Ontario Civil

Business Associations

Specific matters of corporate organization


Change of control provision and sale of significant assets unfairly prejudicial
E Global, part of E group of companies, acquired steel company A Ltd.. E Global entered into Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) with A Ltd. and pledged $250 to $300 million cash investment. Five of A Ltd.’s eight directors were affiliated with E group. RSA was amended to provide $150 million funded largely by loan from third parties, not E Global. Refinancing included transfer of A Ltd.’s port assets, without which A Ltd. could not function economically, to E Global subsidiary P Inc.. Port Transaction involved A Ltd. selling Port assets excluding land to P Inc. and A Ltd. leasing land to P Inc. for 50 years. A Ltd. and P Inc. entered into Cargo Handling Agreement (CHA) which required P Inc.’s consent to change of control of A Ltd.. A Ltd. received Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) protection. Monitor brought oppression proceedings under CBCA. Claims regarding Port Transaction allowed. Reasonable expectations of trade creditors, employees, pensioners and retirees of A Ltd. were that A Ltd. would not deal with critical asset like Port in way as to lose long-term control over asset to related party on terms that permitted related party to control A Ltd.’s ability to do significant transactions or restructure and which gave unwarranted value to third party. These reasonable expectations were violated by Port Transaction and change of control veto provided to P Inc., and thus E Global, in Port Transaction. Port Transaction and third party loan would not have been necessary had E Global lived up to its obligations under RSA. E Global acted in bad faith. Port Transaction and change of control provision were unfairly prejudicial to interests of A Ltd.’s trade creditors, employees, pensioners and retirees. Change of control provision gave P Inc. and thus E Global effective control over who might acquire A Ltd.. Any buyer of A Ltd. business would require CHA to be assigned to it in order to be able to operate steel mill. Thus veto of P Inc. under CHA was effectively veto of E Global over any change of control of A Ltd. business. Business judgment rule did not provide defence.
Ernst & Young Inc. v. Essar Global Fund Ltd. (2017), 2017 CarswellOnt 4049, 2017 ONSC 1366, Newbould J. (Ont. S.C.J. [Commercial List]).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

It's unknown how widely police in Ontario utilize controversial surveillance techniques that can capture private data from non-targets in criminal investigations. Do you think there should be formal requirements to release this information?