Previous month:
October 2012
Next month:
January 2013

November 2012

Supreme Court Decision

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

Wanda Bond v. Brookfield Asset Management Inc. et al. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34885)

(The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.  In any event, had such motion been granted, the application for leave to appeal would have been dismissed with costs.)



SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN LEAVE APPLICATIONS on Thursday

OTTAWA, 2012-11-13.  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  CANADA  ANNOUNCED  TODAY  THAT  JUDGMENT  IN  THE  FOLLOWING  APPLICATIONS  FOR  LEAVE  TO  APPEAL  WILL  BE  DELIVERED  AT  9:45  A.M.  EST  ON  THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER  15,  2012.  THIS  LIST  IS  SUBJECT  TO  CHANGE.

Wanda Bond v. Brookfield Asset Management Inc.,

Brookfield Special Situations Partners Ltd., 1439442 Alberta Ltd.

(Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) Courts — Jurisdiction — Conflict of laws — Whether superior courts of one province can entertain an oppression action in respect of a corporation incorporated under the laws of a different province? Birch Mountain Resources Limited was incorporated under the Alberta Business Corporations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. B‑9. It was based in Calgary and owned and operated a mine in northern Alberta. The applicant owned some of its common shares, which were traded on several stock exchanges including the Toronto Stock Exchange. Tricap Partners Ltd. and its parent are Ontario corporations. Tricap advanced a $31.5 million loan to Birch Mountain secured by a debenture and loan agreement governed by Alberta law. Birch Mountain defaulted. Tricap commenced enforcement proceedings and on January 8, 2009, the Alberta Court of Queens Bench issued a vesting order transferring Birch Mountain's assets to 1439442 Alberta Ltd., an Alberta corporation based in Calgary and a private wholly‑owned subsidiary of Tricap. The applicant commenced a class proceeding in Ontario Superior Court, seeking a declaration under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, that the respondents acted oppressively, unfairly, prejudicially and with disregard to Birch Mountain’s common shareholders. She also seeks damages for Birch Mountain’s common shareholders for losses in share value incurred between April 1, 2005 and November 5, 2008. The respondent brought a motion to stay the proceedings and argued that Ontario was forum non conveniens and the Ontario Superior Court did not have jurisdiction simpliciter.


Creeping Control

What is creeping control and what does it look like?

One example can be found in Ackman's presentation about General Growth Properties outlining how Brookfield is gaining control over GGP. Here's a link to the presentation (copy and paste if necessary)

http://www.businessinsider.com/ackmans-value-investing-congress-presentation-2012-10?op=1

Or could other examples be found in Brookfield's global presence maps? (be sure to look through all the tabs):

http://www.brookfield.com/content/property-30182.html

Or maybe it looks like this:

"Berkshire’s HomeServices of America Inc. unit will be the majority owner of the venture to manage a U.S. residential real- estate affiliate network, according to a statement on the new company’s website." source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-31/berkshire-extends-housing-bet-with-brookfield-venture

Majority owner - for now? !!! Ya think old man Buffet is on his game or about to lose it?