Legal Research

BCE Decision Day

By Simon Chester

The Court has spoken, and it has said that BCE won.

This is all that is said:

The appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018525-089 and 500-09-018527-085, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are allowed with costs throughout. The decision of
the Court of Appeal is set aside and the trial judge?s approval of the plan of arrangement is affirmed.

The cross-appeals from the judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montréal), Numbers 500-09-018524-082 and 500-09-018526-087, dated May 21, 2008, heard on June 17, 2008, are dismissed with costs throughout.

Reasons to follow.

It’s difficult to know what to make of this from a doctrinal perspective. The more revolutionary parts of the Cour d’appel judgment appear to have been rejected. But in favour of what?

It may be tempting to go back and look at the decision of Silcoff J in the two decisions from the Cour supérieure in March, in which he followed the Supreme Court’s Peoples case, and in which he said:

[203] Contrary to the views expressed by the Contesting Debentureholders, the Court finds that the ruling in Peoples is not necessarily incompatible with the application of the Revlon Duty by the BCE Board in accepting Purchaser?s offer.

But the SCC has restored the measure of certainty that the markets had been hoping for. The clarity that Slaw readers would want is going to be delayed for a while.

Full post as published by Slaw.ca on June 20, 2008 (boomark / email).