Shareholder and Business Disputes

Elder law and incapacitated Adults
December 13, 2016
Employment Litigation
December 13, 2016

Shareholder and Business Disputes

    • 0927613 B.C. Ltd. v 0941187 B.C. Ltd. BCSC 2014-08-21
      • Successfully set aside an arbitration award which had granted the Respondent a greater interest in a development project on the basis that the Petitioner had been denied natural justice when the Arbitrator failed to fully explain the procedural situation that the Petitioner found himself in.

     

    • Transwest Helicopters Ltd v Leslea McEvoy, Chilliwack, April 20, 2012 (PDF only) (link is broken I will forward a copy of the PDF)
      • Successfully obtained an order securing property that had been transferred to the Plaintiff in a sale of shares of a helicopter business.

     

    • Amos Investments Ltd. v. Minou Enterprises Ltd., 2008 BCSC 332 (CanLII) — 2008-03-20
      • Represented a minority shareholder in complicated valuation/arbitration proceedings and determining what types of evidence are admissible in valuing shares.

     

     

    • Walker et al v. Betts et al, 2006 BCSC 1096 (CanLII) — 2006-07-14
      • This was a unique application to sell a group of companies and to remove a director, replacing her with a minority shareholder based upon a report from a receiver manager where the court found financial misconduct and breaches of fiduciary by the majority shareholder.

     

    • Walker v. Betts, 2006 BCSC 612 (CanLII) — 2006-04-19
      • A successful application to remedy ongoing oppressive conduct by the appointment of a receiver manger to run corporations which had been mismanaged. The court found that there had been waste, the improper disposition of property, improper management, a lack of proper accounting and improper profiting personally by the majority shareholder.

     

    • Walker et al. v. Betts et al., 2006 BCSC 128 (CanLII) — 2006-01-26
      • Successfully brought an oppression and wind up action on behalf of a minority shareholder against the majority holder. The Court found that the majority shareholder had acted oppressively and unfairly prejudicial in her conduct which included unequal repayment of shareholder loans, changes in how corporate profits were redistributed and the marginalization of a minority shareholder as well as lack of proper corporate governance.