RE-ARRANGING THE ARRANGEMENT LANDSCAPE: THE IMPLICATIONS OF RE MAGNA INTERNATIONAL INC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although plans of arrangement have been widely used in Canada as a means of effecting a variety of commercial transactions, a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between the relevant considerations that factor into the courts’ review and approval of such corporate vehicles was only recently articulated by the Supreme Court in BCE Inc v 1976 Debentureholders. However, the Supreme Court’s two-pronged “fair and reasonable” analysis arguably raised as many questions as it did answer, particularly insofar as how the newly articulated legal test would play out in the practical commercial setting. The Ontario courts’ recent decisions in Re Magna International Inc, which were among the first to give life to the Supreme Court’s “fair and reasonable” test, directly confronted and resolved many of these practical questions. This paper discusses the Magna decision, and the guidance it provides with respect to how the BCE test will be applied by the Canadian courts. In particular, Magna reveals that the practical application of the “fair and reasonable” test requires a contextual and multifaceted evaluation of the transaction in question, resulting in a fluid interplay between the Supreme Court’s various indicia of fairness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".