Disclosure of Documents in Class Actions at the Pre-Authorization Stage Under the QSA

Subsequently, pursuant to Note 225. 4 of the Quebec Securities Act (QSA), the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) filed a corporate action against Amaya and its CEO, David Baazov, for alleged insider trading and bribery. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misused undisclosed, non-public information, made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse publicity regarding Amaya’s business practices that artificially inflated Amaya’s promotional prices (the “Amaya Class Action”).

Corporate actions brought under the QSA must (1) be strongly brought and (2) show a reasonable likelihood of causing a justifiable disturbance. Section 225(4) of the QSA reads:

"An action for damages may not be brought pursuant to actual apportionment without the prior consent of the court.

The application for leave must state the case on which the claim is based. The application for leave must be filed with a statement of claim that has been admitted and served by the judicial officer with notice to the interested party at least 10 days before the date of service.

The court must grant leave if it is satisfied that the claim has been presented in good faith and that there is a reasonable likelihood of it being resolved in the claimant's favour."

In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that to withstand the burden of proof on the second prong of the meaningful force of a disturbance, the plaintiff must provide sufficient and reliable evidence in support of its claim. As the Supreme Court of Canada has decided, the reasonable capacity aspect under section 225. 4 of the QSA is a higher threshold than the class action aspect under Quebec’s ordinary rules of civil procedure:

"Cases with a meaningful possibility of splashing are, for example, a plausible analysis of the applicable legislative provisions, and false questions to the claimant as persuasive evidence to aid the claim"[39]. Although the legislative scheme of the selection mechanism: guarantees, and the associated time and resource costs preclude it from operating with low probability, I agree with the Appeals Court in the fact that the stage of issuing a license pursuant to the comments in § 225. 4 need not be considered as a mini-deposition procedure of a full analysis of evidence. Following in its footsteps, the request for evidence does not actually need to be so demanding, and would essentially result in a repeated request for adjudication. An expensive and unreasonable trial. There would need to be sufficient evidence to assure the Tribunal that such a possibility would indeed be prudent to the claimant's request. 1

Request for transfer of documents

In Amaya Mass, the plaintiffs filed a petition for preparatory approval in the Supreme Court to effect the transfer of certain documents of the defendants (the "Petition"). The petition was heard by the Honorable Babak Barin AO. In their petition, the petitioners state that they have in fact forced these documents from AMAA into the per-permission hearing in order to demonstrate their evidentiary standing and to assure the court that their case has a substantial chance of success. As a result, they have filed a petition pursuant to the commentary on compelling disclosure of documents in sections 20 and 251 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ("GPK"), which are incorporated herein by reference. These are the correct things that the "Disclosure Policy, Confidentiality and Transactions" of AMAA and D& Damp, PP-Insurance Policy, and the appropriate annotations of the Civil Procedure Code say:

"20. The parties should cooperate and, in particular, daily inform their friends of the precedents and details that will facilitate a fair review and ensure the security of adequate evidence.

In particular, they are obliged to inform their friends of the precedents on which their reasons are based and of the confirmations they intend to adopt, within the period specified in the true statute or the protocol of the lesson.

251. A party in possession of a material declaration shall, on request, adopt it with the other parties or transmit it to an expert on a basis agreed with the parties.

A third party in possession of a document relevant to the dispute or in possession of a material declaration shall, if so directed by the Tribunal, disclose it, produce it to a party, transmit it to an expert or preserve it.

Justice Beloruchka commented on the applicants' request, Comingway 2:

"21] To be clear, the question of whether there is sufficient credible evidence showing that the applicants' claims include a meaningful possibility of meeting the merits is not within the tribunal's jurisdiction.

[22] The tribunal assessed a question that it was obliged to decide under the rules of civil procedure operating in Quebec, in the applicants' view, which is whether the applicants, in the preparation of the grant, have every opportunity to achieve the disclosure of certain information and documents that, in their view, are targeted for this purpose, in order to remove the castle above the gates.

The court noted that the Civil Procedure Code complements the silence of other laws covered by the QSA. It also emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code requires that "parties inform their friends of their friends and that their rights must be revealed by another friend in order to realize their own appropriate rights in a spirit of cooperation." [3], referring to notes 221 and 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deal with pretrial testing, stated that the legislature is in fact “interested in promoting the most rapid discovery of the truth, and not dismissing it for procedural or other reasons.”4

As Justice Beloruchka actually pointed out, it would be unfair and unreasonable to reduce the ability to obtain access to this necessary and reliable evidence, in light of the Supreme Court’s requirement that parties provide reliable and necessary evidence confirming that their case contains a meaningful possibility of repercussion in court:

[50] It would be unjust to not take note that corporate law actions are considered to be procedural and not substantive measures, and on the other hand, to encourage plaintiffs in class actions under Article 225(4) to fully anticipate the confirmation of appearances set out by the Supreme Court, and then not allow them to have a reasonable, meaningful and proportionate opportunity for settlement.

[51] According to other texts, the castle has been established if the applicant who filed a lawsuit in accordance with the annotation 225. 4 requires to go to the gate to obtain permission to pursue a group claim. People should provide an objective probability of removing this castle.

[52] The deprivation by the applicant of such skills is absolutely absolutely in a certain direction of cooperation specified in the Civil Procedure Code 221-Note 20. In addition to depriving the similar prohibition-deprivation, it also deprives the applicant's right to the following functions and loyalty.

Under this court, he needs to guarantee that the applicant is not a fish in the industry when analyzing the application, so that the size of the INFA opening does not stimulate the interests of the three parties. Limited, not assigned under the dangers of trials in the preparation of the preparation, so as not to be counted, in the case of evidence that cannot be useful for introducing the meaningful opportunity of splash in court. , 5 to avoid complicated. For this purpose, the White-Russian referee has devised a three-stage aspect of the applicant to meet the disclosure of evidence at the stage of the preparation statement. The fact that these three aspects of the three aspects are protected is assigned to the applicant:

1) The requested confirmation must be expressed, and it must be described / specified with meaningful accuracy;

2) The required confirmation must be relevant;

3) It is necessary for the applicant to prove that the "fair heart that pursues the truth" contains a meaningful possibility of a lawsuit in court.

In the context of this petition, the trial not only responds to the claims of the Civil Procedure Code 20, not only responding to the cooperation and disclosure of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also the next effect of the Cabeccry in Quebec. He concluded that it also responds to the judgment of practical possibilities and faithfulity that can be exceeded for useful departure.

Barin's arbitrator's conclusion will affect large securities claims in collaboration with QSA.

Currently, the claimant has an auxiliary power to enhance its claims, depending on the information and documents that do not have when submitting a request for a group claim. < SPAN> [51] According to other texts, the castle has been established if the applicant who filed a lawsuit in accordance with the annotation 225. 4 is required to go to the gate to obtain permission to pursue a group claim. This applicant should provide an objective probability of removing this castle.

[52] The deprivation by the applicant of such skills is absolutely absolutely in a certain direction of cooperation specified in the Civil Procedure Code 221-Note 20. In addition to depriving the similar prohibition-deprivation, it also deprives the applicant's right to the following functions and loyalty.

Under this court, he needs to guarantee that the applicant is not a fish in the industry when analyzing the application, so that the size of the INFA opening does not stimulate the interests of the three parties. Limited, not assigned under the dangers of trials in the preparation of the preparation, so as not to be counted, in the case of evidence that cannot be useful for introducing the meaningful opportunity of splash in court. , 5 to avoid complicated. For this purpose, the White-Russian referee has devised a three-stage aspect of the applicant to meet the disclosure of evidence at the stage of the preparation statement. The fact that these three aspects of the three aspects are protected is assigned to the applicant:

1) The requested confirmation must be expressed, and it must be described / specified with meaningful accuracy;