Bogdan Catanu

Attorney in Montreal, QC

Bogdan Catanu is a partner of the firm.

He has a diverse commercial litigation practice and represents public and private corporations, as well as their officers, directors, shareholders, auditors, contractual partners or creditors in commercial disputes.

He has a solid experience in complex contractual matters, liability of professionals, such as lawyers and accountants, oppression remedies and rights of shareholders. He has also represented clients on many occasions in the context of injunction proceedings and in commercial arbitrations.

In recent years, he played a leading role in the defense of BCE Inc.'s privatization worth approximately $52 billion, which was being contested by a group of bondholders, and subsequently in defending the purchasers sued by BCE Inc. for a $1.2 billion break-up fee. He also played a key role in the litigation surrounding the restructuring of the Asset-Backed Commercial Paper market worth $32 billion.

Representative Mandates

Complex contractual disputes and corporate litigation

Representing Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners, and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in defense against BCE Inc.'s claim for a $1.2 billion break-up fee following the termination of BCE Inc.'s proposed privatization.

Representing Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners, and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in defense of their proposed $52 Billion privatization of BCE Inc. against a contestation by a group of Bell Canada bondholders (in the context of a plan of arrangement under Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act) and against related oppression claims.

Representing a group of Quebec corporations holding in the aggregate over $1 billion of frozen Asset-Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) in contesting the plan of arrangement under the CCAA for the restructuring of the $32 billion Canadian non-bank ABCP market.

Commercial arbitration

Representing Domtar Inc. in the context of arbitration proceedings relating to an asset purchase agreement.

Representing a large software integrator in arbitration proceedings relating to a large contract for the implementation and integration of an ERP software solution.

Representing a partner in a firm of professionals in the context of arbitration proceedings against other partners.

Liability of professionals

Representing KPMG LLP in defense against a professional liability claim against the auditors of a corporation.

Representing Ginsberg Gingras in defense of a professional liability claim against the interim receiver under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Injunctions

Representing Yellow Group in injunction proceedings taken against Bell Canada to force the continuation of telecommunication services.

Representing iWeb Technologies in injunction proceedings against electronic payment services providers (Moneris, Global Payments) to force them to continue providing payment services.

Oppression remedies

Representing Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners, and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in defense of their proposed $52 billion privatization of BCE Inc. against a contestation by a group of Bell Canada bondholders (in the context of a plan of arrangement under Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act) and against related oppression claims.

Representing GoSecure Inc. in the context of oppression proceedings under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

Professional Activities and Associations

Professional Activities

Montreal Bar School, teacher in civil liability

Associations

Quebec Bar

Young Bar Association of Montreal

Canadian Bar Association

Publications and Conferences

Portée des clauses de non-concurrence dans un contrat de vente d'entreprise versus dans un contrat de travail - quelques distinctions importantes, Bogdan Catanu, CRL Blog, (2011) CRL 497.

Tout mécanisme contractuel pourra être jugé contraire à l'ordre public s'il permet à une partie d'être exonérée des conséquences de sa faute lourde, même si la victime du préjudice n'est pas privée de réparation, Bogdan Catanu, CRL Blog, (2011) CRL 505.

L'admissibilité en preuve de l'enregistrement d'une conversation effectué à l'insu d'une partie dans une instance civile, Bogdan Catanu, CRL Blog, (2011) CRL 502.

Measuring the Results of Class Actions, Bogdan Catanu & James A. Woods, International Bar Association Conference on Class Actions, Rome, 2007.

Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitral Awards in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, James A. Woods & Bogdan Catanu, First Annual Energy Dispute Resolution Conference, Alberta, 2006.

Civil Rights Wronged: the Supreme Court Has Stacked the Deck in the Government's Favour in Upholding B.C.'s Right to Sue the Tobacco Industry, Bogdan Catanu, National Post, 2005.

Supreme Court of Canada Favours Broad Whistle-Blower Protection, Bogdan Catanu, Canadian Employment Law Today, 2005.

514-982-6157
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corporate Litigation
  • Contract Litigation
  • Administrative Law
  • Insolvency
  • Corporate Partnerships
  • Corporate Law
  • Class Actions
  • Public Law
  • Real Estate
  • Securities Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Real Estate Foreclosures
  • Business Litigation
  • Banking Litigation
  • Lenders Security
  • Security Enforcement

 

Experience & Credentials

Position

Partner

Admission Details

Admitted in 2002, Quebec Bar

Additional Payment Information
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Law School Attended

    Université de Montréal, Faculty of Law
    Class of 2001
    LL.B.
    Bachelor in Law

    Languages

    English; French; Romanian; Spanish; German

    Contact Information

    Phone

    514-982-6157

    Email

    Send email to Bogdan Catanu



    Logo
    Woods LLP (Montreal, Quebec)

    About Client Rating
    About Peer Rating

    Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

    Determining a Rating

    The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

    • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
    • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
    • 1-2.9 Rated

    Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

    The Reviewers

    Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

    Anonymity

    Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

    Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

    Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

    Martindale-Hubbell's role

    Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

    It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.