Key takeaways
When the COVID-19 Pandemic incepted, and issues arose as to whether affected policyholders could seek Business Income and Civil Authority coverage from the presence or suspected presence of SARS-CoV-2 and consequent orders of Civil Authority, I thought that the easiest question to answer was whether such policyholders had suffered physical loss or damage (“PLOD”) to their property.
The Majority PLOD Rule Prior to COVID-19
On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or the “Court”) released its widely-anticipated decision in Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.
Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.
Les opérations de gestion du passif gagnent en popularité dans le monde du financement par emprunt. Lorsque les emprunteurs et les émetteurs de titres de créance éprouvent des difficultés à honorer les obligations liées à leurs facilités de crédit, à leurs obligations d’épargne ou à d’autres titres de créance, ils ont recours à des opérations de gestion du passif pour restructurer leurs engagements afin d’obtenir des liquidités supplémentaires sans avoir à obtenir le consentement unanime de leurs créanciers actuels.
2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343
On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.[1]
On April 16, 2024, Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, delivered the Liberal Government’s federal budget, Fairness for Every Generation (Budget 2024). The most notable tax measure in Budget 2024 is the proposal to increase the capital gains inclusion rate from one-half to two-thirds, for capital gains realized on or after June 25, 2024. This measure will apply to all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts, but only will apply to individuals in respect of the portion of capital gains realized in the year that exceeds $250,000.
On March 11, 2024, the Alberta Government released two Regulations: the Market Power Mitigation Regulation (MPM Regulation) and the Supply Cushion Regulation (the Supply Cushion Regulat