transcript quoted by defendant Michael Novogratz in his affidavit, and (2) documents underlying a chart referenced by defendant Alex Ioffe.

The court ordered production of the portion of the podcast transcript quoted in the affidavit, but declined to order production of the underlying documents for the chart, finding such requests more appropriate for cross-examination.

The court also set out a timetable for the upcoming motions and clarified the process for resolving refusals.

The plaintiff, Mohammad Reza Kamrani-Ghadjar, sought to discontinue his class action against Cidel Trust Company and Neo International Investments Ltd. in a securities misrepresentation case involving Anaergia Inc. The court approved the discontinuance with prejudice, finding no prejudice to the class or defendants, and ordered that notice be given to class members.

The court also granted procedural orders regarding factum length and amended the litigation timetable.

This decision addresses the admissibility of two expert reports submitted by the plaintiff in a proposed class action certification motion.

The defendants sought to strike the reports, arguing lack of objectivity and improper scope.

The court ruled that the report from an investor in the defendant company was inadmissible due to a direct economic conflict of interest, despite the expert's disclosure and offer to opt out of class compensation.

The report from a lawyer specializing in securities and corporate law was deemed admissible, as it provided necessary and helpful expertise on complex regulatory standards, but its concluding paragraphs opining on the ultimate issue of misrepresentation were ordered redacted as they usurped the court's role.