14
|
Class Actions
Desrosiers, Martin
Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP
(514) 904-5649
mdesrosiers@osler.com
Mr. Desrosiers focuses
on insolvency and finan-
cial restructuring law.
He represents financial
institutions, trustees,
receivers, monitors,
debtors and creditors'
committees. He has
lectured and written
extensively, and is
an IIC member.
Doody, Peter K.
Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP
(613) 787-3510
pdoody@blg.com
Mr. Doody practises in
all areas of civil litiga-
tion, with emphasis on
commercial litigation,
arbitration, public and
administrative law, Ab-
original law, and insur-
ance law. Called to the
Ontario Bar in 1982.
Douglas, James D.G.
Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP
(416) 367-6029
jdouglas@blg.com
Mr. Douglas's litigation
practice includes share-
holder disputes, M&A
litigation, class actions,
broker liability suits, pro-
ceedings before secur-
ities commissions and
self-regulatory organ-
izations, and defending
securities-related crim-
inal charges.
Dimock, Ronald E.
Dimock Stratton LLP
(416) 971-7202
rdimock@dimock.com
Mr. Dimock's IP practice
embraces patents,
trademarks and copy-
right litigation. He is an
engineer, certified spe-
cialist in civil litigation
and IP law, and a fellow
of the American College
of Trial Lawyers and the
Chartered Institute
of Arbitrators.
Doris, James W.E.
Davies Ward Phillips
& Vineberg LLP
(416) 367-6919
jdoris@dwpv.com
Mr. Doris specializes
in general civil litiga-
tion with an emphasis
on shareholder and
oppression remedy
actions, class actions,
contested mergers
and acquisitions and
securities disputes,
insolvency, gaming and
competition matters.
Drymer, Stephen L.
Woods LLP
(514) 370-8745
sdrymer@woods.qc.ca
Partner and head of
International Arbitra-
tion and ADR. Acts as
counsel, arbitrator and
mediator in domestic
and international com-
mercial and investment
disputes. Recognized as
one of Canada's leading
international dispute
resolution lawyers.
LEXPERT®Ranked Lawyers
In a bid to avoid leaving Canada open to the kinds of spec-
ulative US-style strike suits that plagued Wall Street a decade
earlier – considered by many a form of legal highway robbery
– the provinces all shaped their new regimes so sharehold-
ers are required to get permission, or leave, from the court
before their suit can proceed.
Damages are also capped, sharply limiting the potential
upside. In Ontario, for example, which sees roughly 80 per
cent of shareholder lawsuits, damages cannot exceed 5 per
cent of a company's market capitalization.
e measures appear to have worked.
Paul Morrison of McCarthy Tétrault LLP – a corporate
defence lawyer – says there clearly aren't as many cases being
brought as people had initially feared. Even where cases have
been filed, he says, most settle only aer many years of litiga-
tion and "the amounts for which they are settling are really
not that big."
A snapshot provided by NERA Economic Consulting,
which tracks securities class actions, shows there were 11
suits filed in Canada last year. at's far short of the 221
filed in the United States' federal court, even taking Canada's
smaller size into account.
None of the cases filed has yet led to a
full trial.
Won Kim, of Kim Orr Barristers P.C. –
which has been involved in filing a number
of high-profile shareholder class actions –
believes the suits are not yet working as in-
tended in terms of shareholder protection.
"We can do better."
Joel Rochon, of Rochon Genova LLP,
one of the more active class-action bou-
tiques in the country, says his firm has tak-
en on fewer than a dozen shareholder-style
lawsuits since the regime was introduced in
Ontario in 2005 — roughly only one a year.
"ese cases are incredibly costly to mount primarily be-
cause of the money spent on experts and investigations," he
says. "It's not unusual to have an outlay in excess of $1 million
or $2 million in major cases — and that's not counting the
time put in. at in itself should be deterrence enough to
pursuing frivolous cases.
"I don't see any highway robbery here. ere was only one
strike suit ever brought in Canada and that was 20 years ago."
Marie Audren, regional leader of the class action group at
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP in Montréal, says the absence of
strike suits suggests the leave requirement and damage caps
are doing the job. "It may very well be that these mechanisms
prevent them."
Audren is convinced the provinces got the balance be-
tween investor and company protections right. She views the
"THE [LEAVE] STANDARD SAYS YOU HAVE
TO HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS
AT TRIAL AND ALSO THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE
ON THE SUIT IN GOOD FAITH — NOT JUST TO BE
A NUISANCE OR TO GET THE LEGAL FEES."
– Marie Audren, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
