Law360 Canada ( March 31, 2026, 9:33 AM EDT) -- Appeal by plaintiffs from an order certifying their class proceeding with two limitations, and cross‑appeal by three defendants. The plaintiffs invested in shares of 10 publicly traded issuers and alleged that the issuers, their directors, and various consultants participated in a conspiracy to defraud capital markets. They pleaded that the defendants issued private placements represented as fully subscribed at the issue price while secretly returning substantial portions of the subscription funds to certain subscribers through sham consulting contracts. They alleged unlawful means conspiracy, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, and secondary‑market misrepresentation. The chambers judge certified the action but excluded early sellers and divided the class into subclasses depending on whether shares were purchased on Canadian or non‑Canadian exchanges. In coming to that conclusion, she relied primarily on Pearson v. Boliden (Pearson). The plaintiffs appealed, arguing early sellers were wrongly excluded because the alleged scheme immediately depressed share prices and caused compensable loss, and that the statutory cause of action was not limited to Canadian-exchange purchases. The defendants by cross-appeal argued that the certification judge failed to properly analyze whether the pleadings disclosed one overarching conspiracy or multiple separate conspiracies, contending that 12 distinct agreements were alleged and that certification should be reconsidered. They also challenged the conclusion that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure due to the multiple conspiracies problem and asserted that the common issues were not truly common....