May You Litigate in Interesting Times: Specific Performance, Mitigation, and Valuation Issues in a Rising (or Falling) Market

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2018-12-05 DOI:10.29173/ALR2508
S. Gordon, Howard A. Gorman, Q.C., G. Benediktsson
{"title":"May You Litigate in Interesting Times: Specific Performance, Mitigation, and Valuation Issues in a Rising (or Falling) Market","authors":"S. Gordon, Howard A. Gorman, Q.C., G. Benediktsson","doi":"10.29173/ALR2508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article provides practical insight and strategic guidance regarding how to properly structure the prosecution or defence of a claim in a rising and falling market, and what expert and fact evidence is necessary. First, the article discusses the threshold required to be awarded specific performance and how courts have interpreted Semelhago’s “uniqueness” test, especially in the context of property purchased for commercial investment purposes. Next, if specific performance is not awarded, the valuation date must be chosen. The authors propose a new “hybrid approach” for assessing damages whereby the loss based on actual cash follow up to the date of trial is measured (and a risk adjustment applied to reflect that revenues are never earned risk-free). The net present value of remaining cash flow is then calculated on the basis of the most recent data available at the date of trial. The proposed hybrid approach allows the plaintiff to receive the value of land less the cost to acquire it, plus in every claim month the plaintiff receives the cash it would have earned, but also assumes the risk of operating the land as of that time. Finally, in considering Southcott the authors address some strategic and practical considerations regarding mitigation and the needed evidentiary burden to consider.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article provides practical insight and strategic guidance regarding how to properly structure the prosecution or defence of a claim in a rising and falling market, and what expert and fact evidence is necessary. First, the article discusses the threshold required to be awarded specific performance and how courts have interpreted Semelhago’s “uniqueness” test, especially in the context of property purchased for commercial investment purposes. Next, if specific performance is not awarded, the valuation date must be chosen. The authors propose a new “hybrid approach” for assessing damages whereby the loss based on actual cash follow up to the date of trial is measured (and a risk adjustment applied to reflect that revenues are never earned risk-free). The net present value of remaining cash flow is then calculated on the basis of the most recent data available at the date of trial. The proposed hybrid approach allows the plaintiff to receive the value of land less the cost to acquire it, plus in every claim month the plaintiff receives the cash it would have earned, but also assumes the risk of operating the land as of that time. Finally, in considering Southcott the authors address some strategic and practical considerations regarding mitigation and the needed evidentiary burden to consider.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
你会在有趣的时候提起诉讼吗:在上涨(或下跌)的市场中,具体的业绩、缓解和估值问题
本文就如何在上升和下降的市场中正确组织起诉或辩护索赔,以及需要哪些专家和事实证据提供了实用的见解和战略指导。首先,本文讨论了授予特定绩效所需的门槛,以及法院如何解释Semelhago的“独特性”测试,特别是在为商业投资目的购买财产的背景下。接下来,如果不授予特定绩效,则必须选择评估日期。作者提出了一种新的“混合方法”来评估损害,即根据审判日期之后的实际现金来衡量损失(并应用风险调整来反映收入永远不会无风险)。然后,剩余现金流量的净现值是根据审判日可获得的最新数据计算出来的。拟议的混合方法允许原告获得土地的价值减去获得它的成本,加上在每个索赔月,原告收到它本应赚取的现金,但也承担了当时经营土地的风险。最后,在审议索思科特案时,作者提出了一些关于减轻责任和需要考虑的证据负担的战略和实际考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Canadian Challenges in Implementing the Kyoto Protocol: A Cause for Harmonization Principles of Kyoto and Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers Fundamental Aspects of Oil and Gas Revisited Coalbed Methane: Conventional Rules for an Unconventional Resource Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1