Business Corporations

This commentary was first published in the Financial Post on November 4, 2008.

Last August, 4,500 Zoom Airlines passengers found themselves stranded across North America, the West Indies and various European countries when the airline ran out of money and grounded its planes. Passengers were left to pay for their return journey home and figure out how to recover the payments they had made to the airline. Their prospects were dim.

Since Zoom Airlines had declared bankruptcy, the best the passengers could expect was to be treated as unsecured creditors of the airline-- ranking at the bottom of the ladder in the distribution of Zoom's assets. Passengers must yield to the prior claims of Crown trust claims (for unremitted employment insurance premiums and tax deductions), secured creditors and preferential creditors. Typically, unsecured creditors recover no more than five cents on the dollar of their claims and often nothing at all.

This commentary was first published on the Foreign Policy magazine website on Feb. 2, 2011.

The nationwide decline in housing prices that began in 2006 was supposed to be, we were told, impossible. Because its impact was limited initially to the sub-prime mortgage market, which was a relatively small part of the overall home-mortgage market, policy makers at the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve assured us that its effects would be contained. That prediction, we now know, turned out to be horribly wrong.    

So, too, the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt were said to be impossible. Even after the shocking events of Tunisia, pundits were quick to deny their relevance to Egypt. Egypt was a much larger country; its population was less educated, less politically savvy, and too habitually passive to become revolutionary; moreover, Egypt's security service was much larger and tougher than those of Tunisia, and in any event the Egyptian military could be relied upon to come quickly to the aid of the regime in the event of any crisis. Indeed, some pundits were quick to dismiss Tunisians entirely from the Arab world.

This commentary by Prof. Jacob Ziegel was first published in the National Post on July 15, 2011.

On April 12 and 13, the Supreme Court of Canada held a two-day hearing on a Reference from the federal government asking the Court to determine the constitutional validity of the proposed Securities Act published by the federal government in May, 2010. The question all the parties to the hearing must now be asking themselves is how the Court is likely to respond to the Reference.

The need for federal securities legislation has been discussed for at least 30 years, yet successive Liberal and Conservative governments refused to bite the bullet. The Harper administration showed greater mettle and became convinced that a national securities regulator was essential for Canada in light of the financial crisis that gripped North America, and much of the rest of the world, in 2007 and 2008. It was also the solution recommended by three federal task forces that were established between 2003 and 2009.

Kenneth Jull is an adjunct professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, teaching the course "Financial Crimes and Corporate Compliance".

The Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act ("CFPOA") has been in force since 1999.  In June of 2011 the CFPOA  streaked across the radar screens of compliance officers when Niko Resources Ltd. ("Niko"), a Canadian energy company, plead guilty and paid a fine of almost $10 million  as a result of bribes paid to a Bangladeshi official.  The bribes included a luxury SUV [Toyota Land Cruiser] and a trip to New York and Calgary. 

The large fine is only half of the story. Niko Canada and its subsidiaries were placed on probation requiring that the companies develop compliance procedures based on risk assessment.   The concepts in the prior sentence bear repeating as they are novel in Canada.  The Order pierces the corporate veil to include subsidiaries, places a corporation on probation (as now authorized by the Criminal Code sentencing provisions dealing with organizations) and requires a system of risk assessment. The following paragraph from the probation Order demonstrates the extent to which risk assessment is now a mandatory element of compliance in the anti-corruption arena: