The legal noose is tightening around the necks of rogue cryptocurrency issuers in Quebec. PlexCorps’s legal troubles, as covered in our previous post, have deepened.
In Autorité des marchés financiers c. PlexCorps, 2018 QCTMF 91, the Tribunal des
The legal noose is tightening around the necks of rogue cryptocurrency issuers in Quebec. PlexCorps’s legal troubles, as covered in our previous post, have deepened.
In Autorité des marchés financiers c. PlexCorps, 2018 QCTMF 91, the Tribunal des…
On September 5, 2018, the Quebec Court of Appeal rendered a unanimous judgment in Autorité des marchés financiers c. Forget, 2018 QCCA 1419 (Forget) clarifying the essential elements of the mens rea offence of market manipulation set…
Plaintiff-shareholders in Quebec are not entitled to early document disclosure when seeking leave to bring claims against public issuers for secondary market liability. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision in Amaya[1] confirms that the “screening mechanism” under the Quebec…
In a decision released July 6, 2017- Shinoff v BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc et al.– Justice France Dulude of the Québec Superior Court provided helpful guidance on the duties owed by investment advisors to their clients. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had failed to provide investment advice that was appropriate for his financial objectives. He claimed that the defendant’s negligent decision to make significant investments in preferred shares led to a loss of $5.3 million, for which he sought damages pursuant to Article 1463 of the Civil Code of Québec.
The plaintiff was unsuccessful at trial. According to Justice Dulude, the evidence firmly established that the plaintiff had not communicated his objectives and risk tolerance consistently to the defendants. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s expert witnesses “did not present credible and reliable opinions to establish the transactions recommended by the defendants were not suitable in light of [the plaintiff’s] objectives.”[1]. The judge considered standards of conduct set by a variety of sources, including the Know Your Client (KYC) rule from the Canadian Securities Institute[2], the Securities Act and Securities Regulation[3], and the rules of Mandate, which Justice Dulude explained as follows: “the investment advisor must act as a knowledgeable professional, demonstrating honesty, prudence and diligence in the best interest of the client.”[4]
This decision is useful for the investment advisor community, because it provides further guidance on the required standard of conduct. Investment advisors should be aware of some of the key takeaways from Justice Dulude’s reasoning:
The author would like to thank Eric Vice, summer student, for his contribution to this article.