Vidéotron, G.P. v. Bell ExpressVu, l.p.– 2015 QCCA 422 : Our clients, Vidéotron and TVA, obtained a condemnation in capital of over $82,000,000 to compensate for their losses of revenues as a consequence of Bell’s negligence to adequately control the piracy of its own satellite signals for the distribution of television services. This award represents one of the most important condemnations awarded in Canadian judicial history.

AbitibiBowater Inc. v. Fibrek Inc., 2012 QCBDR 17 and 2012 QCCA 569; We appeared on behalf of Fairfax Financial in the proceedings before the Quebec securities commission concerning the hostile takeover of Fibrek Inc.

BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 560: We represented the purchasers Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in this historic matter where the Supreme Court of Canada approved the transaction whereby our clients were to purchase BCE Inc. for $52 billion and dismissed the contestation by certain Bell Canada bondholders. One of the central questions in dispute was the interpretation of the contracts pursuant to which the bonds were issued.

Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., (Re) , 2008 ONCA 587: We acted in the matter of the restructuring of the Canadian market of asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), worth some $32 billion. We also challenged the restructuring plan for a one billion dollar group of noteholders, namely Air Transat, Pharmacies Jean-Coutu, Aéroports de Montréal and the Société générale de financement du Québec.

Re: Canwest Global Communications Corp., 2010 ONSC 4209: We represented Goldman Sachs in connection with its approx. $700 million claim in litigation relating to the restructuring of CanWest Global Communications Corp. and its $2 billion acquisition by Shaw Communications Inc.

Bell Canada v. Vidéotron s.e.n.c., docket no.500-17-075017-122 of the Superior Court: We successfully defended Videotron in this case where Bell sought injunctions against our client’s advertising campaign.

Mouvement d’éducation et de défense des actionnaires et Marc Lamoureux v. Société Financière Manuvie, docket no. 200-06-000117-096 of the Superior Court: Our firm defends Manulife Financial in this class action launched by the MÉDAC in relation to Manulife’s duties of continuous disclosure.

Claude Ravary et al. v. Fonds Mutuels Ci et al., docket 500-06-000256-046: Woods represents the interests of CI Investments Inc. whose liability is sought along that of other mutual funds managers in the context of a class action. The Plaintiffs, who hold units in certain mutual funds, allege that these mutual funds managers have allowed or omitted to prevent the practice of market timing in these funds.   

Hooper v. MDS (Canada) Inc., 2009 QCCA 907: We successfully defended MDS in a former officer’s contractual claim for a $8,5 million financial interest in the corporation.

Auclair v. Auclair, 2005 CanLII 32328 (QC SC): We convinced the Superior Court to dismiss a motion seeking the removal of our clients from the board of directors.

C.R.K.C. Realties Inc. v. Carsley, 2003 CanLII 19053 (QC SC): We obtained the dismissal of a request for injunction aiming to postpone the annual shareholders’ meeting of the corporation.

Frankel v. Garfield Container Transport Inc.: We advised and defended a corporation against an oppression claim by an officer, director and shareholder.

Steinberg Inc. v. Caisse-Socanav Inc.: We represented with success virtually all the preferred shareholders of Steinberg Inc. whose shares had not been acquired during the forced take-over by the Caisse-Socanav group. We obtained on their behalf a se ttlement of approx. $90 million.