Unlimited liability – Atlantic Storm http://atlantic-storm.org/ Sun, 09 Jan 2022 02:53:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8 https://atlantic-storm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/cropped-icon-32x32.png Unlimited liability – Atlantic Storm http://atlantic-storm.org/ 32 32 4 Reasons This Cannabis Company’s Supermarket Model Will Drive Long-Term Growth https://atlantic-storm.org/4-reasons-this-cannabis-companys-supermarket-model-will-drive-long-term-growth/ Sat, 08 Jan 2022 14:00:00 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/4-reasons-this-cannabis-companys-supermarket-model-will-drive-long-term-growth/

In this clip from Motley Fool Live, recorded on December 9Motley Fool contributors Matt Frankel, Jason Hall and Marc Rapport analyze how the experiential brick-and-mortar element of a cannabis business gives it a huge advantage.

Matt Frankel: The hogfather says on Planet 13 (OTC: PLNH.F), “Do you think it’s a real advantage to have the supermarket?” I would also like to have your point of view on this subject. You two. “I would consider it a handicap to have such a large location with high overhead and reinvestment requirements when you can sell a ton of jar in small stores instead,” his words are not mine. widely distributed “. We say cannabis on this show. I would say I think the hypermarket could be a handicap except for two things. Firstly, it is a tourist attraction depending on where it is located. It’s in Las Vegas. It’s very close to the Strip. People are not going to get in a cab and go to a little neighborhood store to buy marijuana in Las Vegas. They’ll just buy from whoever sells it on the Strip. It’s a tourist attraction, one. Second, it gives them space to actually manufacture their product. In fact, they manufacture their products in the establishment. In this way, it also serves as a warehouse / production facility in addition to a dispensary.

Jason Hall: It’s not an industry where you can necessarily centralize your growth and distribution. If you grow in California, you don’t want to ship to Florida across states where it’s illegal, do you?

Frankel: To the right.

Room: There are federal restrictions. These operations must be decentralized.

Marc Report: This is a real problem. I don’t mean to be flippant but I have a son-in-law who is a police officer in a state where it is not legal. He’s in a big college town. He only had to confiscate small amounts and then send them to prison. He must have explained to them that it is not legal here. There is a misunderstanding. Familiarity with a large setup like this would add a lot to the familiarity factor.

Room: Yeah.

Report: One thing about this planet 13, I don’t think they would be as affected as my big favorite Innovative industrial properties (NYSE: IIPR) if and when it’s legalized federally because they already do retail. Their business model does not appear to be focused on providing buildings and capital to producers and distributors. They do it themselves. Am I right, Matt?

Frankel: It’s like their model is to have a big box and then a network of smaller stores around them, but in every state where it’s legalized.

Room: True.

Frankel: As Jason just mentioned, you can’t even transport it across a state where it’s illegal. It gives them a production facility and then they can have a neighborhood store network, but those hypermarkets add value to the business, I think.

Room: I promise you there are millions of people, millions of Americans, who would never go to their local dispensary. But they’ll absolutely see a planet 13 and it’s that big and the lights are bright and it’s well lit inside and it’s well displayed and, they look at their spouse and say, “Let’s go see this.” I’m telling you that it normalizes things and it makes them much more comfortable. I think there is a lot of value in what they do.

Report: Yeah. Is it their business model that is moving forward in Florida. Do you know, Matt?

Frankel: Well they have the unlimited license in Florida, but they really want to look into those neighborhood markets. Like I said, they want a hypermarket in any city that could accommodate a professional sports team. In Florida, there are quite a few. You have Miami. You have Orlando. You have Tampa. You have Jacksonville. They would theoretically put superstores in those areas and then put smaller stores scattered across the state in markets that aren’t as big for people who know the brand from their superstores but want a local place to go. Like Jason said, people wouldn’t just be going to XYZ Dispensary, but they will be going to Planet 13, because that makes it an experience.

This article represents the opinion of the author, who may disagree with the “official” recommendation position of a premium Motley Fool consulting service. We are motley! Challenging an investment thesis – even one of our own – helps us all to think critically about investing and make decisions that help us become smarter, happier, and richer.

Source link

Supreme Court clears NEET-PG council for 2021-2022 based on existing EWS / OBC reserve https://atlantic-storm.org/supreme-court-clears-neet-pg-council-for-2021-2022-based-on-existing-ews-obc-reserve/ Fri, 07 Jan 2022 05:14:46 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/supreme-court-clears-neet-pg-council-for-2021-2022-based-on-existing-ews-obc-reserve/

The Supreme Court authorized the start of the counseling process for NEET-PGs and NEET-UGs for 2021-22 admissions on Friday based on the existing quota of 27% for other backward classes (OBCs) and a reservation 10% for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in the whole India quota.

The Court confirmed the constitutionality of 27% of the OBC reserve. Regarding the criteria for determining the SAP (gross annual income threshold of Rs 8 lakhs), the Court allowed the existing criteria to operate for the current intake year so as not to further delay the process of admission. admission. However, the future application of the SAP criteria, which was stipulated in the Office memorandum of July 2019, will be subject to the final outcome of the petitions.

A bench including Judge DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna, who had reserved orders yesterday, delivered the verdict this morning.

The Court issued an interim order with the following directions:

1. We accept the recommendations of the Pandey committee that the criteria that were stipulated in OM 2019 (for SAP) be used for 2021-2022 to ensure that the admissions process does not get dislocated.

2. The advice on the basis of NEET PG 2021 and NEET UG 2021 will be carried out by giving effect to the resolution provided for in the opinion of July 29, 2021, including the reservation of 27% for the OBC category and the reservation of 10% for the EWS category in the All India category Contingent seats

3. The criteria for determining the SAP notified by OM 2019 will be used to identify the category of SAP that presented itself to the Neet UG and Neet PG 2021 exams.

4. The validity of the criteria determined by the Pandey committee to identify the SAP prospectively for the future will be subject to the final results of the petitions.

5. The petition must be registered for a final hearing on the validity of the SAP criteria, as recommended by the Pandey committee during the third week of March 2022.

Senior Counsel Shyam Divan, Arvind P Datar, P Wilson, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General of India KM Nataraj and a few interveners in the case presented numerous arguments to the judiciary during two days.

Summary of arguments

Senior lawyer Shyam Divan argued that the introduction of OBC / EWS reservations in July after the review notice was released was to change the rules of the game halfway.

His arguments were mainly twofold – that the introduction of the OBC / EWS quota was to change the rules of the game halfway; that the quota could not be established by executive instruction since the AIQ was cut by the Court.

He also argued that postgraduate admissions should be entirely merit-based, and bookings should be minimal. He referred to Supreme Court rulings that there should be no reservations in super-specialty courts.

“In many courses, the third cycle is the end of the road, and it is the super-specialty in some departments. So the principle regarding super-specialty courses will also apply to post-graduate courses.”, he submitted.

Lead counsel Arvind Datar argued that the Rs 8 lakh threshold for SAP is “over-inclusive” and “arbitrary” and was adopted without conducting any proper study. According to him, applying this criterion uniformly across the country is unreasonable, given regional income disparities. He urged the court to order the Center to adopt the criteria of Rs 2.5 lakhs (up to which there is no income tax), if so, the SAP should be implemented .

Refuting these arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the criteria for the SAP were defined after much deliberation. He stressed that the exercise is not to identify the “poor” category but the “economically weaker sections”. Thus, it should be distinguished from the GLP category.

The Union government’s top lawyer argued that not allowing reservations in the All India quota would amount to discrimination.

The Solicitor General had made submissions asking the court to allow the NEET-PG consultation to begin.

“Let’s proceed to the council. Let this step be completed. Your Lordships can start hearing the case in the meantime and we can help the court down to the smallest detail. We need doctors and their concerns are genuine. As a society, we cannot go there. in long arguments now. We said we would come back and the report has been submitted now “, the solicitor general submitted.

Senior lawyer P Wilson, representing the DMK party, made arguments in support of the OBC reservation in All India Quota.


The case concerns the challenge to the validity of the Centre’s decision to introduce the OBC / EWS reservation into India’s NEET admissions quota. The dispute stems from the notification issued by the central government on July 29, which introduced a 27% reservation for other backward classes (OBC) and a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in the All India quota (AIQ) for undergraduates. and medical / dental postgraduate courses (MBBS / MD / MS / Diploma / BDS / MDS) from the current academic year 2021-22.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court raised doubts as to the reasonableness of the gross annual income limit of Rs 8 lakh adopted by the Center to determine the SAP threshold. The bench also adopted a detailed order recording its doubts about the reasonableness of the SAP limit.

On October 25, the central government told the Supreme Court that the NEET council would not start while the EWS-OBC issue was pending judgment.

On November 25, the Center agreed to review the SAP criteria in light of the Court’s concerns and decided to form a committee to look into the matter. The Center searched for weeks to find time to complete the exercise. As a result, the Supreme Court then adjourned the case to January 6, 2022.

Last week, the Center filed an affidavit stating that the Committee recommended that the existing SAP criteria be maintained for current admissions and that it accepted the recommendation.

In the report on the review of the SAP reservation criteria, the Committee felt that disrupting the existing system which has been running since 2019 at the end of it would create more complications than expected for both beneficiaries and authorities. In this regard, the Committee recommended to introduce the new criteria from the next academic year.

“Under these circumstances, it is highly inadvisable and impractical to apply the new criteria (which are recommended in this report) and change the focus in the midst of ongoing processes, resulting in inevitable delays and complications. preventable. When the existing system is underway from 2019, no serious damage would be caused if this continued this year as well. Changing the criteria halfway will also result in a series of litigation in various courts across the country by people whose eligibility suddenly changes.

The Committee, therefore, after having analyzed the pros and cons on this issue and having given serious consideration, recommends that the existing and ongoing criteria in each ongoing process where an SAP reservation is available be maintained and that the recommended criteria in this report can be made applicable from the next announcement / admission cycle, “ Committee had stated the report in this regard.

Based on the recommendations, the central government agreed to accept the Committee’s recommendation to apply the new criteria prospectively.

It can be noted that medical residents across the country have recently launched protests across the country against the delay of the NEET-PG council.

Source link

9th Cir. Cancels rejection of EFTA’s claim for unauthorized charges, maintains privacy notice created without substantive rights https://atlantic-storm.org/9th-cir-cancels-rejection-of-eftas-claim-for-unauthorized-charges-maintains-privacy-notice-created-without-substantive-rights/ Wed, 05 Jan 2022 06:22:27 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/9th-cir-cancels-rejection-of-eftas-claim-for-unauthorized-charges-maintains-privacy-notice-created-without-substantive-rights/

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overturned the dismissal of a consumer’s allegation that a bank violated federal electronic funds transfer law by failing to reimburse it in full for losses suffered at the result of fraudulent transfers from his account.

In that decision, the Ninth Circuit found that although the consumer did not report the unauthorized withdrawals within 60 days after his bank sent monthly statements reflecting the withdrawal, as required, the trial court committed an error in neglecting the additional requirement to hold the consumer responsible for such transfers. only if the bank establishes that these transfers “would not have taken place without the failure of the consumer” to timely report the prior unauthorized transfer reflected on their bank statement.

However, the Ninth Circuit upheld the rejection of the state law breach of consumer contract and the breach of the implied commitment of good faith and fair use. Here, the Ninth Circuit rejected the consumer’s claim that the bank had violated the confidentiality notice attached to the deposit account agreement, finding that the confidentiality notice did not impose any substantial obligation on the bank, but simply explained its policies and a consumer’s ability to limit the sharing of personal information.

A copy of the notice in Widjaja v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA is available at: Link to Opinion.

A foreign consumer who resided primarily outside the United States but had a residence in California (“Consumer”) had multiple bank accounts with a bank in the United States (“Bank”).

Allegedly unidentified individuals gained access to the consumer’s checking account in October 2017 and began making unauthorized withdrawals without his knowledge, first of a nominal amount of less than $ 2 to another bank, followed by a transfer of $ 29,000 to the same bank two days later. Suspecting fraudulent activity, the bank receiving the transfers contacted the fraud department of the Consumer Bank. The two banks jointly determined that the transaction was fraudulent and refunded the money to the consumer’s account.

The Consumer Bank has not informed the Consumer of this fraudulent activity and has taken no further action to protect his account against other unauthorized withdrawals. Subsequently, the same people allegedly made more than 100 unauthorized withdrawals from the consumer’s current account between November 2017 and March 2019, when the consumer reported the fraudulent activity to his bank when examining his statements. account on his return to California.

The consumer was reimbursed by her bank for some of the unauthorized withdrawals as part of its internal dispute resolution process, but the bank refused to reimburse her for $ 300,000 for the losses she suffered, citing her failure to report initial unauthorized withdrawals within 60 days of their appearance. on his bank statements, as required by EFTA. See 15 USC §§ 1693f (a), 1693g (a); 12 CFR § 1005.6 (b) (3).

The consumer brought an action against the bank, bringing forward claims for (1) alleged violation of EFTA or, failing that, the Californian EFTA counterpart, Cal. Comm. Code § 11101 and following; (2) breach of contract; (3) violation of the implied commitment of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) negligence.

The Bank requested that the consumer’s complaint be dismissed for lack of declaration. The Court of First Instance upheld the Bank’s motion for dismissal, ruling that EFTA had excluded the consumer’s claims due to its inability to report the withdrawals in question on time, and dismissed the consumer’s claims relating to EFTA and State law with prejudice. The consumer appealed in a timely manner.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit was tasked with interpreting EFTA § 1693g which limits a consumer’s liability for unauthorized electronic fund transfers to $ 50 in most cases, subject to two exceptions.

The first exception raises the cap to $ 500 when unauthorized transfers occur due to the loss or theft of an access device (such as an ATM card) and the consumer does not notify their bank within two business days after discovery of the lost device. or stolen. 15 USC § 1693g (a); see 12 CFR § 1005.6 (b) (2).

The second exception, relevant here, provides that the liability limit will be lifted if: (1) an unauthorized transfer appears on the monthly statement that banks are required to send to consumers under 15 USC § 1693d (c); (2) the consumer fails to report the unauthorized transfer to his bank within 60 days of sending the statement; and (3) the bank can establish that unauthorized transfers made after the 60 day period would not have occurred without the consumer’s failure to notify the prior unauthorized transfer in a timely manner. 15 USC § 1693g (a).

In the latter scenario, the consumer’s liability for unauthorized transfers that occur within the 60-day period cannot exceed $ 50 or $ 500 (depending on the circumstances), but the consumer incurs unlimited liability for the transfers. unauthorized occurring outside the 60 day period. See 12 CFR § 1005.6 (b) (3); 12 CFR pt. 1005, Supp. I, 6 (b) (3). The bank is responsible for proving that the liability conditions set out in the aforementioned paragraphs have been met. 15 USC § 1693g (b).

Here, the consumer did not dispute the fact that she did not report the unauthorized withdrawals within the 60-day deadline set by EFTA, but argued that she was exempt from the obligation to report 60 days because: (1) her limited access to bank records and extended international travel constituted “extenuating circumstances” under section 1693g (a), and (2) she was not required to report unauthorized withdrawals because the Bank was already aware of the first fraudulent transfers due to its communications from the bank it received.

The Ninth Circuit agreed that the trial court correctly rejected these arguments, noting that Section 1693g (a) clearly requires “the consumer” – and not a third party – to timely report an unauthorized withdrawal to avoid ” face potentially unlimited liability for subsequent withdrawals occurring after this period.

However, the Ninth Circuit noted that although EFTA requires a consumer to notify their bank of unauthorized transfers within the prescribed 60-day period, a consumer who does not do so is not automatically responsible for all subsequent losses – responsibility rests with the consumer for unauthorized transfers occurring after the 60 day period only if the bank establishes that such transfers “would not have taken place without the consumer’s failure” to timely report the non-transfer prior authorization reflected on their bank statement. 15 USC § 1693g (a).

The trial court’s analysis overlooked this requirement, and the Ninth Circuit determined that its error was not harmless.

Here, the Ninth Circuit noted that the consumer’s claims that her bank had taken no further action to protect her account after learning of the first fraudulent transfers strongly prompted the bank to take immediate corrective action, regardless. the source of his opinion. fraudulent activity, and giving rise to a reasonable inference that the Bank would not have taken steps to prevent subsequent losses even if it had reported the initial unauthorized withdrawals within the 60-day period.

Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded that the consumer had discharged her pleading burden to survive a motion to dismiss by plausibly suggesting that even though she had reported an unauthorized transfer within the 60-day period, subsequent unauthorized transfers for which she is claiming reimbursement would still have happened. See Nayab v. Capital One Bank (United States), NA, 942 F.3d 480, 495–97 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding in a similar context that the plaintiff must allege facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that an affirmative statutory defense does not apply not).

With respect to the consumer’s remaining state claims for alleged breach of contract and breach of implied good faith and fair use commitment raised on appeal, which the trial court found dismissed due to the consumer’s omission to provide an opinion within the 60-day EFTA period, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal but on different grounds.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the consumer’s claim that the bank violated the confidentiality notice attached to the deposit account agreement (DAA), finding that it did not place any substantial obligation on the bank, but simply explained its policies and a consumer’s ability to limit the sharing of personal information. The Ninth Circuit further ruled that the consumer’s claim for breach of the implied commitment of good faith and fair use had failed because the DAA expressly authorized the bank to close the consumer’s accounts.

In summary, since the Ninth Circuit concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing the consumer’s EFTA claims, but correctly dismissing the state court claims, the dismissal was partially overturned and upheld. in part, and remitted to the lower court for further processing.

Source link

Purdue Pharma seeks to appeal US ruling that overturned its opioid regulations https://atlantic-storm.org/purdue-pharma-seeks-to-appeal-us-ruling-that-overturned-its-opioid-regulations/ Fri, 31 Dec 2021 16:07:00 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/purdue-pharma-seeks-to-appeal-us-ruling-that-overturned-its-opioid-regulations/

Vials of prescription pain reliever OxyContin, 40 mg tablets, manufactured by Purdue Pharma LD lie on a shelf at a local pharmacy in Provo, Utah, United States, April 25, 2017. REUTERS / George Frey

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Dec.31 (Reuters) – Purdue Pharma is seeking an appeal to the 2nd United States Court of Appeals against a judge’s decision to undo its restructuring plan that would have sheltered its owners from liability in opioid-related civil cases, according to a late filing. Thusday.

The appeal came after U.S. bankruptcy judge Robert Drain in White Plains, New York, extended temporary protections until February 1 against opioid litigation for members of the Sackler family who own Purdue Pharma, giving Purdue and the Sacklers long enough to continue the appeal.

The ruling Purdue is seeking to appeal came on Dec. 16, when U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon overturned Drain’s ruling that released the billionaire Sackler family from liability in civil litigation over opioids in exchange for a payment of $ 4.5 billion.

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

In the court ruling on the OxyContin manufacturer’s bankruptcy settlement, McMahon found that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to grant discharge and asked the appeals court to determine whether such releases were legally acceptable.

Purdue argues in Thursday’s filing that the Bankruptcy Code allows non-consensual third party release in his case. He also indicates that the US trustee, who appealed for approval of the plan by Drain, does not object to his ability to appeal to Circuit 2.

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in September 2019 amid 3,000 lawsuits accusing the company and members of the Sackler family of contributing to a public health crisis that has claimed the lives of approximately 500,000 people since 1999.

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by Krystal Hu in Toronto Editing by Matthew Lewis

Our Standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Source link

ENVERIC BIOSCIENCES, INC. : Other events, financial statements and exposures (form 8-K) https://atlantic-storm.org/enveric-biosciences-inc-other-events-financial-statements-and-exposures-form-8-k/ Thu, 30 Dec 2021 22:05:05 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/enveric-biosciences-inc-other-events-financial-statements-and-exposures-form-8-k/

Article 8.01 Other events.

During the previous thirty days, Enveric Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware company (the “Company” or “ENVB”) issued a total of 1,194,843 common shares in exchange for certain outstanding warrants to purchase a total of 698,517 common shares of the Company at an exercise price of $ 4.66
under exchange agreements with the holders of these warrants. The Company believes that these exchanges are beneficial to the Company because the reacquired warrants contained provisions requiring the Company to redeem the warrants for cash at the option of the holder and / or “full ratchet” anti-dilution adjustments. which may result in a reduction in the exercise price of these warrants and an increase in the number of shares that may be issued during their exercise in certain circumstances. The Company has canceled all warrants reacquired during these exchanges and they will not be reissued.

The issuance of common shares of the Company in each exchange agreement was effected on the basis of an exemption from registration under section 3 (a) (9) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and constitutes in total less than 5% of the number of ordinary shares of the Company issued and outstanding at November 9, 2021, as indicated in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q, filed with the Security and Trade Commission
to November 15, 2021.

In addition, as indicated above, on September 16, 2021, ENVB completed the previously announced merger of MagicMed Industries Inc., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia (“MagicMed”), pursuant to a merger agreement dated May 24, 2021 (the “Merger Agreement”), by and between ENVB, 1306432 British Columbia Unlimited Liability Company
(formerly 1306432 BC Ltd.), an unlimited liability company existing under the laws of the Province of British Columbia and a 100% subsidiary of ENVB (“HoldCo”), 1306436 BC Ltd., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia and a wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo
(“Buyer”), and MagicMed. Pursuant to the Amalgamation Agreement, the Purchaser and MagicMed amalgamated in accordance with Section 269 of the Business Corporations Act of British Columbia, with the Amalgamated Company, Enveric Biosciences Canada Inc., surviving as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of ENVB (the “Merger”).

This current report on Form 8-K is filed to provide as Attachment 99.1 the audited consolidated financial statements of MagicMed for the year ended. June 30, 2021 and for the period from the constitution May 26, 2020 at
June 30, 2020, and as Exhibit 99.2 attached, the unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial information of ENVB and MagicMed for the six months ended
June 30, 2021 and the year ended December 31, 2020. The pro forma condensed consolidated financial information included in this document has been presented for informational purposes only and is not necessarily indicative of the combined financial position or results of operations that would have been achieved had the merger occurred on the dates indicated, nor is it intended to be indicative of any anticipated combined financial position or future operating results that ENVB may experience following the merger.

The purpose of this current report on Form 8-K is, among other things, to file the pro forma condensed consolidated financial information and financial statements of MagicMed discussed above, and to allow such financial information to be incorporated by reference. in ENVB registration statements. deposited with the Security and Trade Commission.

Item 9.01 Financial statements and supporting documents.

(a) Financial statements of the acquired business.

MagicMed’s audited consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2021
and for the period from the constitution May 26, 2020 at June 30, 2020, together with the notes to the financial statements, are filed as Exhibit 99.1 of this current report on Form 8-K and are incorporated herein by reference.

(b) Pro Forma Financial Information.

The unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial information of the ENVB for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and for the year ended December 31, 2020, as well as the notes relating to the pro forma financial information, and giving effect to the Merger as if it had been completed on June 30, 2021, are filed as Exhibit 99.2 of this current Report on Form 8-K and are incorporated herein by reference.

(d) Exhibits.

Exhibit No.                                Description
23.1            Consent of Zeifmans LLP
99.1            Audited consolidated financial statements of MagicMed for the year
              ended June 30, 2021 and for the period from incorporation May 26, 2020
              to June 30, 2020
99.2            Unaudited pro forma condensed consolidated financial information of
              ENVB for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and the year ended
              December 31, 2020
104           Cover Page Interactive Data File (embedded within the Inline XBRL

© Edgar online, source Previews

Source link

Howard Levitt: Lessons from the top cases that defined driving at work in 2021 https://atlantic-storm.org/howard-levitt-lessons-from-the-top-cases-that-defined-driving-at-work-in-2021/ Fri, 24 Dec 2021 18:49:31 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/howard-levitt-lessons-from-the-top-cases-that-defined-driving-at-work-in-2021/

It wouldn’t be the end of December without my overview of the most important developments of the year in labor law. Here are the main cases that defined driving at work in 2021.

1. Mandatory vaccinations

Despite the plethora of lawsuits against employers for dismissal for cause or unpaid leave for non-vaccination, the courts have yet to rule.

But we have had several arbitration decisions, and while they are not unanimous, they have generally supported the rights of employers, as they have done throughout the pandemic whenever health and safety is concerned. stakes.

As the federal government announced earlier this month its intention to require mandatory vaccinations in all federally regulated workplaces, support from chief medical officers across the country and the legislative imperative to protect health and workplace safety, there is no doubt that the courts will support such mandatory policies. Employees suing for such a discharge should not invest in such lawsuits until the courts have rendered their decisions, possibly at the level of the Court of Appeal.

Another related issue is lawsuits against employers for negligence because employees or others contracted COVID-19 at their workplace and became ill, died and / or transmitted it to others.

Such lawsuits will be successful if the employer cannot establish that he took all reasonable precautions. Since mandatory vaccinations are the gold standard of care according to science and chief medical officers, the safest approach for employers to avoid such potential liability is a mandatory vaccination policy.

2. Rahman vs. Cannon Design Architecture, Campbell-Givons vs. Humber River Hospital and many more

There have been a series of rulings in Ontario invalidating employment contracts on the basis of an element thereof offering less protection than the equivalent provision of the Employment Standards Act.

They arose out of the Waksdale decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal of 2020, a decision which awarded no compensation in the event of a “cause” invalidated the entire termination provision.

The decision in the case of Farah Rahman, who agreed to a contract paying her $ 185,000 a year, plus benefits and bonuses, the courts ruled differently because the complainant was sophisticated and obtained legal advice, but other cases have criticized it since. The decision on Rahman is unlikely to be followed. There are few employment contracts in Ontario entered into before 2020 that are enforceable today.

3. McCallum v Rand, Manitoba Court of Appeal

There is no obligation to investigate before terminating for cause. I always recommend that companies investigate to make sure they don’t make mistakes, to uncover flaws in your system or the guilt of others, and to pin down employees to a story before they “do.” attorney “. But such investigations are almost always best conducted quickly, in a day or two, by in-house trained human resources staff. If the investigation involves someone like the CEO, then hire an outside investigator, but use a retired judge who has a lot more credibility than, say, a lawyer, and he’s unlikely to be seen as a simple “gun” providing the advice paid by the company.

4. Callow v Zollinger, Supreme Court of Canada

Even if a contract provides for an unlimited right, employers must always exercise it in good faith and cannot mislead. If you have decided to fire an employee, you cannot make her believe her job is secure, and even silence can be considered a breach. If you know that an employee has a false impression, you have a duty to correct it.

5. Wastech v Greater Vancouver Sewage and Drainage, Supreme Court of Canada

Employers must use their discretion, even if the contract provides that it is absolute, in good faith, and is used in a manner that advances the objectives of the contract. This will apply, for example, to bonuses that are “discretionary”.

6. Perretta v Rand Technology, Ontario Superior Court

If you have a termination clause in an employment contract but refuse to pay it in full unless the employee signs a waiver, you can no longer rely on that termination clause and the court will award you damages- interest for unjustified dismissal.

7. Caplan v Atlas, Ontario Superior Court

In that decision, the court created an internet harassment tort and granted an injunction against other posts and transferred ownership of the posts to the party that was harassed so that they could have the posts removed.

8. Coutinho v Ocular Health, Taylor v Hanley et al., Ontario Superior Court

That case revolved around whether a layoff is wrongful dismissal or whether emergency infectious disease leave (IDEL) legislation allows it. My best opinion is that a layoff is still constructive dismissal, but if the employee nods without protest and a few months go by, that is not the case. Otherwise, millions of Canadians would have viable lawsuits.

9. Northern Regional Health Authority v Horrocks, Supreme Court of Canada

Unionized employees cannot go to human rights courts (or any other statutory tribunal) for redress, just as they cannot sue in civil matters, since the arbitration regime provides for exclusive redress, unless the law particular human rights policy does not allow for both.

10. Hawkes v Max Aicher, Superior Court of Ontario

If the global payroll, and not just Ontario’s payroll, for a company exceeds $ 2.5 million, severance pay applies under the Employment Standards Act of the Ontario.

11. O’Reilly v ClearMRI Solutions, Court of Appeal for Ontario

Even if a second company is the parent company or related to the employer, it will not be liable as a common employer, unless the intention was for this company to create a working relationship with that employee. Such an intention is not subjective but can be verified from an employment contract or whether that company has effective control over the employee.

12. Eynon v Simplicity Air, Court of Appeal for Ontario

If a manager is given responsibility for part of the workplace, the employer will generally be liable for his conduct, even to the point of being held liable for punitive damages.

Source link

Taylor Energy and Federal Government Reach $ 475 Million Settlement in Longest Oil Spill https://atlantic-storm.org/taylor-energy-and-federal-government-reach-475-million-settlement-in-longest-oil-spill/ Wed, 22 Dec 2021 23:45:00 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/taylor-energy-and-federal-government-reach-475-million-settlement-in-longest-oil-spill/

REUTERS / Alkis Konstantinidis

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

  • The proposed consent decree addresses the damage caused by the oil spill that began in 2004 after Hurricane Ivan
  • The deal includes the transfer of a $ 432 million and $ 43 million cleanup trust fund, including fines

(Reuters) – Oil company Taylor Energy Co LLC has agreed to transfer a $ 432 million clean-up trust account to the U.S. government and pay an additional $ 43 million to resolve a lawsuit over its role in the longest oil spill in U.S. history in a proposed deal filed in federal court in New Orleans on Wednesday.

The New Orleans company and federal officials filed a draft consent order to resolve claims arising from a 2004 incident when Hurricane Ivan caused one of the drilling rigs to collapse Taylor offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting oil spill has continued ever since, according to a Justice Department statement on the deal.

Taylor accepts no liability under the agreement, which is subject to final court approval. His lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Nicole LeBoeuf, director of the National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a statement that the settlement “represents a significant down payment to deal with the impacts of the longest oil spill in United States history.” .

The collapse of the platform in 2004 damaged about two dozen oil wells. In 2007, the federal government ordered the company to plug and abandon the leaking wells, and in 2008 it entered into a trust agreement with Taylor to fund the remaining work.

As part of the proposed deal, Taylor will hand over the entire fund to the Home Office.

The consent decree also requires Taylor to pay more than $ 43 million in fines and funds to clean up oil pollution related to the incident and to compensate for oil damage to natural resources such as fish.

The amount represents the value of the company’s remaining assets, which will be liquidated, according to the DOJ statement.

Funds intended to compensate for damage to natural resources, $ 16.5 million, will be shared between the state of Louisiana and the federal government, the statement said.

The deal also says Taylor will drop three lawsuits against the United States in federal courts, including one seeking reimbursement for costs Taylor incurred for the cleanup.

Taylor exists today only as an entity tasked with responding to the oil spill, according to its website.

The DOJ statement says most of the leaking oil has been captured since mid-2019 by the US Coast Guard through a contractor.

The case is United States v. Taylor Energy Co LLC, US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 2: 20-cv-02910.

For the United States of America: Rebecca Diaz of the United States Department of Justice

For Taylor Energy Co: Carl Rosenblum of Jones Walker

Read more:

Taylor Energy Cannot Tap into $ 432 Million Oil Leak Trust

Taylor Energy tries to get rid of $ 43 million debt

Taylor loses bid to hold contractor accountable for long-lasting oil spill cleanup

Register now for FREE and unlimited access to Reuters.com

Our Standards: Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Sebastien malo

Sébastien Malo reports on environmental, climate and energy disputes. Contact him at sebastien.malo@thomsonreuters.com

Source link

Gray Hagwood: the future of the Green River reservoir is at stake https://atlantic-storm.org/gray-hagwood-the-future-of-the-green-river-reservoir-is-at-stake/ Sun, 19 Dec 2021 14:25:00 +0000 https://atlantic-storm.org/gray-hagwood-the-future-of-the-green-river-reservoir-is-at-stake/

This commentary is from Gray Hagwood of St. Albans, President of the Vermont Council of Trout Unlimited.

Recently, Morrisville Water and Light launched a public debate on the future of the Green River Reservoir in Hyde Park. Possible outcomes include the removal of the dam and the disposal of the reservoir, or the transfer of ownership to the State of Vermont, which would become responsible for its management and maintenance.

However, this discussion must be part of a larger context of the environmental health of the Lamoille and Green rivers near the three hydroelectric dams belonging to the municipal utility: the Morrisville, Cady Falls and Green River dams.

Environmental studies commissioned by Morrisville Water and Light show that all three facilities do not meet Vermont water quality standards as they are currently operated, resulting in degradation of water quality and water. aquatic habitat.

As the discussion on the future of the Green River Dam continues, Vermont Trout Unlimited calls on Morrisville Water and Light to make the necessary changes to the Morrisville and Cadys Falls dams to restore river flows and habitat. of the Lamoille river downstream of these dams.

All three hydroelectric facilities are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Over 10 years ago Morrisville Water and Light began the process of obtaining a new permit to continue operating these facilities for another 40 years. The authorization process includes multiple studies to determine the impacts of dams on natural resources (aquatic habitat, water quality, endangered species, wildlife, etc.), historic resources, recreation and public safety.

Of course, this makes the renewal of accreditation an expensive process because the studies and analyzes must be carried out by qualified experts recruited by the public service. But FERC needs these studies not only to determine operating conditions, ranging from environmental protection to public safety, but also to make an informed decision on the decommissioning and removal of a dam.

Finally, the studies are important to the state of Vermont, which must certify that the dams will meet the requirements of Vermont water quality standards as required by the federal Clean Water Act.

Anyone who uses or discharges water from Vermont’s lakes and rivers must adhere to water quality standards, and not just Morrisville Water and Light. Hydroelectric power stations, farms, ski resorts, wastewater treatment plants and others must meet current standards.

Standards are based on science, and as science improves, so do environmental standards. Therefore, the same is true for the operation of any business impacting the rivers of Vermont, including the Morrisville utility. We cannot protect and restore our rivers by following the standards that were in effect 40 years ago.

After reviewing environmental studies conducted by consultants from Morrisville Water and Light, the State of Vermont issued conditions specifying how water must be managed at dams in order to meet standards. Morrisville Water and Light has challenged these terms in court, which is certainly its right. But ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court upheld the conditions set by the state.

According to a comment on its website on Nov. 2 regarding the renewal of the Green River Dam license, Friends of the Green River Reservoir notes that Morrisville Water and Light spent more than $ 1.1 million on attorney fees. to fight against the state in court. Imagine where we could be if this $ 1.1 million were applied to make the necessary changes so that dams can be operated in an environmentally responsible manner.

Morrisville Water and Light decided that the Green River Dam was no longer economically viable if it had to meet water quality standards. He wants to sell the dam to the state of Vermont. In other words, the Vermont taxpayers would assume the responsibility of the Morrisville Water and Light taxpayers for the operation and maintenance of the dam.

It is not clear whether the Morrisville utility would expect the state to pay for the dam or just take charge of it to shirk responsibility. In all cases, FERC must approve any change in ownership or operation. Morrisville Water and Light is hiring a consultant to develop a proposal to modify or remove the dam that will be submitted to FERC and the state. This process will take time and as it unfolds, the water quality and aquatic habitat of the Lamoille River will suffer.

On a final note, a letter to the editor of the weekly News & Citizen from October 28, titled “Green River Dam is Collapsing,” states that “Trout Unlimited argues dam should collapse to improve fish habitat downstream ”.

Unfortunately, the author was either misinformed or deliberately misled readers. Trout Unlimited has never argued for the removal of this roadblock. Instead, during the 10-year federal license renewal process and subsequent court cases, Trout Unlimited argued for better conservation flows to protect the aquatic habitat below the three dams, including the dam. from the Green River. It is possible that the dam will remain and restore aquatic habitat downstream if better conservation flows are provided.

Trout Unlimited continually maintains that Morrisville Water and Light needs to do a better job protecting aquatic habitat downstream of its three dams: Green River, Morrisville and Cadys Falls. Removing the Green River dam is not a simple matter. Morrisville Water and Light owns the dam and cannot modify or remove it without state and federal approval.

For this reason, all groups that have an interest in the future of the dam should be involved in this discussion. And as this discussion continues, Morrisville Water and Light owes the public, who want healthier aquatic habitat and improved recreation on the Lamoille River, to apply the conservation flows below the three dams, as required by the State and upheld by the courts of Vermont.

Did you enjoy this story?

If so, please support VTDigger’s nonprofit journalism during our year-end membership drive today. Your donation will fuel our local journalism and send 10 meals to the Vermont Food Bank. Help us send 40,000 meals to 4,000 readers by New Years Eve!

Filed under:


Tags: Green River Reservoir, Gray Hagwood, Morrisville Water & Light Green River, Trout Unlimited


About comments

VTDigger.org posts 12-18 comments per week from a wide variety of community sources. All comments should include the author’s first and last name, city of residence, and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, pressure groups, or special interest groups. Authors are limited to one comment published per month from February to May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words and the maximum length is 850 words. We ask commentators to cite the sources of the quotes, and on a case-by-case basis, we ask the authors to save their claims. We do not have the resources to verify comments and we reserve the right to reject opinions for reasons of taste and inaccuracy. We do not post comments that support political candidates. Comments are voices of the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your comment to Tom Kearney, [email protected]