Article content continued

But four words written on that two-and-a half-page document issued Dec. 22 guarantee the next publication on the same matter will have a strong readership, in the legal and financial community, and among issuers, which could be contemplating a takeover. The words: With reasons to follow.

Given the relative newness of the takeover rules, given the specifics of this transaction, and given the extent to which policy may be addressed, M&A practitioners will be divining the tea leaves when the reasons are released.

For instance, Jeremy Fraiberg, co-head of M&A at Oslers, will be looking for answers on whether the regulator was concerned about “this specific pill and its prohibition on the bidder entering lock-up agreements,” or whether it had broader concerns about the use of pills “to prevent creeping up 5 per cent during the course of the bid.”

If the latter emerges as the concern, then Fraiberg, whose firm played a minor role in the transaction, notes: “Any hostile bidder would be able to buy an additional 5 per cent during the course of the bid, regardless of whether the bid is ultimately successful.”

DWPV’s Olasker notes the circumstances of the takeover may allow the panel to comment on “hard lock-ups” and the extent to which their existence (the 38-per-cent support for Aurora could not be withdrawn in the event of a higher offer) “precludes a proper process.” If so, the situation, the panel could argue, is contrary to the public interest. Olasker’s view is that this situation wasn’t present, though Cannimed argued before the panel that it was.