Business Venture Blog
This is where we post about business, ventures, law, and business venture law.
Anything interesting, really.
Anything interesting, really.
Prospectus Exemptions in Securities Law
One of the most significant barriers to growing a business corporation is financing. Among other methods, start-up founders may choose whether to secure a line of credit, acquire government subsidies or trade their cash for shares in a corporation. However, these options are restricted to the founders’ capacities of obtaining capital. In order to expand the pool of funds without violating the complex legal rules of expensive prospectus requirements, small business owners may consider offering shares to an exceptional group of friends, family or associates as detailed in the Canadian securities National Instrument 45-106.
Under Canadian securities law, a corporation must file a prospectus, which is a comprehensive legal document that discloses the material facts of an investment offering, prior to distributing its securities to the public. The public requires a prospectus in order to make an informed decision about purchasing respective shares. Such a requirement can be an expensive task, involving many professionals including investment bank underwriters, accountants, financial advisors and legal teams, which creates prohibitive obstacles for budding firms. Recognizing this limitation and driven to encourage small firm growth, the government passed the National Instrument 45-106.
The National Instrument 45-106 is a set of rules that governs all securities’ jurisdictions in Canada — except for Ontario, which permits exemptions under its own legislation not discussed here. Using the exemptions detailed in the instrument, a small firm may seek capital through distributing shares, without filing a prospectus, in certain transactions or to a limited group of investors. These investors include close family members, close business associates, or accredited investors, rich and sophisticated individuals for whom a significant amount of protections provided through securities legislation would be unnecessary. Below are a few examples of the exemptions available using this instrument.
According to section 2.3 of the National Instrument, the prospectus requirement does not apply if an issuer distributes securities to an accredited investor. An accredited investor includes financial institutions, banks, advisors, dealers, trusts, government organizations, or individuals who, alone or with their spouses, own assets exceeding $1,000,000 or $5,000,000 (the latter do not have to sign risk acknowledgement forms), or have net incomes of at least $200,000 in the past two years (or $300,000 with a spouse). A corporation may also fit into this category provided the fulfillment of certain conditions, such as having net assets of at least $5,000,000; however, the exemption does not apply if a corporation was created solely to hold securities as an “accredited investor”.
Family, Friends and Business Associates
Under section 2.5, a corporation may distribute securities to founders, employees, directors, officers, control persons or affiliates, their close family members, their close personal friends or business associates, or respective trusts or estates. The court has determined “close” by asking whether it would be acceptable to use a friend’s, family member’s, or business associate’s bathroom without asking.
The issuer may choose to distribute offering memorandums through the required form of section 2.9 in lieu of a full prospectus. A corporation may issue shares to certain qualifying investors in Alberta without a prospectus, provided that:
While using an Offering Memorandum may widen the group of potential investors, this exemption carries the same level of disclosure and liability as issuing through a prospectus.
The private issuer exemption applies to companies that have restrictions from trading securities in the open market without the director’s approval, that don’t have more than 50 shareholders, and that don’t report to any Securities Commission. Under these circumstances, a company may distribute securities to those connected to the firm, such as directors, officers, employees or control persons, their close family members, their close friends or business associates, or accredited investors. Furthermore, unlike the exemptions above, private issuers are not required to publicly report each distribution.
In conclusion, the National Instrument 45-106 provides opportunities for small companies to raise funds through share distribution under certain circumstances without the expensive prospectus requirement. If your organization is looking to make use of the opportunity or has questions regarding details of securities law, please do not hesitate to contact a caseworker at the BLG Business Venture Clinic.
Nick Konstantinov is a member of the BLG Business Venture Clinic, and is a 3rd year student at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary.
Business and Product Liability
Many businesses operate by producing and selling various products. However, as the manufacturer of a product a business may open itself up to certain legal claims if a customer is injured by their product. What follows are some considerations for product manufacturers regarding product liability.
What is your Liability for Injuries Resulting from a Product?
Start-ups may encounter claims from customers who were injured by faulty or defective products. The burden lies with the customer to prove that but for the product being faulty or defective in some way, they would not have been injured. If this is successfully established by the customer the manufacturer of the product will be held liable for the injury of the customer. While this situation may be avoided through heightened quality control measures and adequate product testing, there are circumstances when an injured customer may bring forward a claim even if the product was functioning properly.
Duty to Warn
The manufacturer of a product must provide sufficient warnings regarding the risks of using their products. If there were not sufficient warnings provided, a customer may still sue a manufacturer even if the product was functioning properly and the injury resulted from the normal use of the product. The extent of the warning required hinges on two factors:
How Can a Manufacturer Defend Themselves from an Injury Claim?
The Injury was not a Result of the Product
In the event that a customer has chosen to bring a claim due to being injured by a manufacturers’ product, there are certain defenses available to the manufacturer. For one, the manufacturer may contend that a separate and distinct event was the cause of the injury. For example, if an individual is injured in a car accident because their breaks failed, this would indicate that the manufacturer may be liable for the injury. However, if it is determined that the breaks failed because of an error made by the customer’s mechanic then this may absolve the car manufacturer of liability. This is because the injury was a result of the negligent mechanic, and not any fault on the part of the manufacturer in manufacturing the vehicle.
The Customer Assumed the Risk of Injury
A manufacturer may also defend themselves by suggesting that the injured customer was aware of issues with the product. This is because the customer was aware that the product was altered or defective in some way, and still chose to operate it despite the heightened risk of injury. An example of this would be a customer choosing to use a knife even after knowing that the blade was faulty. If the blade were to snap and injure the customer the manufacturer may raise the defense that the customer assumed the risk when they chose to use the faulty or defective product.
The Customer Used the Product Negligently
Another possible defense that a manufacturer may raise is that the customer was injured because they used the product negligently in a manner that it was not meant to be used. For example, if an individual chooses to stand on a laundry hamper in order to change a light bulb and is injured because the hamper topples over, the manufacturer may argue that the injury was a result of the customers’ negligence. This is based on the customer using the hamper in a manner that that it was not meant to be used, and the argument that but for the misuse, the customer would not have been injured.
The bringing forward of a claim by an injured customer is subject to a statutory limit. This means that a claim by an injured customer can only be brought forward within a specific period of time once the injury has occurred. This period varies from province to province, but in Alberta it is generally within 2 years of the time the injury occurred. Additional information regarding limitation periods can be found in the Alberta Limitations Act.
Richie Aujla is a member of the BLG Business Venture Clinic, and is a 2nd year student at the Faculty of Law, University of Calgary