Canadian Class Action Lawsuit

Decision from Justice Strekaf

As you know the hearing in Calgary was on 9 October, 2014. It was a full day event commencing ~9:00 and finishing up after 2:00. There was a lot of material to go through. Justice Strekaf had 2 large piles of bound documents on each side of her bench. So, it was not too surprising that we did not have her decision before the holidays or even at the start of the new year. 

Finally, at he end of April we received her decision. It can be found on the official class action website. Or here:

The short of it is that she did not side with us. So, we are appealing. The appeal notice can be found on the official class action website or here:


History Repeating Itself

The Brookfield Class Action lawsuit is still in progress but it would seem "The Street" recognizes the pattern and counts Birch Mountain as another casualty of Brookfield's "help" adding to the many casualties including Stelco and Atlantis.

From an article on The Motley Fool, here.

"Birch Mountain

Back in 2007, Birch Mountain Resources was sitting on a limestone deposit valued at $1.6 billion. Unfortunately, the company was running into financial trouble, and did not have enough capital to develop the deposit. Brookfield stepped in with $50 million in financing, but Birch Hill eventually defaulted on this debt. As a result, Brookfield gained control of Birch Mountain, along with that $1.6 billion deposit.

Birch Mountain’s former shareholders have sued Brookfield in response, led by former hockey star Lanny McDonald. The outcome of the case is uncertain. But here’s what we know already: Birch Mountain’s former shareholders suffered big losses, and Brookfield made a big gain."

Brookfield would like you to believe that Birch Mountain was bankrupt and insolvent and therefore worthless. As the above article points out - cash strapped does not make one worthless.

Birch Mountain is worth $1.67 BILLION!

How does Brookfield Tricap sell something they don't yet own?


Here's the sequence:

5 Nov 2008 Birch Mountain forced into receivership.

26 Nov 2008 Alberta 1439442 later to become Hammerstone Corporation was created by Brookfield.

27 Nov 2008 James Pattison receives a sweetheart deal from Alberta 1439442 in exchange for selling his debenture shares to Brookfield.

9 Jan 2008 Brookfield Hammerstone purchases the $1.6 billion dollar asset for less than $50 million.

How can Brookfield create a sweetheart deal with one of their own directors to sell an asset they don't even own?

Download 1 Pattison Option Agreement FINAL

Here's the NEWS !!! Read carefully!! (updated)


Here is the news!

When you are done reading the article in the Globe and Mail be sure to visit the official legal website to read the new AMENDED Statement of Claim and to register officially.

Even if you have already registered with Champion Stakeholders LLC in the past IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO REGISTER ON THE LEGAL WEBSITE.

To Register go to the official website, look at the top menu bar, and click on "Class Registration"

OR use the links on the left side under "Important Links"

Canadian hockey hero Lanny McDonald heading shareholder fight


The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jun. 04 2014, 6:39 PM EDT

Last updated Wednesday, Jun. 04 2014, 7:07 PM EDT

Amended SOC filed and served in Alberta

Let's see. . . Where were we?

We appealed the jurisdiction motion in Ontario and were on our way to Alberta. We retained Docken and Co. and were advised to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the juridiction. Last November (2012) we exhausted our attempts to have our case heard in Ontario.

What is obvious to us is not obvious to the courts. We are suing Brookfield and Brookfield resides in Ontario. However, the courts have ruled that the actions took place in Alberta and therefore we have to take our case there.

We have changed representation and have hired Anthony Merchant of the Merchant Law Group. The result has been an amended Statement of Claim which was filed/served to Brookfield/Tricap in Alberta on July 25th, 2013.

There are a few changes and we'll highlight them in the next post. In the meantime, please take a look at the amended Statement of Claim: Download 2013-07-25 FILED Amended Statementof Claim (2)

The amended version of the Statement of Claim is more concise and contains some new language. Look for the words "deemed" and "but for" as they point out some very significant facts.

We have elaborated on those facts here on this blog. We encourage you to use the search box in the left blue sidebar to go back and read about those facts. 

If you have any questions please contact us by emailing






If anyone has the time and resources and wants to help research and gather evidence to help the lawsuit here are areas of interest we are currently working on:

Hammerstone Corp. Acquires Voting Rights on Whitemud Resources Debentures

Brookfield Special Situations Partners Ltd. Acquires 891,843 Common Shares of Insignia Energy

Brookfield/Timerlands/Pattison/Canfor/Western Forest Products

General Growth Properties

Atlantis Resort

What is helpful?

Just think Who, What, When, Where, Why, How. For instance:

Who are the main players, who are the decision makers?

What is at stake, what are the assets, value?

When did it start, when did it change?

Where are the players, assets, money located?

Why did events, contracts, connections, deals happen? Why did it change?

How did it happen – the sequence of events? How are they related? How much money?

When in doubt – follow the money!

If you are considering investing your time, energy, and resources to help shareholders, contact us through to discuss the areas of interest and where to submit your findings. Please DO NOT send evidence to that email.



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.

We've appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada

We know we promised a blog makeover and that may still happen.

However, in the meantime, we've been a little busy implementing one of three legal pursuits to forward our case against Brookfield. Here's one:

SCC screen shot leave application

The Supreme Court of Canada goes on holiday for the month of July. We don't anticipate we will hear anything until near the end of August on this one.

Just to reiterate:

To help quantify damages. Courts always want to know how much ($$$) damage was done.

Champion Stakeholders, LLC has made vigorous attempts (snail mail letter, emails, blog site, forums) to request that any shareholder holding Birch Mountain shares during the class period between April 1, 2005  through November 5, 2008, send us their name, physical address, phone contact, and share count information to

If you have submitted your information - THANK YOU.

If you haven't sent your information - why not?

If any of your information has changed since you first contacted us - please provide an update.

How to contact us: Send an email to

IF you have contacted us through and have not heard back, please accept our apologies, we are busy putting in place important legal pursuits and making every effort to catch up.

Full Steam Ahead - Update


does NOT

equal lack of progress or action.

To say we have been real busy is an understatement.

APOLOGIES If you have contacted us via and have not received a response, please accept our sincerest apologies. We're working to catch up.

NEW to the blog? If you are new to the blog site and have not already contacted us, please send us your name, phone number, physical address, and share count to to be included on our shareholder list as a member of the class action lawsuit. (You must have owned shares between April 1, 2005 through November 5, 2008 to be part of the lawsuit class.)

Legal documents can be found on the attorney's website:

We have accumulated quite a bit of information on this blog site and so have decided to remodel the blog to make finding information easier. We hope to roll out a new look sometime in June. In the meantime, we will continue to post updates here. There is an option to search the blog site located in the blue sidebar to the left (scroll down to find it). You can also browse by category or through the archives (blue sidebar). We have listed most of the legal documents in the yellow sidebar to the right. We understand it may not be easy to follow - another reason we are remodeling the blog.

The lawsuit is active and moving forward. In summary it has progressed as follows:

1. The lawsuit was filed on September 22, 2010 in Ontario.

2. The defendants motioned to have lawsuit jurisdiction be Alberta.

3. The Ontario court heard the jurisdiction motion on April 20, 2011and it was decided by Justice Perell the lawsuit should be heard in Alberta.

4. We appealed the decision on November 16, 2011 and it was ruled "stayed," meaning the appeal court agreed with the decision by Justice Perell that it should be heard in Alberta.

Actions so far have dealt with the process regarding jurisdiction and not with the merits of the case.


Onward to Alberta

Dear Shareholders,

Please read Jeff Gray's article:

Shareholders lose jurisdiction argument in case against Brookfield

jeff gray — LAW REPORTER

Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011 4:06PM EST
Last updated Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2011 4:08PM EST

We had a very productive time in Toronto. The jurisdiction motion appeal was just one item of many on our to do list while there. We will elaborate shortly.