Tariffs-Free Regulatory Importing?
Asad Akhtar
with the Commission is held after to determine if the terms of the settlement fall within the
public interest.124 Finally, settlement agreements require the respondent and Staff to agree on the
statement of facts that justify the rem edy sought whereas Judge Rakoff raised concerns relating
to approving a settlement on “mere allegations”.125
4. Existing No-Contest Settlements
Sino-Forest
The first application of the no-contest settlement following Staff Notice 15-704 was in
relation to a settlement agreement with the accounting firm Ernst & Young (“E&Y”) and their
involvement in the Sino Forest debacle.126 OSC Staff alleged that E&Y failed to conduct its
audits of Sino-Forest in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles, thus acting in
conduct contrary to the public interest.127 OSC agreed to settle the matter with E&Y for $8
million. In determining if it should extend a no-contest settlement, the OSC held E&Y’s
repayment of $119 million to shareholders as an important consideration.
Toronto Dominion
In November 2014, the OSC approved a no-contest settlement with several Toronto
Dominion entities (“TD”) in relation to allegations by OSC Staff that there were inadequacies in
TD’s control and supervision that resulted in clients overpaying in fees and were not corrected in
a timely manner.128 TD agreed to pay the Commission $650,000 and compensate clients $13.5
124
Supra note 99 at 8.
Ibid.
126
Settlement Agreement between Staff of the Commission and Ernst & Young LLP, OSC News Release (September
30, 2014).
127
Ibid.
128
Settlement Agreement between Staff of the Commission and TD Entities, OSC News Release (November 13,
2014).
125
36