Sandpiper Calls the Tune – Ontario Court Examines Shareholder Meeting Timing Requirements
How much time can a board take to convene a requisitioned meeting of securityholders? The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Sandpiper Real Estate Fund 4 Limited Partnership v. First Capital Real Estate Investment Trust provides guidance to board members both as to how contextual factors may inform the decision and as to the process boards should undertake in addressing the question.
Background
The case arose from a meeting requisition delivered on December 12, 2022 to First Capital by Sandpiper entities that together beneficially owned approximately 9% of First Capital’s outstanding units. The requisition was made in the wake of First Capital’s announcements of an enhanced capital allocation and portfolio optimization plan, and of the first asset disposition under the new plan. Sandpiper’s requisition sought a special meeting of First Capital unitholders to be held not later than March 1, 2023 to replace four members of the board with Sandpiper nominees. First Capital’s board of trustees announced that the special business specified by Sandpiper would be addressed at First Capital’s annual general meeting to be held May 16, 2023, approximately two and one-half months after First Capital’s requisitioned deadline and five months after the delivery of the requisition. Sandpiper indicated it would accept the longer timeline in exchange for an undertaking to postpone implementation of the optimization plan, but First Capital refused.
The question of how quickly boards must convene securityholder meetings is not prescribed by applicable corporate legislation (except in British Columbia) or in the organizational documents of non-corporate issuers (like First Capital) that typically parrot the corporate law framework. Corporate statutes require only that the meeting be called within a specified period, but leave open the question of how quickly the meeting must actually be held.
The Decision
The Sandpiper decision frames its analysis by referencing jurisprudence that recognizes securityholders’ rights to have requisitions dealt with expeditiously, and requires that boards act reasonably with an appropriate degree of prudence and diligence.
The Court analyzed issues relating to the board’s process in assessing the degree of deference to be afforded to the board’s decision. On the basis that the board addressed the matter at a single two-hour meeting with other agenda items, with the directors proposed to be removed participating without any acknowledgment or consideration of their potential conflict, the Court concluded the board had not engaged in a scrupulous and diligent process and that consequently a high level of deference to the board’s judgment was not warranted.
As for the substance of the board’s action, the decision focused mostly on First Capital’s position that the delay was warranted to permit the optimization plan to further unfold. The Court concluded that, in the absence of a specific, anticipated event, which would better inform unitholders’ decisions, the general wish to permit the plan to further unfold was not a reasonable basis for delay, contrasting the situation with another case where a similar delay was permitted as the issuer was awaiting a pertinent tax ruling. First Capital’s position that two meetings would be costly and distracting was determined to be not persuasive for a well-capitalized and stable issuer such as First Capital.
Finally, the Court was not persuaded by First Capital’s argument that the delay would give unitholders more time. The decision weighs these factors against the prejudice from the longer period that would arise from the delayed oversight of the optimization plan by the Sandpiper nominees. Ultimately the Court ruled that the meeting had to occur on the faster timetable, being March 1, 2023 or as soon thereafter as 2022 financial information could be timely delivered to unitholders.
This timing issue cannot be fixed by simply amending corporate statutes to specify timelines. The appropriate timeline will, as the Sandpiper case demonstrates, be very fact-dependent, warranting an exercise of judgment. The issues addressed in the Sandpiper decision, from both process-oriented and substantive perspectives, will certainly be weighed heavily by boards facing this question going forward.
For further information on the Sandpiper decision or related matters, please contact any member of our Mergers and Acquisitions Group.
Expertise
Authors
Insights
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
No “Magic Words” Required: Supreme Court of Canada Holds Exclusion Clauses Released Seller From Implied Statutory Conditions
On May 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc., 2024 SCC 20, which clarifies how contractual exclusion clauses are to… -
Capital Markets
Public Safety Canada Releases Updated Guidance on Modern Slavery Reporting Obligations
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain entities to… -
Capital Markets
Ontario Court of Appeal Enforces Contractual Waiver of Statutory Dissent Rights
Ontario’s Court of Appeal concluded in a recent decision that, subject to limited exceptions, shareholders can contractually waive statutory “dissent rights”, which allow shareholders to dissent in… -
Capital Markets
CSA Provides Further Updated Guidance on Virtual Shareholder Meetings
On February 22, 2024, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) recently published updated guidance on virtual shareholder meetings following initial guidance provided in February 2022. See… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Neill May featured in "Deal Diary: Five Law Firms Work Chord Energy-Enerplus", The Deal
Goodmans partner Neill May has been featured by The Deal for his work as Canadian Counsel to Chord Energy Corp. (CHRD) in their acquisition of Enerplus Corp. (ERF). Read the full deal description… -
Capital Markets
Access Model for prospectuses: Final amendments announced, Law360 Canada
Bill Gorman and Randy McAuley co-authored Access Model for prospectuses: Final amendments announced in Law360 Canada. Excerpt from Access Model for prospectuses: Final amendments…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Scholastic closes investment in 9 Story Media Group
Goodmans LLP advised 9 Story Media Inc. in the acquisition by Scholastic Corp. of 100% of the economic interest and a minority of voting rights in 9 Story for C$250 million from ZMC and other sellers… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Primo Water and BlueTriton agree to merge
Goodmans LLP is advising Primo Water Corporation in its definitive agreement to merge with an affiliate of BlueTriton Brands, Inc., to create a leading North American pure-play healthy hydration… -
Restructuring
Contract Pharmaceuticals CCAA proceedings and sale to Aterian Investment Partners
Goodmans LLP acted as counsel to Contract Pharmaceuticals Limited and its affiliates in connection with their CCAA proceedings and other restructuring… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex Inc. acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Chord Energy and Enerplus combine in $11 billion transaction
Goodmans LLP acted as Canadian counsel for Chord Energy Corporation in connection with its acquisition of Enerplus Corporation for US$3.7 billion in stock and cash, creating a leading producer in the… -
Cannabis
Organigram Holdings Inc. to receive $124 million investment from BT DE Investments Inc.
Goodmans LLP is acting for Organigram Holdings Inc., the parent company of Organigram Inc., a leading licensed producer of cannabis, in connection with its C$124.6 million follow-on strategic equity…
News & Events
-
Shareholder Activism
Jon Feldman at IMN‘s Corporate Dealmakers Forum
Join Jon Feldman at IMN‘s Corporate Dealmakers Forum for the Shareholder Activism Update session, taking place on June 4th in New York City.Expert-led discussions will cover a range of topics… -
Shareholder Activism
Jon Feldman featured in Fireside Chat "Browning West's Victory in Gildan Proxy Campaign" with CorpGov
On June 6th, Jon Feldman joined CorpGov Editor-at-Large Jarrett Banks for a fireside chat to discuss activist investor Browning West’s landmark victory in its proxy campaign against Gildan… -
Restructuring
Goodmans Wins at the Canadian Law Awards 2024
We are pleased to share multiple Goodmans deals were honoured at the 2024 Canadian Law Awards.Insolvency and Restructuring Deal of the Year - Bank of Montreal’s acquisition of LoyaltyOne’s AIR…