Tiny Dutch automaker Spyker Cars NV, the new owner of Saab Automobile, said on Tuesday that it expects the Swedish brand to turn a profit by 2012.
It appeared last month that Saab was all but dead: a last-minute bid by Spyker was rejected, and the Swedish company’s previous owner, General Motors, was expected to wind the brand down. But last week GM and Spyker announced that the sale of Saab was successfully completed – contingent upon several hundred million dollars in loans from the European Investment Bank.
“I’m very pleased that we could come to such a good conclusion, one that preserves jobs in Sweden and elsewhere,” GM Europe president Nick Reilly said last week.
The Swedish government pushed hard for the survival of the Saab brand, which became a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM in 2000. An estimated 3,500 Swedish jobs were at stake.
Spyker’s profit forecast assumes that the roll-out of the new 9-5 large midsize sedan later this year will be successful. Read more…
Tenant Exclusion Endorsement inconsistent with Standard Mortgage Clause and therefore unenforceable.
Hum v. Grain Insurance and Guarantee Co., [2009] A.J. No. 1351, December 4, 2009, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, R. Stevens J.
The Applicants sought a Declaration of Coverage, as mortgagees, under the Standard Mortgage Clause in a fire insurance policy. The policy was issued by the Respondent Insurer to an Insured who was not a party to the proceedings. The Insurer had denied coverage on the basis of a Tenant Exclusion Endorsement which provided that loss and damage caused directly or indirectly by vandalism or criminal or malicious acts was excluded. The fire had been deliberately set by the property’s tenant. The Applicants argued that the Standard Mortgage Clause was all encompassing and should prevail over the Tenant Exclusion Endorsement. The Court agreed finding that while the Tenants Exclusion Endorsement expressly excluded coverage for loss or damage resulting from malicious or criminal acts, it was inconsistent with the Standard Mortgage Clause which protected the Applicants from any act of the occupants and expressly stated that it superseded any policy provisions in conflict with it. The Tenant Exclusion Endorsement was therefore unenforceable.
This case was originally digested by Cameron B. Elder
Read more…
