Cresco Labs Inc. (Seite 4)
eröffnet am 21.11.05 23:32:05 von
neuester Beitrag 07.02.24 08:58:37 von
neuester Beitrag 07.02.24 08:58:37 von
Beiträge: 267
ID: 1.021.618
ID: 1.021.618
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 18.976
Gesamt: 18.976
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: CA22587M1068 · WKN: A2PAHM · Symbol: CRLBF
2,0500
USD
+5,13 %
+0,1000 USD
Letzter Kurs 27.04.24 Nasdaq OTC
Neuigkeiten
20.04.24 · wallstreetONLINE Redaktion |
13.03.24 · Business Wire (engl.)  |
28.02.24 · Cannabis-Trends |
27.02.24 · Business Wire (engl.) |
23.02.24 · Business Wire (engl.) |
Werte aus der Branche Pharmaindustrie
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 0,9000 | +305,04 | |
| 0,6500 | +25,75 | |
| 6,0000 | +25,00 | |
| 56,69 | +20,00 | |
| 0,6400 | +18,52 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 2,6000 | -12,16 | |
| 8,5000 | -15,00 | |
| 0,7300 | -18,59 | |
| 92,06 | -19,84 | |
| 2,7280 | -29,14 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Wow das sind doch super Nachkaufkurse laut HG_30042018 .
Cresco Labs and Columbia Care Mutually Agree to Terminate Merger
Cresco Labs (CSE:CL) (OTCQX:CRLBF) (FSE: 6CQ) (“Cresco” or “the Company”) and Columbia Care (NEO:CCHW) (CSE:CCHW) (OTCQX:CCHWF) (“Columbia Care”) today announced a mutual agreement, dated July 30, 2023, to amicably terminate the definitive arrangement agreement dated March 23, 2022, as amended on February 27, 2023, pursuant to which Cresco agreed to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Columbia Care (the “Transaction”). There are no penalties or fees related to the mutual agreement to terminate the Transaction.“In light of the evolving landscape in the cannabis industry, we believe the decision to terminate the planned transaction is in the long-term interest of Cresco Labs and our shareholders. We want to express our sincere gratitude to Columbia Care for their valuable collaboration and dedication during this transaction,” said Charles Bachtell, CEO and Co-founder of Cresco Labs.
No Loss, No Foul: Ontario Court Of Appeal Clarifies That Loss Will Not Be Presumed From A Breach Of The Duty Of Honest Contractual Performance
Today at 13:12
Share
In Bhatnagar v. Cresco Labs Inc. (Bhatnagar), the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Court) held that damages are not presumed where a defendant breaches the duty of honest contractual performance. Rather, according to the Court, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger (Callow) requires the plaintiff to show that the breach caused a loss before it becomes entitled to damages. (See our earlier Blakes Bulletin: Callow and the Duty of Honest Contractual Performance: What You Need to Know).
Background
In February 2019, the shareholders of 180 Smoke (Vendors) sold their shares to Origin House. The share purchase agreement gave the Vendors an opportunity to earn additional "milestone" payments where 180 Smoke achieved annual revenue targets following the sale. The agreement also stated that, if Origin House were sold, the Vendors would be paid all future unearned milestone payments.
On April 1, 2019, Origin House announced that it was being sold to Cresco Labs Inc. (Cresco). All parties initially expected this transaction to close in 2019. In late June 2019, Origin House told the Vendors that there was no reason to believe the deal would not close.
On October 20, 2019, Origin House learned that Cresco proposed a new closing date of January 15, 2020, but did not directly share this information with the Vendors. The transaction ultimately closed on January 8, 2020. The Vendors did not meet the revenue targets in 2019.
Since the sale closed in 2020, Cresco paid the Vendors unearned milestone payments for 2020 and 2021. If the sale had closed in 2019, Cresco would also have been required to pay the Vendors the milestone payment for 2019, which would have totalled over C$4-million. The Vendors sued to recover the 2019 milestone payment.
The application judge held that Origin House breached its duty of good faith by advising the Vendors that the transaction would close in 2019 and failing to update them that the closing date was moved to January 2020. However, she did not award damages because, irrespective of the breach, the Vendors would not have been able to meet the revenue targets or ensure that the transaction would close in 2019.
The Court's Decision
On appeal, the Vendors argued that Callow required courts to presume entitlement to damages when a party breaches its duty of honest contractual performance. The Vendors relied on the following passage from the majority decision in Callow:
[E]ven if I were to conclude that the trial judge did not make an explicit finding as to whether Callow lost an opportunity, it may be presumed as a matter of law that it did, since it was Baycrest's own dishonesty that now precludes Callow from conclusively proving what would have happened if Baycrest had been honest.
The Court rejected this argument. According to the Court, the presumption described in Callow was unique to its factual context and does not arise for every breach of the duty of honest performance. Origin House's dishonesty did not preclude the Vendors from missing any opportunity or proving its losses. The Vendors would not have achieved the 2019 revenue targets in any case and could not have secured a 2019 closing even if Origin House had acted honestly.
Instead, the Court explained that Callow generally requires the plaintiff to show that the breach of the duty of honest performance resulted in the loss of an opportunity. If the plaintiff can provide such evidence, it is entitled to damages to place it in the same position as if the duty of honest performance had been satisfied. Here, the Vendors could not prove any loss because they would have been in the same position even if the duty of honest performance had been satisfied.
Key Takeaways
Bhatnagar clarifies an ambiguity raised by Callow about whether a breach of the duty of honest performance gives rise to a presumption of loss. The Court held that the answer is no, and that damages are an independent issue from the breach. To obtain damages, the plaintiff must prove that the breach resulted in a loss.
This approach aligns with the ordinary approach to damages in contract law, where a plaintiff must show what losses it incurred due to the other party's breach of contract. If it can do so, then it is typically entitled to the damages that would place it in the same position as if the duty had been performed. According to the Court, the duty of honest performance should be treated in the same way.
Co-authored by David Côté (Summer Student)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CRESCO-LABS-INC-47419087
Today at 13:12
Share
In Bhatnagar v. Cresco Labs Inc. (Bhatnagar), the Court of Appeal for Ontario (Court) held that damages are not presumed where a defendant breaches the duty of honest contractual performance. Rather, according to the Court, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger (Callow) requires the plaintiff to show that the breach caused a loss before it becomes entitled to damages. (See our earlier Blakes Bulletin: Callow and the Duty of Honest Contractual Performance: What You Need to Know).
Background
In February 2019, the shareholders of 180 Smoke (Vendors) sold their shares to Origin House. The share purchase agreement gave the Vendors an opportunity to earn additional "milestone" payments where 180 Smoke achieved annual revenue targets following the sale. The agreement also stated that, if Origin House were sold, the Vendors would be paid all future unearned milestone payments.
On April 1, 2019, Origin House announced that it was being sold to Cresco Labs Inc. (Cresco). All parties initially expected this transaction to close in 2019. In late June 2019, Origin House told the Vendors that there was no reason to believe the deal would not close.
On October 20, 2019, Origin House learned that Cresco proposed a new closing date of January 15, 2020, but did not directly share this information with the Vendors. The transaction ultimately closed on January 8, 2020. The Vendors did not meet the revenue targets in 2019.
Since the sale closed in 2020, Cresco paid the Vendors unearned milestone payments for 2020 and 2021. If the sale had closed in 2019, Cresco would also have been required to pay the Vendors the milestone payment for 2019, which would have totalled over C$4-million. The Vendors sued to recover the 2019 milestone payment.
The application judge held that Origin House breached its duty of good faith by advising the Vendors that the transaction would close in 2019 and failing to update them that the closing date was moved to January 2020. However, she did not award damages because, irrespective of the breach, the Vendors would not have been able to meet the revenue targets or ensure that the transaction would close in 2019.
The Court's Decision
On appeal, the Vendors argued that Callow required courts to presume entitlement to damages when a party breaches its duty of honest contractual performance. The Vendors relied on the following passage from the majority decision in Callow:
[E]ven if I were to conclude that the trial judge did not make an explicit finding as to whether Callow lost an opportunity, it may be presumed as a matter of law that it did, since it was Baycrest's own dishonesty that now precludes Callow from conclusively proving what would have happened if Baycrest had been honest.
The Court rejected this argument. According to the Court, the presumption described in Callow was unique to its factual context and does not arise for every breach of the duty of honest performance. Origin House's dishonesty did not preclude the Vendors from missing any opportunity or proving its losses. The Vendors would not have achieved the 2019 revenue targets in any case and could not have secured a 2019 closing even if Origin House had acted honestly.
Instead, the Court explained that Callow generally requires the plaintiff to show that the breach of the duty of honest performance resulted in the loss of an opportunity. If the plaintiff can provide such evidence, it is entitled to damages to place it in the same position as if the duty of honest performance had been satisfied. Here, the Vendors could not prove any loss because they would have been in the same position even if the duty of honest performance had been satisfied.
Key Takeaways
Bhatnagar clarifies an ambiguity raised by Callow about whether a breach of the duty of honest performance gives rise to a presumption of loss. The Court held that the answer is no, and that damages are an independent issue from the breach. To obtain damages, the plaintiff must prove that the breach resulted in a loss.
This approach aligns with the ordinary approach to damages in contract law, where a plaintiff must show what losses it incurred due to the other party's breach of contract. If it can do so, then it is typically entitled to the damages that would place it in the same position as if the duty had been performed. According to the Court, the duty of honest performance should be treated in the same way.
Co-authored by David Côté (Summer Student)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/CRESCO-LABS-INC-47419087
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 73.901.318 von HG_30042018 am 24.05.23 19:56:53
Ich seh schon, lauter Schlaumeier hier, zu schlau, um eine ordentliche Diskussion zu führen...
Zitat von HG_30042018:Zitat von Schnulli89: Warum gibt es trotz den "schlechten" Zahlen so ein Kursgewinn? Kann sich das jemand vorstellen?
Und was sind heute 10 -15%? Schau mal wo der Kurs vor 2 Jahren stand!
Ich seh schon, lauter Schlaumeier hier, zu schlau, um eine ordentliche Diskussion zu führen...
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 73.900.736 von Schnulli89 am 24.05.23 18:28:22
Und was sind heute 10 -15%? Schau mal wo der Kurs vor 2 Jahren stand!
Zitat von Schnulli89: Warum gibt es trotz den "schlechten" Zahlen so ein Kursgewinn? Kann sich das jemand vorstellen?
Und was sind heute 10 -15%? Schau mal wo der Kurs vor 2 Jahren stand!
Trading Spotlight
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 73.900.736 von Schnulli89 am 24.05.23 18:28:22
Keine Ahnung, frag mal Sonnenurlauber, der ist hier "Profi". Mein Nachkauf wär so gesehen kein Fehler gewesen, ich hab's aber bleiben lassen. Schauen wir mal, ob der Anstieg nachhaltig ist oder gleich wieder abverkauft wird, wo so oft bisher....
Findest du die Zahlen gut? Börse ist irrational, macht oft das Gegenteil von dem was man erwartet....
Zitat von Schnulli89: Warum gibt es trotz den "schlechten" Zahlen so ein Kursgewinn? Kann sich das jemand vorstellen?
Keine Ahnung, frag mal Sonnenurlauber, der ist hier "Profi". Mein Nachkauf wär so gesehen kein Fehler gewesen, ich hab's aber bleiben lassen. Schauen wir mal, ob der Anstieg nachhaltig ist oder gleich wieder abverkauft wird, wo so oft bisher....
Findest du die Zahlen gut? Börse ist irrational, macht oft das Gegenteil von dem was man erwartet....
Warum gibt es trotz den "schlechten" Zahlen so ein Kursgewinn? Kann sich das jemand vorstellen?
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 73.898.783 von HG_30042018 am 24.05.23 13:54:24
Zahlen für das 1. Quartal 2023 sind da, ich bin nicht begeistert und werde weiterhin die Füße still halten. Ein Umsatzrückgang von 3% und ein Minus von 28 Mio USD, zudem noch Verbindlichkeiten in Höhe von $382 Mio USD und nur mehr $90 Mio USD Cash. Ich hoffe das geht gut aus... 🙈
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230524005245/en/Cre…
Zitat von HG_30042018: Heute kommt der Geschäftsbericht, wenn der was taugt, dann werde ich nochmal verbilligen (Achtung: Das ist kein Versuch Leute zum Kauf zu bewegen -> Hochrisiko-Investment)!
Zahlen für das 1. Quartal 2023 sind da, ich bin nicht begeistert und werde weiterhin die Füße still halten. Ein Umsatzrückgang von 3% und ein Minus von 28 Mio USD, zudem noch Verbindlichkeiten in Höhe von $382 Mio USD und nur mehr $90 Mio USD Cash. Ich hoffe das geht gut aus... 🙈
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230524005245/en/Cre…
Heute kommt der Geschäftsbericht, wenn der was taugt, dann werde ich nochmal verbilligen (Achtung: Das ist kein Versuch Leute zum Kauf zu bewegen -> Hochrisiko-Investment)!
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 73.827.223 von HG_30042018 am 10.05.23 21:05:23
Vielleicht hat Sonnenurlauber ja recht und wir verzocken hier unser hart verdientes Geld!? Ein Schuldenberg wird aber nicht überbleiben, denn ich kaufe Aktien nur mit Ersparten und nicht auf Kredit.... wäre trotzdem ärgerlich....warum nicht einfach BlueChips kaufen, Dividenden kassieren und solche Werte meiden?
Zitat von HG_30042018:Zitat von HG_30042018: Ich bin der Meinung, dass Cresco Labs überlebt und das Investment und noch viel Freude bereiten wird. Wir können gerne SACHLICH (OBJEKTIV) darüber diskutieren. Dass der Kursverlauf in den letzten 2 Jahren nicht schön war, das brauchen wir nicht mehr weiter diskutieren, denke ich.
Ist halt auch ein sehr risikoreiches Investment und ein Totalverlust nicht ausgeschlossen, muss man auch dazu sagen! Wer sich darauf nicht einlassen kann/will, sollte sich besser ein anderes Investment suchen. Oder man wartet noch, bis sich die Lage entspannt, ggf. warte auch noch mit Nachkauf. Letzter Nachkauf war bei € 2.95, damit war ich leider zu früh dran..... ich könnte jetzt aber nochmal ordentlich verbilligen....
Vielleicht hat Sonnenurlauber ja recht und wir verzocken hier unser hart verdientes Geld!? Ein Schuldenberg wird aber nicht überbleiben, denn ich kaufe Aktien nur mit Ersparten und nicht auf Kredit.... wäre trotzdem ärgerlich....warum nicht einfach BlueChips kaufen, Dividenden kassieren und solche Werte meiden?
Durchsuchen
20.04.24 · wallstreetONLINE Redaktion · Green Thumb Industries |
28.02.24 · Cannabis-Trends · Cresco Labs |
30.01.24 · Cannabis-Trends · Cresco Labs |
29.12.23 · Cannabis-Trends · Cresco Labs |
27.11.23 · Cannabis-Trends · Cresco Labs |