We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
07 May 2019
For the first time, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision that considered issues of statutory misrepresentation in an offering statement under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act 1994.(1) Polla v Croatian (Toronto) Credit Union also provides extensive guidance on issues of directors' and officers' liability more generally. There is limited jurisprudence in this area, with this landmark decision expected to provide valuable guidance to boards and insurers on risk prevention. This article provides a high-level overview of the decision.
The plaintiff, Ferdinando Polla, invested CA$5 million in the Croatian Credit Union (CCU) after the struggling credit union filed an offering statement in order to raise funds. The process was heavily supervised by:
However, as a result of various transactions that followed the investment in which Polla was personally involved, as well as Josip Vinski (the CCU's former chief executive officer), the credit union was put into administration by DICO and subsequently liquidated.
Following liquidation, additional and separate issues were discovered at the CCU involving a fraudulent mortgage scheme. Polla commenced an action against the CCU's board of directors under Section 82(3)(c) of the act, which provides a direct cause of action if a misrepresentation in the offering statement can be proved. Over the course of the trial, Polla abandoned his original claims of misrepresentation and negligence against the defendants and sought an amended statement of claim at trial that added a new allegation that the defendants had misrepresented the CCU's lending services in the offering statement. Ultimately, the remaining issue was whether the description of the CCU's lending services, as being based on a property's appraised value in the offering statement, was a material misrepresentation.
Polla brought his claim against the board under Section 82(1) of the act, which provides that:
if an offering statement… contains a misrepresentation, a purchaser of a security shall be deemed to have relied upon the misrepresentation if it was a misrepresentation when the purchase was made.
Section 82(3) granted Polla the right to pursue action against the board.(2) Section 82(6) of the act defines a 'misrepresentation' as:
If such a misrepresentation is established, Section 82(5) of the act states that there will be no liability if it can be demonstrated that the defendants did not believe, nor had any reasonable grounds to believe, that there had been a misrepresentation.
Common law negligence – high threshold
Polla failed to establish that the directors, in their individual capacity, owed him a duty of care, which is necessary for a successful claim for common law negligence. The court affirmed that the threshold to commence such a claim against directors is extremely high, and arises in instances where the directors' conduct is tortious or exhibits an interest that is separate and distinct from the entity's.(3)
The court relied on evidence that showed:
the Board was not involved in the day-to-day operations of CCU,… obtained reasonable assurances from various sources and experts, received and reviewed numerous reports from numerous entities and audits.
It also sought to address concerns raised by such reports. The court found that the board had acted diligently and that the claim against the directors in common law negligence could not proceed.(4)
Significant issues that evolved in this case were:
Polla submitted that the defendants had known that mortgages were being approved without third-party appraisals and that it was misleading for the offering statement to provide that mortgage loans were limited to 75% of the appraised value of the property if no appraisal had been obtained. In addition, Polla asserted that because the offering statement referenced undisclosed policies, the defendants were liable under the act because it would be unfair to require a complainant to enquire about unspecified policies.(5)
The court disagreed with Polla and found that there had been no material misrepresentation pursuant to Section 82(1), given the expansive nature of what constitutes an appraisal in the contextual circumstances. Further, it would be impossible and undesirable for there to be an obligation that all day-to-day operations and policies be specifically disclosed in an offering statement.(6)
The trial judge further acknowledged that even if there had been a misrepresentation, the board could avail itself of the statutory defence established under Section 82(5) of the act for the following reasons:(7)
Although the trial judge took note of the statutory framework's objectives, she ultimately assessed what was fair and reasonable for the board, given the practical realities of preparing the offering statement, especially given the massive oversight role undertaken by third-party experts and regulatory bodies. The following are key takeaways for directors and insurers arising from this case:
For further information on this topic please contact Deepshikha Dutt, Frank Bowman or Douglas BB Stewart at Dentons by telephone (+1 416 863 4511) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The Dentons website can be accessed at www.dentons.com.
(8) The full judgment is available here.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.
Douglas BB Stewart