Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

A glimmer of hope has emerged in one of Canada's longest-running and most contentious legal cases.

A settlement offer has been tabled in the 23-year-old case involving $1.5-billion of negligence claims filed against Coopers & Lybrand Chartered Accountants over its audit of failed Montreal real estate company Castor Holdings Ltd., which collapsed in 1992. Castor provided high-yield mortgage loans to developers, but was accused of grossly overstating its revenues and loan portfolio in its financial statements to investors.

Representatives of Coopers & Lybrand have proposed to pay $220-million to resolve all outstanding claims alleging negligence in its duties as Castor's auditor, saying that continuing the court battles will leave no money for anyone. The money would come in part from remaining Coopers & Lybrand assets and from contributions by former partners of the audit firm.

Story continues below advertisement

Former Coopers & Lybrand partner Michael Macey said the litigation has been "calamitous" for all the parties involved.

In an affidavit filed in court in December, Mr. Macey said 275 partners of the audit firm are facing financial ruin from Castor Holdings claims, even though most had nothing to do with the Castor audit. He said the claims could total an average of $5-million per audit partner.

"If a resolution cannot be reached, the continuation of the prolonged Castor litigation may ultimately force many of the remaining defendant partners to file proposals or assignments in bankruptcy," Mr. Macey said.

Coopers & Lybrand merged with Price Waterhouse in 1998 after the Castor Holdings case was under way, but a separate company remained behind to hold the remaining assets of Coopers & Lybrand and manage the litigation against it.

Chrysler Canada Inc., which is one of the largest creditors with claims against Coopers & Lybrand, is opposing the settlement proposal. Chrysler's employee pension plan was an investor in Castor Holdings, and the firm has a $433-million outstanding claim against the auditors.

In a legal filing earlier this month, Chrysler said it was not appropriate for the Coopers & Lybrand numbered company to file for bankruptcy protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in December as a strategy to manage the settlement process. Chrysler said CCAA legislation should not be used to shield former audit partners from their liabilities.

Chrysler said the Coopers & Lybrand group delayed the court cases against it for years with a "scorched earth" litigation strategy, using up much of its insurance money that could have gone to claimants.

Story continues below advertisement

"To grant discretionary relief under the CCAA in the particular circumstances of this case would be to reward the conduct of the former partners as defendants who over the past 22 years have delayed the inevitable," the Chrysler motion says.

In a ruling last week, however, Justice Frank Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court rejected Chrysler's objection and upheld a December decision allowing the Coopers & Lybrand numbered company to seek CCAA protection.

Justice Newbould said plaintiffs representing 71 per cent of the value of the claims against Coopers supported the CCAA filing, while Chrysler represents the remaining 29 per cent of the value of the claims.

He said the other creditors – which include a group of Canadian and German banks – argued in court that they believe the time is now ripe to resolve the case and they have seen a change in attitude a new committee of Coopers & Lybrand partners, giving them hope a settlement deal is finally possible.

"Whether the banks are correct in their judgments and whether they will succeed in this attempt remains to be seen, but they should not be prevented from trying," Justice Newbould wrote in his Jan. 12 decision.

While 96 different parties launched negligence cases against Coopers & Lybrand over the Castor audit, 56 of the cases have been settled or discontinued over the years, leaving 40 still outstanding.

Story continues below advertisement

Only one case – involving claims by the estate of deceased businessman Peter Widdrington – was concluded in court following a lengthy trial, with a Quebec judge ruling in 2011 that Coopers & Lybrand was negligent for its poor audit work.

The decision was expected to serve as a basis to resolve all other outstanding claims, but lengthy trials have been scheduled for remaining claims because they had specific issues that must determined beyond the scope of the Widdrington decision.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies