Skip to main content

Yanik Chauvin/iSTOCKPHOTO

It's not every day that an Ontario Superior Court ruling gets cited prominently in a decision by perhaps the top commercial judge in the United States.

But Leo Strine, Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery, included some Canadian content in his recent decision about a hostile takeover fight between U.S. gravel giants Martin Marietta Materials Inc. and Vulcan Materials Co.

In a May 4 ruling that has made waves on both sides of the border, Judge Strine blocked Martin Marietta from going ahead with a hostile bid and proxy contest for Vulcan for four months.

Story continues below advertisement

He ruled that Martin Marietta used information about its target that it had received while the two were in friendly talks, violating a deal not to use the information for other purposes. (Martin Marietta was also handed another court defeat on Monday, when the Delaware court said it could not continue with its takeover while awaiting an appeal.)

It may seem odd, but the stopping of a $5.1-billion (U.S.) takeover came down partly to the simple meaning of the word "between."

Here's where the CanCon comes in. Judge Strine's ruling cites a 2009 Ontario Superior Court decision in the case of Certicom v. Research in Motion Ltd.

In that ruling, Madam Justice Alexandra Hoy blocked a hostile takeover of Mississauga, Ont.-based Certicom Corp. by RIM, saying the BlackBerry maker had wrongly used confidential information obtained from Certicom to launch its bid. (Certicom later accepted a bid from RIM.)

Much of the judgment in the Martin Marietta case is occupied with a Bill Clintonian dissection of the meaning of the word "between" in the companies' confidentiality agreement, which limited the use of the information to a "business combination transaction between" the two companies.

Judge Strine points to the "respected Court's" ruling in the Certicom case and its assessment of that word – as an activity that must involve "reciprocal action," for example, not a hostile takeover.

"A similar definition of 'between' was cited by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in its well-known 2009 Certicom decision to support that Court's conclusion that the parties' use of the word 'between' in certain confidentiality agreements operated to block the unsolicited takeover bid of one party for the other," Judge Strine's decision reads.

Story continues below advertisement

Jeremy Fraiberg, a Toronto lawyer with Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, says the decision shows that time and care are needed in what are often quickly negotiated confidentiality agreements.

"Confidentiality agreements are important to get right in the beginning," he said. "Because even big sophisticated parties, with some of the best lawyers and in-house counsel … can end up in a dust-up over something like this."

Report an error Licensing Options
About the Author
Toronto City Hall Reporter

Jeff Gray is The Globe and Mail’s Toronto City Hall reporter. He has worked at The Globe since 1998. He spent six years as the law reporter in The Globe’s Report on Business, covering Bay Street law firms and writing about fraud, insider trading and corporate tax avoidance. More

Comments are closed

We have closed comments on this story for legal reasons. For more information on our commenting policies and how our community-based moderation works, please read our Community Guidelines and our Terms and Conditions.

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Combined Shape Created with Sketch.

Thank you!

You are now subscribed to the newsletter at

You can unsubscribe from this newsletter or Globe promotions at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of the newsletter, or by emailing us at privacy@globeandmail.com.