The decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Paul v. 1433295 Ontario Ltd. (2013 OSCJ 7002), illustrates that the oppression remedy is available to complainants, even when the actions that are the subject of the complaint are the result of a lawful procedure available under Ontario corporate legislation. The Court held that, although the procedure was lawful, the intent of the action was to squeeze out the affected shareholders and the results were oppressive to the minority shareholders’ interests.
Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog
This is the second of two blog articles on 2012 changes in the literature frequently used by accountants. Previously, I covered accounting developments in the United States and internationally. This article covers developments affecting companies (registrants) subject to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) oversight and auditing developments.
Ever since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), the concept of internal control over financial reporting has taken on a new meaning. The U.S. Congress passed this legislation in part because of the failure of certain large companies, notably Enron and WorldCom, which met their demise in part because of real or perceived weaknesses in company internal control and less than adequate corporate governance. SOX reinforces the concept that company management is responsible for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and robust procedures for financial reporting.