Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bjauck
Also, if there had been no change in law, the result of the epidemic may have brought about even greater adverse consequences for MET. As there would have been material adverse consequences for MET, whether or not there had been changes in law, does that mean that the epidemic was the actual cause of the MAC?
Ya cant argue that line - ifs and maybe's and would haves are irrelevant. No one knows what might happen
Its funny I reckon because anyone drafting a MAC would almost certainly wish and intend to cover an event like this because asset prices in general have dropped - we all know that from our portfolios (except Beagle).
And yet its not at all clear that this event is covered , so the offeror (now withdrawing) did a real poor job of writing the SIA MAC clause. I wonder if its the same legal firm now arguing on their behalf and this of course implies vested interest in their position which means they may not truly believe it but be forced to argue it otherwise it reflects poorly on them. ANyone know if its the same firm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bjauck
So are the circumstances that brought about the "change in law" legally relevant in enforcing the scheme of arrangement?
Do we go down the proximate cause root on the legal argument as per standard insurance? . Its usually the closest cause in that case which in my book points to the law change