Email your news and story ideas to: [email protected]
In-house teams query Canada's 'net-benefit' test
US in-house lawyers are worryingly ill-informed about Canada's 'net-benefit' test, which must met before any foreign acquisition of a local company can proceed, a survey revealed earlier this week.
Canada: clarity sought over foreign acquisition rules
Sign up for our free daily newsletter
YOUR PRIVACY - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY DATA PROTECTION STATEMENT
Below we explain how we will communicate with you. We set out how we use your data in our Privacy Policy.
Global City Media, and its associated brands will use the lawful basis of legitimate interests to use
the
contact details you have supplied to contact you regarding our publications, events, training,
reader
research, and other relevant information. We will always give you the option to opt out of our
marketing.
By clicking submit, you confirm that you understand and accept the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
An Association of Corporate Counsel poll found that 67 per cent of respondents were crying out for more guidance.
Wasted fees
In an ACC statement – reported by the Financial Post -- George Bass, vice president, general counsel and secretary of California’s Wawanesa Insurance said: ‘Proposed deals that get stopped in their tracks can result in millions of dollars in wasted fees and lost enterprise costs.’ He continued that ACC members wanted to have a better understanding of what the Canadian authorities would be looking at when a proposed foreign acquisition is reviewed – ‘so that those of us in the in-house bar can better guide our boards and executive teams earlier in the process’.
Ministerial discretion
That in-house view contrasted with a favourable reception from private practice lawyers to the test.
Those in law firms pointed out that while more guidance might seem welcome, as a practical matter, it was difficult to achieve since ultimate decisions came at the discretion of the federal industry minister.
