By Charles B. Wagner, Gregory M. Sidlofsky and Rachael Kwan For lawyers who represent Orthodox Jews in litigious proceedings it is important to understand their worldview. It is a fundamental belief of Orthodox Judaism that G-d gave the Jewish people the Torah at Mount Sinai and that those holy laws govern every…
Douglas and Shila Gamoff listed their home for sale for $2,000,000. They had 18 showings leading to a bidding war. The prospect of competing against multiple offers prompted Yixing Hu and David Lea to make an offer to buy the house for $2,250,000. Their offer was accepted. But sometime after signing the agreement of purchase and sale, the purchasers had buyers’ remorse. David Lea pleaded with the vendors to let him out of the deal. The buyers felt they overpaid.
So, legally speaking, when can a buyer rescind their agreement to purchase a property? When can the seller keep the deposit?
One of the first things to happen when the relationship between a minority shareholder and the majority goes bad is that the minority is often denied information about the business. This may include being denied access to corporate records that are essential for any shareholder to know what is going on in their company. It is very common in oppression cases for a minority shareholder to be, or claim, that he or she has been “excluded” from the business. Being cut-off from corporate information can certainly be a form of exclusion. When the minority shareholder is not part of management, or has been excluded from management, the lack of information concerning the business can leave the shareholder completely in the dark about what is happening at the business and how it is performing financially. This is untenable for someone who has an ownership stake in the business – it is also contrary to the law.
if you ask the typical accountant about an estate freeze, he or she will tell you that smart people who are in a growth business are well advised to consider an estate freeze in order to defer taxes. In an estate freeze, the owner of the business will take steps to freeze the value of that business today and ensure that the future growth (and any capital gains on it) passes on to the next generation. Arguably, if properly implemented, by taking these steps the present owner can maintain control of the business while deferring the capital gains tax which would otherwise be paid upon the death of the owner on the increase in value. That may be how tax planners see an estate freeze, but there is another side to this question.
Lara Khoury, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law, McGill University, observed that “…the accounting profession has evolved greatly. Modern accountants, once only bookkeepers, have gradually been attributed a large range of responsibilities. They now not only prepare, investigate, and audit accounts, but also perform important advisory, reporting, investigatory, regulatory, and administrative functions. This new diversity in their functions exposes them to a greater risk of liability towards a larger range of people”.
On January 5, 2017 Ontario’s Court of Appeal came out with a decision which is of great interest to those dealing with limitation periods, the responsibility of trustees to creditors, and the defence of fraudulent concealment.
The purpose of this paper is to provide litigation lawyers and other interested parties with insight into the specific needs of Orthodox Jewish clients. It is important in developing a litigation strategy for those clients to understand how some of the tenets of their faith impact on the litigation of disputes and the financial and personal risk that the clients may be placed in as a result.
The expense of litigation is a top concern for all clients. So, if you are involved in a lawsuit and want to try to ensure that you have the best shot at recovering your expenses when successful, what should you do? One key option is to make a Rule 49 offer to settle. The timing of an offer to settle is important and can have a significant impact down the road. Now you might ask why anyone would offer to settle a fight when it’s either just getting started or getting really close to the trial that you’ve spent so long preparing for. The answer is a simple one: protecting your ability to maximize the return of your legal costs.
In MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada, 2015 ONCA 842 the Court of Appeal has recently considered the scope of coverage which should be provided to a party purchasing title insurance.