Skip to main content

The Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa is shown on Tuesday, April 14, 2015.

Sean Kilpatrick/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The Supreme Court of Canada has tossed out a securities class-action lawsuit against Montreal-based drug company Theratechnologies Inc., in a ruling that some lawyers say could make it harder for plaintiffs across the country to file this kind of legal action.

Theratechnologies found itself facing allegations that it failed to properly disclose issues around a new drug, called tesamorelin, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked some questions in 2010 about potential side effects.

Those questions about the drug, which is meant to reduce excess abdominal fat in HIV patients, were publicized and Thera's stock tumbled. The drug later won FDA approval and the share price recovered. And Thera argued that it had already disclosed all of the necessary information to shareholders about the drug and its clinical trials, and did not need to issue a press release about the FDA's questions.

Story continues below advertisement

Under most provinces' securities legislation, shareholders who bought stock on the "secondary market," such as a stock exchange, need to get special permission from a judge to launch a securities class action, and must show that their case has a "reasonable possibility" of success.

It's a screening mechanism meant to eliminate groundless so-called "strike suits," common in the United States. Quebec adopted these amendments to its securities legislation in 2007, after Ontario brought in its similar secondary-market securities class-action regime in 2005, which essentially made this kind of case possible. Since then, courts have been slowly establishing just what the ground rules should be for this kind of lawsuit.

In the Thera case, lower courts in Quebec had given the go-ahead to securities class action lawsuit, which was launched on behalf of shareholders by a numbered holding company that held stock in the pharmaceutical firm and is owned by an investor named Roger St-Germain.

But the Supreme Court ruled Friday that to pass this screening test, plaintiffs must provide "sufficient evidence" to show a "realistic chance" of success, although this stage of such cases must not balloon into a miniature trial.

The court said the plaintiffs had not produced evidence that the FDA's questions about the drug qualified as a "material change" in Thera's "operations, capital or business," as required under the province's securities act.

Thera, the court said, had already disclosed the results of clinical trials, including the potential side effects, and the plaintiffs did not provide any evidence that the FDA's questions were anything other than a "routine" part of the drug approval process.

The Supreme Court is also expected to rule later this year on the threshold for securities class actions in Ontario, when it issues a decision in a putative class action against the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Story continues below advertisement

Pierre Lefebvre, a Montreal lawyer with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP who acted for Thera in the case, said the 7-0 decision raises the bar for plaintiffs both in Quebec and other provinces, because it confirms that the process of seeking authorization from a court for this kind of lawsuit is a "real test, a real threshold" and not just a "speed bump."

Andrea Laing, a lawyer with Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP who defends corporate clients against class actions but was not involved in this case, said the decision will see lower courts apply "more rigour" in ruling on securities class actions.

Lawyer Dimitri Lascaris, a veteran plaintiffs-side securities class action lawyer with Siskinds LLP who acted for a Quebec investors' rights group that intervened in the Thera case, agreed that the case "modestly" raises the bar for plaintiffs. But he said that bar still remains relatively low and argued that the case's effect on future Ontario cases was unclear.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

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:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • 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. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

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.
Cannabis pro newsletter