Alberta Securities Commission Weighs In On Use of Soliciting Dealer Arrangement in Proxy Contest
The Alberta Securities Commission (ASC), in Re PointNorth Capital Inc., recently declined to exercise its public interest jurisdiction to terminate a “soliciting dealer arrangement” used by a TSX-listed company (Liquor Stores N.A.) to solicit proxies in favour of the company’s director nominees during a proxy contest. The decision is notable because it is the first time a Canadian securities regulator has been asked to intervene in such an arrangement in the context of a proxy contest.
Soliciting Dealer Arrangements
A soliciting dealer arrangement involves a company agreeing to pay a group of brokers a cash commission for soliciting their clients to either tender to a bid or vote in favour of a transaction or other matter. This longstanding practice originated in the context of take-over bids and over the course of the past decade had migrated to voting transactions, such as going private transactions implemented by plans of arrangement. More recently, these arrangements have been adopted by companies during proxy contests, whereby the company agrees to pay brokers for votes in favour of the company’s director nominees. The implementation of a soliciting dealer arrangement by Agrium Corporation during the proxy contest initiated by JANA Partners LLC is the most prominent example of this practice, and generated intense scrutiny from many market participants. To date, there have been no examples of dissident shareholders adopting this practice. Notably, the use of soliciting dealer groups in soliciting votes is non-existent in the U.S., where brokers have generally concluded that accepting compensation for soliciting votes from their clients would be inconsistent with their fiduciary duties to their clients.
Background
In 2017, PointNorth, a significant shareholder of Liquor Stores, commenced a formal proxy contest to obtain control of Liquor Stores’ board. During the course of the proxy contest, Liquor Stores implemented a soliciting dealer arrangement for the stated purpose of allowing the company to communicate with the substantial number of its retail shareholders who, in accordance with applicable regulations, had declined to provide their contact information to the company and could therefore only be contacted by their brokers. Under the terms of this particular arrangement, brokers would only receive compensation for proxies voted in favour of management nominees. Liquor Stores defended this structure on the basis that assisting the dissident group was not in the best interests of Liquor Store or its shareholders, given the board’s conclusion that the election of PointNorth’s nominees would destroy shareholder value. PointNorth, on the other hand, argued that this one-sided compensation structure created a conflict that impacted the advice brokers provided to their clients and was tantamount to “vote buying.”
PointNorth acknowledged that the use of soliciting dealer arrangements was not technically prohibited under Alberta’s securities laws (similar to all other Canadian jurisdictions). Accordingly, PointNorth asked the ASC to intervene on the basis that Liquor Stores’ soliciting dealer arrangement was contrary to the “public interest”. The ASC – like other Canadian securities regulators – has a broad overarching jurisdiction to sanction conduct that it determines is contrary to the public interest, even in the absence of a breach of securities laws.
The ASC’s Decision
The ASC concluded, on the facts of this particular case, that it was not appropriate for the ASC to intervene on public interest grounds. In doing so, the ASC:
- applied the most stringent test, which requires an applicant to demonstrate conduct that is “clearly abusive” of investors or the integrity of the capital markets, for determining whether conduct that does not constitute a breach of Alberta’s securities laws is nonetheless contrary to the public interest;
- rejected the notion that soliciting dealer arrangements are inherently abusive of investors or the capital markets, absent evidence (which the ASC determined was not present in this case) that the arrangement in question actually impacted the advice provided by brokers to their clients or otherwise actually harmed investors; and
- relied to some degree on the fact that Canadian securities regulators have not, to date, prohibited (or otherwise regulated) the use of soliciting dealer arrangements, in proxy contests or otherwise, despite significant attention on their use in recent years.
In summary, the ASC’s decision appears to be based primarily on its conclusion that there was insufficient evidence in the record before it of the impact of this particular soliciting dealer arrangement to satisfy the stringent test applied by the ASC in this case.
The ASC noted that it did not consider potential corporate law issues, such as whether the use of a soliciting dealer arrangement in a proxy contest may be inconsistent with the fiduciary duties of the directors or oppressive (in the sense of unfairly violating shareholders’ reasonable expectation about how the company would conduct the proxy contest). Such issues would need to be adjudicated by the courts, which have historically been more deferential to the business judgement of directors than securities regulators.
Conclusion
The fact that a soliciting dealer arrangement implemented during a proxy contest has now been upheld by a Canadian securities regulator is a notable development. At the same time, the fact-specific nature of the decision, as well as the fact that the ASC declined to establish any broader principles applicable to soliciting dealer arrangements generally, suggest that it may not be the last word on the practice in Canada. Many market participants have publicly voiced strong opposition to these arrangements, particularly during proxy contests, leading some to conclude that Canada is not as “activist friendly” as is often suggested. Canadian securities regulators have recently been increasing their focus on the conduct of proxy contests, and have demonstrated a willingness to intervene in appropriate circumstances. Finally, there has been some perceived variation in the manner in which certain Canadian securities regulators apply their broad and discretionary public interest jurisdiction in various contexts. All of these factors suggest that a Canadian securities regulator could – either through proactive policy development or intervention on public interest grounds – take steps to regulate or curtail the use of soliciting dealer arrangements in the future.
Expertise
Authors
Insights
-
Financial Services Regulatory
Canadian Securities Administrators Extend Compliance Deadline in Interim Approach to Value-Referenced Crypto Assets
On April 17, 2024, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) provided an update to their interim approach in respect of “Value-Referenced Crypto Assets” (VRCAs), as set out in the CSA’s guidance in… -
Financial Services Regulatory
Obligations and Opportunity - Budget 2024’s Impact on the Blockchain Industry
As crypto-assets become subject to further regulation both domestically and globally, industry players find themselves presented not only with new obligations but also with new opportunities. Canada’s… -
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… -
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
-
Capital Markets
Dye & Durham’s defence of requisition from Engine Capital
Goodmans is acting for the board of Dye & Durham in connection with a defence of requisition from Engine Capital. The company announced on March 15, 2024 that it had received a letter… -
Capital Markets
Board of WonderFi Technologies Inc.’s proxy defense from KAOS Capital and Mogo
Goodmans is acting for the special committee of the board of WonderFi Technologies Inc in connection with its defense of a proxy contest launched by KAOS Capital and MOGO. KAOS Capital is a… -
Tax
Cineplex announces comprehensive refinancing plan
Goodmans is acting for Cineplex Inc., a leading Canadian entertainment and media company, in connection with its announcement of a comprehensive refinancing plan to improve financial flexibility and… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Screaming Eagle announces merger with Lionsgate Studios
Goodmans LLP is acting for Screaming Eagle Acquisition Corp. in connection with its proposed merger with the Studio Business of Lionsgate Entertainment Corp., comprised of its Television Studio and… -
Capital Markets
StorageVault convertible debenture offering
Goodmans LLP acted for the underwriters in connection with a public offering by StorageVault Canada Inc. (“StorageVault”) of convertible senior unsecured debentures (the “Debentures”) on a bought deal… -
Capital Markets
E Automotive Inc. equity private placement
Goodmans LLP acted for E Automotive Inc. d/b/a EINC in its non-brokered private placement offering of 4,814,100 common shares ("Shares') to Intercap Equity Inc. at a price of C$4.23 per Share for…
News & Events
-
Banking and Financial Services
Goodmans Lawyers Recognized in the Lexpert Special Edition: Finance and M&A 2024
We are delighted to announce the Lexpert Special Edition: Finance and M&A 2024 once again features Goodmans lawyers among Canada's experts.Congratulations to our 33 featured lawyers:Alan… -
Banking and Financial Services
The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2024 Continues to Recognize Goodmans
We are proud to announce Goodmans LLP has once again been recognized in the 2024 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory.91 Goodmans lawyers have been recognized as top-tier in their… -
Banking and Financial Services
Chambers and Partners Continues to Honour Goodmans with Global Recognition
We are proud to announce Goodmans LLP has once again received top-tier recognition from Chambers and Partners in the Chambers Global 2024 Guide released today. Recognition from…