Shareholder opposes major change in corporate control, says decisions place business at risk
ISLAMABAD:
Jura Energy Corporation is confronting a corporate and legal crisis as a minority shareholder has initiated oppression proceedings before Ontario’s Commercial List against the company and its directors.
The shareholder claims that governance failures and decisions have allegedly placed the company’s entire business at risk.
In a lawsuit, the petitioner said that Jura directors allowed the transfer of effective corporate control without securing mandatory approvals required under Pakistani petroleum laws, despite knowing that the company’s survival depended entirely on petroleum concessions held in Pakistan through its subsidiaries Frontier Holdings and Spud Energy.
According to the petitioner’s claims available with The Express Tribune, this decision has exposed the company’s licences to regulatory action and jeopardised its only revenue-generating assets. However, the current litigation represents only the latest chapter in a series of challenges that have followed Jura’s operations in Pakistan for years.
Regulatory records and whistleblower complaints referenced in the proceedings revealed that Jura and its subsidiaries were previously involved in the sale of gas to a related or subsidiary entity without proper authorisation, raising serious compliance and safety concerns.
The matter reportedly drew attention at the highest level of Pakistan’s government, leading to intervention by the Prime Minister’s Office and subsequent recovery of unpaid royalty that authorities alleged were outstanding. Transparency International whistleblower reports further intensified the scrutiny, alleging violations of petroleum rules and irregularities in corporate conduct.
These complaints triggered regulatory examination and ultimately led to the issuance of formal show-cause notices by Pakistan’s Directorate General of Petroleum Concessions (DGPC), which questioned the legality of corporate actions and compliance with petroleum concession agreements.
The oppression claim now before the Ontario court argues that Jura directors failed to learn from earlier controversies and instead allowed a major change of corporate control to proceed despite foreseeable regulatory consequences.
The minority shareholder claimed that company directors either ignored or downplayed the risks associated with failing to obtain prior government approval, while minority investors were not reportedly fully informed of the seriousness of the ongoing legal and regulatory challenges.
The remedies sought are sweeping. The claimant asks the court to declare the directors’ conduct oppressive and unfairly prejudicial, compel disclosure of corporate information, appoint an independent inspector to investigate Jura’s affairs, order forensic accounting and award damages – including punitive damages – against the directors. If granted, such orders could place Jura’s governance under direct judicial oversight.
The litigation unfolds alongside escalating legal developments in Pakistan, where courts and regulators have already examined issues tied to the disputed change of corporate control and compliance with petroleum regulations. Pakistani court proceedings referenced in related matters have directed authorities to proceed with enforcement actions under applicable petroleum rules, which has significantly increased pressure on the company’s operating subsidiaries.
Industry observers note that Jura’s situation is increasingly precarious: a Canadian-listed company facing shareholder revolt at home while regulators abroad scrutinise the legality of its core operations.
