November 10, 2008
British Columbia has finally introduced its long-awaited civil liability regime for secondary market disclosure. It expands the liability regime to public companies and their directors and officers (and certain other persons who provide services to public companies, such as lawyers, auditors, geologists and financial advisors) by creating a cause of action for purchasers of securities in the secondary market.
The secondary market includes all trading in securities that takes place after the initial sale from the issuing company. And, indeed, the secondary market includes all trading on stock exchanges and represents some 90% or more of all trading in securities.
The changes also open the door to class action proceedings for misrepresentations in filed disclosure documents for purchasers in the secondary market by removing the common law requirement that an investor prove he or she relied on the misrepresentation.
Under amendments to the Securities Act (the “Act”) now in effect, public companies and their officers, directors, insiders, experts and others that are subject to British Columbia securities laws are exposed to civil liability from investors for misrepresentations in a public company’s continuous disclosure and for failures to make timely disclosure of material changes.
Investors now have the right to sue if they suffer damages as a result of purchasing or selling securities of a public company in the following circumstances:
The definition of what constitutes a document under the new regime is particularly important. It includes documents, whether in written or electronic form, that are or must be filed with the British Columbia Securities Commission, that are or must be filed with any government agency under securities or corporate law, a stock exchange or quotation and trade reporting system, and any other communication that would reasonably be expected to affect the market price or value of the company’s securities. The expansiveness of the definition captures a wide range of documents including, for example, web replays of a conference call and documents filed or required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies (such as notices of articles, annual reports and notices of change of directors).
Depending on whether a potential claim involves a disclosure misrepresentation or a failure to make a timely disclosure, an investor is entitled to sue any of a number of people, including:
A number of defences are available to persons who are sued by an investor, depending upon whether the claim involves a claim of disclosure misrepresentation or a failure to make a timely disclosure. Some of the defences available include the due diligence defence, reliance on professionals and experts, mistaken release of a document, the safe harbour defence, reliance on another public document and whistleblower protection.
The new civil liability regime contains detailed provisions on how damages are to be assessed in favour of an investor who bought or sold securities after a document was released, an oral statement made that contained a misrepresentation, or after a failure to timely disclose a material change. The assessment of damages is subject to a number of variables. Generally, damages are based on the difference between the value of the securities bought or sold when the disclosure record of the public company was inaccurate and the value of the securities after proper disclosure has been made. Without finding of fraud, however, the damages have certain limits or caps.
In addition to liability caps, the liability of each defendant will be assessed proportionately to that person’s responsibility for making and not correcting the disclosure that contained the misrepresentation or failing to make the required disclosure. In situations where a defendant knowingly made a misrepresentation or failed to make timely disclosure, the defendant will be jointly and severally liable for the whole amount of the damages assessed.
In an effort to protect against frivolous lawsuits, the amendments prohibit an action from being commenced without leave of the court. In determining whether to grant leave to commence an action, the court must be satisfied that the action is being brought in good faith and that there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at trial in favour of the plaintiff.
Christine J. Mingie is an associate in the Business Law Group in Vancouver. Contact her directly at 604-691-7472 or cmingie@lmls.com.
Tom Hakemi is an associate in the Litigation Group in Vancouver. Contact him directly at 604-691-6852 or thakemi@lmls.com.
Ed.: The full version of this article appeared previously as a Lang Michener Securities Alert. A version of this article also appeared in Canadian Securities Law News, a CCH publication.
This article appeared in the Lang Michener LLP InBrief Winter 2008/2009. To subscribe to this publication, please visit our Publications Request page.