Publications

A Practical Analysis of “Material Fact”

Published:

May 21, 2013

Author(s):

Laurie Jones, formerly lawyer at McInnes Cooper

In its April 2013 decision in Re Stan, the Alberta Securities Commission provides issuers with a practical approach to the assessment of both a “material fact” and general disclosure to the public:

Contextual Analysis. Materiality assessments are fact specific and heavily dependent on context.
No Benefit From Hindsight. It is impossible to assess materiality with the benefit of hindsight.
Public Disclosure Record. An issuer’s public disclosure record is key; insiders must use “care and scrutiny” and err on the side of caution in assessing disclosure of material facts.
Evidentiary Burden. Regulators will be required to provide clear, convincing and cogent evidence of their case; reliance on isolated facts, without regard to the surrounding circumstances, is insufficient.

BACKGROUND

Staff of the Alberta Securities Commission alleged that six insiders participated in insider trading of the shares of Grande Cache Coal Corporation, a publicly traded coal mining and production company in violation of section 147(2) of the Alberta Securities Act. The Staff further alleged one of the accused also violated sections 147(3) and (3.1) of the Act by disclosing non-disclosed information to his wife (also accused of insider trading) and encouraging her to sell Grande Cache shares.

The Staff had to establish the following facts to prove the insider trading allegation:

Grande Cache was a reporting issuer in Alberta at all relevant times;
the accused was in a special relationship with Grande Cache at all relevant times;
the accused sold Grande Cache shares;
the accused had knowledge of a material fact with respect to Grande Cache when he / she sold the shares; and
the accused did not generally disclose the material fact when he/she sold the shares.

The Commission focussed on the question of whether the “alleged material facts” were material facts that were not generally disclosed. The Act defines materiality as, “a fact that would reasonably be expected to have a significant effect on the market price or value of”.

The Staff argued that:

Grande Cache’s reduced coal production and its failure to meet its first quarter sales projects by almost 40% was a material fact that would significantly affect share price; and
the decrease in Grande Cache’s share price on August 14 to15, 2008 following its August 14th news release about its first quarter results was evidence that Grande Cache’s reduced coal production was a “material fact” which it had not disclosed until the August 14th news release.

The Staff argued that the accuseds’ failure to disclose this material fact, coupled with their trading activity, amounted to insider trading.

COMMISSION’S DECISION

The Commission applied the test of what would reasonably have been expected to transpire and cautioned against using hindsight in the assessment of materiality, and disagreed with the Staff on all accounts:

Sufficient Facts Disclosed: The Commission decided the probability of not meeting quarterly projections was less significant than the probability of meeting annual projections met. Grande Cache did disclose other important details – such as lower production levels in the first quarter, higher cost of sales, reaffirmation of annual sales projections and information regarding sales contracts – through quarterly reports. The Commission found Grande Cache’s was not required to provide more specific disclosure.

The Coal Industry. The Commission found that the market decline on share price for the coal industry made mid-August – when Grande Cache issued the August 14th news release – a “considerably different” environment than that which existed in late May 2008 – when a prior Grande Cache news release reflected the upward trend in share prices in the coal industry. The volatility of Grande Cache’s share price was within the normal range, and the decline was similar to the pattern in the Mining Index. TheCommission found the market analysis evidence unconvincing, and the mixed reactions of market analysts did not help prove that the alleged facts were material.

2008 Recession. The Commission found the accused shareholders could not have predicted the 2008 collapse of the global economy, and this financial context affected Grande Cache’s actual 2008 financial and operational results.

The Commission concluded the accused disclosed the alleged material facts when the trading activity occurred, and dismissed all of the allegations.

Click here to read the Alberta Securities Commission’s decision in Re Stan.

A PRACTICAL “MATERIALITY” TEST

Re Stan provides market participants with a practical approach to assessing and determining “materiality”:

Contextual Analysis. In addition to the exercise of judgment and common sense, materiality assessments depend heavily on the specific facts and surrounding circumstances; for example, quarterly forecasts and results taken in isolation are not always “material”. It is impossible to determine material facts in isolation from the context.

No Benefit From Hindsight. Similarly, it is impossible to do so with the benefit of hindsight: it is important to avoid hindsight and “confusing outcome with expectation” in assessing materiality.

Public Disclosure Record. The Commission noted its focus on examining Grand Cache’s public disclosure record – a reminder to issuers of the importance of good public disclosure. The Commission specifically reminded insiders to exercise “care and scrutiny” in determining whether all material information that they are aware of, due to their close position with the company, has been generally disclosed before they complete any trading activity with securities. Securities regulators will not hold market participants to a standard of perfection in making materiality assessments, but they should err on the side of caution to avoid facing serious allegations from securities regulators.

Evidentiary Burden. Regulators will be required to provide clear, convincing and cogent evidence of their case; reliance on isolated facts, without regard to the surrounding circumstances, is insufficient.

Please contact your McInnes Cooper lawyer or any member of our McInnes Cooper Corporate Finance and Securities Team to discuss this topic or any other legal issue.

McInnes Cooper has prepared this document for information only; it is not intended to be legal advice. You should consult McInnes Cooper about your unique circumstances before acting on this information. McInnes Cooper excludes all liability for anything contained in this document and any use you make of it.

© McInnes Cooper, 2013. All rights reserved. McInnes Cooper owns the copyright in this document. You may reproduce and distribute this document in its entirety as long as you do not alter the form or the content and you give McInnes Cooper credit for it. You must obtain McInnes Cooper’s consent for any other form of reproduction or distribution. Click here to request our consent.

Team Members ()

Publications ()

News ()

Pages ()

Services ()

A Practical Analysis of “Material Fact”

Published:

Author(s):

Share

Share

Related Services

Related Publications

The Limitation Clock: Supreme Court of Canada Refines Discoverability Rule

Limited Options: New Employee Stock Option Tax Rules Effective July 1, 2021

Professional Health Services Sector M&A Deals: 5 Legal Positioning Tips

Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District: 3 Tips to Exercise Contractual Discretion in Good Faith

C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger: 3 Tips to Honestly Exercise Contract Rights

Getting the Deal Done: 3 Key Terms to Conserve Cash in M&A Deals

Canadian Governance Diversity Disclosure Obligations: Get on Board

Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller: One-Sided Standard Form Clauses May Be Unenforceable

Top 5 Legal Considerations When Launching a FINTECH Startup

Callidus Capital Corp: Policing CCAA Proceedings

Coping with COVID-19: The Impact of Public Health Measures on Parenting Orders

Coping with COVID-19: 5 Steps to Compliant Socially Distant AGMs

Coping with COVID-19: 3 Legal Remedies for Contractual Liability Risks

Bailey v. Temple: NL Appeal Court Cautions You Don’t Get More Release Than You Bargained For

Still an Option: Feds Delay New Tax Rules for Employee Stock Options

CSA Staff Notice 51-359: Corporate Governance Compliance by Public Cannabis Co.’s

Compton v. Toyota: N.L. Appeal Court Eliminates the Expert Fact Witness

New Brunswick’s Enhanced Money Judgment Enforcement Regime

Toward More Transparency: 3 More Key Changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)

“Register for Individuals with Significant Control”: 5 Key Facts CBCA Corporations Need to Know to Comply

It’s Not Fake News: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Media Doesn’t Get Special Protection from Production Orders in R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc.

Cannabis Compliance: 3 Tips to Help Cannabis Industry Reporting Issuers Comply with Securities Law Disclosure Obligations

You’ve Come a Long Way, CBCA: 3 Key Changes Modernize the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)

Jurisdiction Over Internet Defamation: Same Law, Different Facts in Haaretz v. Goldhar

More Valuable Than Money? The 5 Most Common Equity Compensation Plans

Don’t Bother Asking: Supreme Court of Canada Raises the Bar for Mandatory Injunctions in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

The Legal Reality: Canadian Appeal Court decides “Virtual Presence” is enough for production order for user information against non-Canadian company in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell

Is cryptocurrency the right tool for your company to raise capital? 5 FAQs about Initial Coin Offerings (ICO)

It’s Official: “Facilitation Payments” to Foreign Public Officials Violates Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA)

2018 Planning Starts Now for TSX-Listed Issuers: TSX Updates Disclosure Requirements

Cross-Border Caution: 5 Anti-Corruption Law Compliance Program Tips

Steering clear of personal liability for oppression: Supreme Court of Canada offers guidance to corporate leaders in Wilson v. Alharayeri

Go Global @ Home: Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Global Order to Remove Internet Content in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

Like it or Not: Supreme Court of Canada decides class action against Facebook can go ahead in B.C. – despite its terms of use in Douez v. Facebook, Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada Puts Insurers on Notice in Saadati v. Moorhead: Proof of a Recognized Psychiatric Injury is Not a Precondition to Recovery

Northern Exposure: Anti-Corruption Law Exposes Payments to Governments Under Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA)

Cannabis Legalization in Canada: Seeds have sprouted, but the branches are still bare

Follow These 5 Steps for Compliant Disclosure on Social Media

Dust Off Your Limitation Defence: Court of Appeal Doesn’t Apply Extended Limitation Period in Yarmouth (District) v Nickerson

Cyber Security: A 5-Step Data Breach Risk Mitigation Plan for Corporate Boards & Directors

Supreme Court of Canada Says Privilege Wins Again – Twice in Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada & Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. University of Calgary

Limitation Periods: Avoiding Hitting the Reset Button in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings

Ontario Follows Suit With Securities Act Changes Tightening the Belt on Insider Trading Regulation

Supreme Court of Canada Sticks With Presumptive Jurisdiction Tests for Forum Non-Conveniens in Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP

Get Your SEDAR Profile: Changes to Private Placement Filing Requirements Effective May 24 & June 30, 2016

3 Tips to Use “Forward-Looking Information” to Enhance Your Investor Relations

From Startup to Exit: 5 Key Stages of the Financing Lifecycle

5 Key Changes to Early Warning Reporting System Effective May 9, 2016

New Early Warning Reporting System Exemptions for Certain Securities Lending Arrangements Effective May 9, 2016

The New Nova Scotia Mineral Resources Act: The Good, The Risky & The Neutral

5 Key Changes Streamline Venture Issuer Obligations

New Kid on the Block: Crowdfunding Joins Traditional Equity-Based Funding Options for Startups & SMEs

A Glimpse Into The Future of Privacy Law: Medical Marijuana Privacy Breach Class Action Lawsuit Can Go Ahead in John Doe and Suzie Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen

Bad Faith & Production of an Insurer’s Business Information: 4 Key Implications of the NB Court of Appeal’s Decision in Wade v. Wawanesa Ins. Co.

Make Way for Women on Boards: 5 New Disclosure Obligations

Final Form of New NS Limitation of Actions Act: “Sudden Death” Limitation is Out for Personal Injury Claims

5 “Legal” Reasons Why Natural Resource Companies Should Care About Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Thou Shalt Not Lie: SCC Recognizes New Duty of Honesty in Contract Law in Bhasin v. Hrynew

NS Proposes New Limitation of Actions Act: The 3 Top Benefits & The 10 Key Changes

The Top 5 Corporate Governance Best Practices That Benefit Every Company

Changes to NB Rules of Court Effective October 1, 2014 Benefit Successful Party

Joining the Crowd – NS & NB Consider Crowdfunding

Court Orders Feds to Reconsider Canadian Forces Housing Compensation Policy in Brauer v. The Queen

Legal Update: Risky Trading – Insiders and Potential M&A’s

A White Paper on Reforming Canada’s Transportation Policies For the 21st Century

Students with Learning Disabilities Have a Right to Education Comparable to that of the General Student Population in Moore v. British Columbia (Education)

CSA Staff Notice 11-318: Guidance for Cease Trade Order Database Users

Canadian Securities Administrators Adopt Rule For Over-The-Counter Issuers