Tariffs-Free Regulatory Importing?
Asad Akhtar
the SEC without initially admitting guilt.110 In late 2013, the SEC Chair, Mary Jo White,
redefined the availability of no-contest settlements and excluded it in scenarios where “there is a
special need for public accountability and acceptance of responsibility”.111 However, some
question the practical implications of this statement as settlements continue to be offered where
one would reasonably a need for accountability.112 Indeed, the co-director of the enforcement
division has confirmed that admissions of liability will continue to be the exception rather than
the rule.113
B. Implementation in Ontario
In October 2011, The OSC published a Staff Notice that would introduce changes to its
existing enforcement policies. One of the expected changes was the acceptance by the
Commission for OSC Staff to utilize no-contest settlements in administrative enforcement
proceedings. Not requiring an admission of liability for a settlement has been perceived as some
as a radical shift from existing policies. In truth, the Commission has utilized no-contest
settlements sparingly in the past114 and the Act does not prohibit this practice. In March 2014,
the OSC announced it would proceed with the use of no-contest settlements.
1. Concerns
Commentators have levied several concerns with adopting no-contest settlements in
Canada. 115
110
Supra note 100.
Sharon N Roy, “No Contest Settlements, with a Twist” Financier Worldwide (May 2014) online: Financier
Worldwide .
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Katie Keir, “Pros and Cons of No-Contest Settlements”, Advisor (January 17, 2014) online: Advisor
.
115
David Gadsden & John Pirie, “The OSC’s introduction of no-contest settlements proceedings” Baker McKenzie
(June 17, 2014) online: Canadian Fraud Law .
111
33