Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review and Public Law
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

UPDATE: Proposed Class Action Based on Offering Document Misrepresentations Certified for Purposes of Settlement

By Michael Beeforth
August 13, 2013
  • Securities Litigation
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

On May 21, 2013, Perell J. certified a proposed class action against certain defendants in Zaniewicz v. Zungui Haixi Corp. based on misrepresentations in Zungui’s IPO offering documents and other disclosure documents, including its audited and unaudited financial statements (2013 ONSC 2959). Perell J. had previously heard and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to assert a secondary market liability claim under s. 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act against certain defendants (click here for a summary of that decision).

By the time of the certification hearing, the plaintiffs had reached two settlements covering all of the defendants except for those that comprised the underwriting syndicate for Zungui’s IPO (including CIBC World Markets Inc., Canaccord Genuity Corp., GMP Securities LP and Mackie Research Capital Corporation – collectively, the “Underwriter Defendants”). As such, the motions for certification were brought for settlement purposes and did not address the claims against the Underwriter Defendants.

In certifying the class action against the settling defendants, Perell J. noted that even in situations where certification is sought for settlement purposes, all of the criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 must still be met (though compliance with the criteria is not as strictly required because of the different circumstances associated with settlements).

It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will continue to pursue their claim against the Underwriter Defendants. Given Perell J.’s determination that the proposed class action against the settling defendants satisfied all of the certification criteria (albeit on a less strict evaluation than would be applied in a contested certification motion), it is more likely than not that the plaintiffs would be successful if they moved to certify against the Underwriter Defendants. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have yet to obtain leave to assert a secondary market liability claim against the Underwriter Defendants and, through the proposed settlements, have already recovered half of their estimated damages ($10M as against the plaintiffs’ estimate of $20M). The plaintiffs’ intentions will likely become clearer following the settlement approval hearings on August 26, 2013.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Michael Beeforth

About Michael Beeforth

Mike is a commercial litigator and a partner in Dentons' Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. Mike has particular expertise in advising clients in the financial services industry, having spent 18 months seconded to a large Canadian bank where he managed litigation for the bank's capital markets, wealth management and treasury services businesses.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Securities Litigation

Court of Appeal Confirms Judges May Weigh Evidence on Leave Motions in Secondary Market Securities Class Actions

By Matthew Fleming
  • Securities Litigation

Supreme Court of Canada considers Limitation Period for Secondary Market Securities Class Actions

By Mike Schafler, Matthew Fleming, and Ara Basmadjian
  • Securities Litigation

Directors Owe No Duty to Foreign Residents

Directors of Canadian companies with operations outside of Canada can take comfort in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision […]

By Matthew Fleming

About Dentons

Redefining possibilities. Together, everywhere. For more information visit dentons.com

Grow, Protect, Operate, Finance. Dentons, the law firm of the future is here. Copyright 2023 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing client services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates. Please see dentons.com for Legal notices.

Categories

  • Acknowledgement
  • Adding a Party
  • Administrative Law
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Amending Pleadings
  • Arbitration
  • attempted resolution
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Contribution and Indemnity
  • Covid-19
  • Demand Obligations
  • Discoverability
  • Energy
  • Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review and Public Law
  • Limitation Periods contained in "Other Acts"
  • Limitation Periods in Federal Court
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Misnomer
  • Motions to Strike
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Quarterly privacy litigation digest
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Special Circumstances
  • Statutory Variation of Time Limits
  • Successors
  • Technology and new media
  • Tolling/Varying Agreements
  • Transitional Provisions
  • Ultimate Limitation Periods
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo in black and white

© 2025 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site