University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Securities Page 1 of 2

We’ve Got New Harmonized Crowdfunding Rules. But How Will Industry Respond?

By

On August 4, 2021

In Securities

By: Dr. Ryan Clements

PDF Version: We’ve Got New Harmonized Crowdfunding Rules. But How Will Industry Respond?

Legislation Commented On: National Instrument 45-110, Start-Up Crowdfunding Registration and Prospectus Exemptions

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) recently published, in final form, a harmonized national framework for securities crowdfunding (National Instrument (NI) 45-110), which, subject to ministerial approval, will come into force on September 21, 2021. This is a positive development and shows that provincial securities regulators can work together to make Canadian capital markets more efficient without a national regulator.

It is uncertain, however, how industry will respond – and this is no fault of the regulator. The harmonized framework balances dual policy pillars of investor protection and fair and efficient capital markets, and this should be applauded. But crowdfunding isn’t a panacea. It’s a tool that may fill a small gap in the capital raising ecosystem for start-ups. One might be skeptical about the net impact it will ultimately have on capital formation in Canada, and there are several good reasons why firms and investors may want to avoid it altogether.

Read More

Reforming Personal Property Security Law

By

On January 26, 2021

In Law Reform, Property, Securities

By: Tamara Buckwold and Roderick Wood

PDF Version: Reforming Personal Property Security Law

Report Commented On: Alberta Law Reform Institute, Personal Property Security Law, Report for Discussion 35 (December 2020)

Every Canadian province and territory, except for Quebec, has enacted a Personal Property Security Act. Although there are minor variations across jurisdictions, these statutes are substantially uniform. Alberta’s Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA) originally came into force in October 1990. Its enactment transformed secured transactions law in Alberta by sweeping away many of the restrictions and limitations that impeded the use of secured credit. It replaced the piecemeal approach that formerly governed with a comprehensive and rational system that fostered certainty, transparency and flexibility. The success of the legislation is confirmed by the transplantation of the Canadian model into other jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia.

Although the PPSA produced a significant improvement in the law, experience with the legislation over the course of the last three decades has revealed several instances where improvements or clarifications are desirable. In some cases, the need for reform is driven by technological advances. When the PPSA was first enacted, electronic banking and electronic commerce were in their infancy. In other cases, judicial decisions have revealed ambiguities in the legislation that have produced uncertainty. Further, the statute simply did not anticipate the kinds of controversies that would be litigated in the future, and therefore did not provide rules for the resolution of these types of disputes.

Read More

Ranchman’s Receivership: Exploring Different Proprietary Rights in the Memorabilia

By

On October 13, 2020

In Property, Securities

By: Jassmine Girgis*

PDF Version: Ranchman’s Receivership: Exploring Different Proprietary Rights in the Memorabilia

Article Commented On: Natalie Valleau, “Prized saddles, trophies and more picked up by rodeo families after Ranchman’s closure”, CBC News (2 October 2020)

Last month, one of Calgary’s iconic country bars closed its doors. Ranchman’s had been a part of Calgary’s western culture for close to 50 years, having first opened its doors April 27, 1972.

As is typical in receivership proceedings, the lender, the Bank of Montreal (BMO), seized Ranchman’s assets, including historic saddles and other memorabilia that hung from the building’s rafters. These memorabilia had been loaned to the bar by rodeo stars (referred to in this post as the “owners”); in exchange for food and drink, these owners allowed the bar to display the items, but on the understanding that they could take their property back whenever they wanted. Jim Gladstone, a champion calf-roper, commenced this practice after his 1977 world championship, wherein he took his champion saddle to Ranchman’s and, in exchange for not having to stand in line, pay cover, etc., he allowed Ranchman’s to display his saddle for free. Over the years, the bar acquired more memorabilia and trophies under the same conditions.

Upon reading about BMO’s decision to release the memorabilia to the owners (which came as a big relief to them and their families), I wondered whether BMO had concluded that it had no legal rights to retain the memorabilia, or had simply wanted to avoid a potential public relations nightmare (regardless of rights). Although BMO’s decision has rendered this point moot, I wanted to explore whether Ranchman’s could have had an interest in the memorabilia (referred to below as “collateral” or “property”), which would then have determined BMO’s legal rights in it. I write this post based solely on the facts garnered from a few newspaper articles (see here; here; and here).

Read More

Court of Appeal Affords Deference to Alberta Securities Commission in Platinum Equities Case

By

On November 9, 2015

In Administrative Law, Securities

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Court of Appeal Affords Deference to Alberta Securities Commission in Platinum Equities Case

Case Commented On: Alberta (Securities Commission) v Chandran, 2015 ABCA 323

In February 2014 the Alberta Securities Commission found that Shariff Chandran was the governing mind of an elaborate scheme of capital market misconduct under the general umbrella of Platinum Equities and ruled that Chandran and others were guilty of contravening various provisions of the Securities Act, RSA 2000, c S-4 concerning the illegal distribution of approximately $58 million in securities to the public, misrepresentations, fraud, and conduct contrary to the public interest (See Re Platinum Equities Inc, 2014 ABASC 71). In addition to these administrative proceedings before the Commission, there are civil and criminal proceedings underway concerning Platinum Equities. In September 2014 the Commission issued its sanctions order 2014 ABASC 376 against Chandran and others for their misconduct under the Securities Act. Chandran asked the Court of Appeal to set aside a portion of these sanctions ordered by the Commission, and in Alberta (Securities Commission) v Chandran the panel of Justices Martin, O’Ferrall, and Shutz dismisses his appeal. The Court’s decision is a good example of how deference should work in substantive judicial review.

Section 38 of the Securities Act provides for a right of appeal to the Court by a person who is directly affected by a Commission decision. Notably section 38 does not limit this right of appeal to questions of law and neither does it require leave of the Court. Moreover, section 38 expressly states the Court may confirm, vary or reject the Commission decision, direct the Commission to re-hear the matter, or even decide the matter itself and substitute its decision for that of the Commission. In short, section 38 is a very generous and potentially intrusive statutory appeal provision.

Read More

“Do Corporations Cry Wolf? — Comparing What Companies Tell Regulators With What They Tell Investors”

By

On April 6, 2015

In Corporate / Commercial, Energy, Securities

By: James Coleman

PDF Version: “Do Corporations Cry Wolf? — Comparing What Companies Tell Regulators With What They Tell Investors”

Corporations regularly complain that new regulations will harm their business and the broader economy. How seriously should we take those warnings? I’ve just posted a paper that presents a way of answering this perennial question.

It’s often said that corporations, “Cry Wolf,” falsely predicting that rules will be very costly. A prime example comes from 1970 when Ford’s President, Lee Iacocca warned that the U.S. Clean Air Act “could prevent continued production of automobiles” and was “a threat to the entire American economy and to every person in America.” So when industry says that new regulations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan or Alberta’s rules for cleaning up tailings ponds will be unworkable, some suggest that regulators should just ignore those warnings.

But the problem with crying wolf is that there are wolves. That is, false alarms are dangerous because they mean we won’t respond to true threats. And from time to time, regulations really are unworkable, and industry might be the first to recognize this, which is why regulators don’t just ignore industry warnings.

Read More

Page 1 of 2

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén