U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform’s Post

Did you see this? Excessive litigation is costing Texans more than ever—$4,594 per household. TLR is pushing for common-sense reforms in 2025 to protect Texans from these unnecessary costs. Find out more: https://bit.ly/4gkdelV. #txlege #Texas #LegalReform #Economy #Business #FrivolousLawsuits #InsuranceCosts #Government

In 2022, every Texas household paid $4,594 due to the rising costs of litigation—$387 more than the national average. TLR is fighting for lawsuit reforms in 2025 to protect Texans from these growing financial burdens. Read more: https://bit.ly/4gkdelV. #txlege #Texas #LegalReform #Economy #Business #FrivolousLawsuits #InsuranceCosts #Government

Everyday costs are on the rise, and it’s not just inflation to blame. Learn more about how the “tort tax” from frivolous lawsuits is driving up expenses for households across the country. https://bit.ly/3UelATd #txlege #Texas #LegalReform #Economy #Business #FrivolousLawsuits #InsuranceCosts #Government

British Columbia's new Money Judgment Enforcement Act promises a more efficient and cost-effective way to enforce monetary judgments. Discover how this will impact creditors and debtors alike: https://bit.ly/3X0ie8c Authored by: Cobi Dayan, Taylor Lanthier #MTInsights #MTLitigation #litigation

Changes to the way overseas entities are registered have now come in to force via the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. One of the measures is that if the property is held for trustees, details of the trustees and the underlying trust must be disclosed. Katherine Miller and Nicole Aubin-Parvu explain how it might affect you here 👉 https://ow.ly/rmoe50QOCJG...

[New Blog Post] “Section 24 - Damages for Unconstitutional Legislation”     Check out the latest article by James Hendry on the Supreme Court’s decision in AG Canada v. Power. The Court confirmed that individuals can claim damages under section 24 of the Charter for harm caused by unconstitutional laws.  What are the implications for vulnerable groups affected by such laws? Will this lead legislators to rely more on section 33 to shield their policies?  Explore the key issues surrounding this major decision in our latest blog post. 🔗 Read more about it here: https://lnkd.in/eNPaM66c      #CIAJ #CanadianCharter #SupremeCourt #Justice

Check out my latest article!

🚨 𝗨𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲: 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗨𝗻𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲 🚨 Victoria's unexplained wealth scheme, established in 2014, allows for the restraint and forfeiture of property without a criminal conviction. The scheme has traditionally operated through two pathways: 𝟭. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘄𝗮𝘆: Based on a reasonable suspicion that an individual with an interest in property valued over $50,000 is engaged in serious criminal activity. 𝟮. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘄𝗮𝘆: Based on a reasonable suspicion that property, regardless of its value, was not lawfully acquired. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝗨𝗻𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗪𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵) 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰 is a recent legislative change in Victoria and received Royal Assent on 6 August 2024. This Act amends the 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝟭𝟵𝟵𝟳 to introduce a new pathway for addressing unexplained wealth. Specifically, it allows the Department of Prosecutions to apply for an unexplained wealth restraining order if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person’s wealth exceeds their lawfully acquired wealth by at least $200,000. Key aspects of the 2024 amendments include: 𝟭. 𝗔𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗡𝗲𝘅𝘂𝘀: Unlike previous pathways, this new mechanism does not require a connection to criminal activity.  𝟮. 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹 𝗗𝗲𝗯𝘁: An unexplained wealth order will impose a civil debt equivalent to the unlawfully acquired wealth. 𝟯. 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: Property, benefits, or services acquired more than 10 years before the application date are presumed to have been lawfully acquired, thereby exempt from restraint or forfeiture under this scheme. 𝟰. 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁’𝘀 𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: Under section 40F(2A), the Court must issue an unexplained wealth restraining order if satisfied that the affidavit supporting the application provides reasonable grounds to suspect that a person’s wealth exceeds their lawfully acquired assets by $200,000 or more, and that the individual has an interest in the property to be restrained. Importantly, the suspicion does not need to be linked to any specific criminal activity. 𝟱. 𝗕𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳: The onus is on the individual in question to demonstrate that their wealth was lawfully acquired. This new pathway significantly broadens the scope of the unexplained wealth scheme, with profound implications for asset forfeiture in Victoria. 🔗 Read the full legislation here: Confiscation Amendment (Unexplained Wealth) Act 2024 | legislation.vic.gov.au #LegalUpdate #UnexplainedWealth #VictoriaLaw #LegislationUpdate #LegalProfession #LegalInsights #VictorianLegislation #ConfiscationAct 

Many insolvency-related court fees are set to rise 🗞 📈 The Ministry of Justice announced the increases in an effort to reduce the tax burden of running the UK's courts. The changes will go into effect on the 1st of May, 2024. To find out which fees have been impacted, read our latest article: https://lnkd.in/eatxwiqW

The Supreme Court of Canada has released its decision in the Joseph Power case, affirming the right of a person to seek financial compensation for damages suffered when the state has enacted unconstitutional legislation. The outcome was pretty much as expected, and helps explain why the Court agreed to hear this appeal. There had been a previous decision of the SCC in 2002 which already established this principle. However, it set a standard of evidence which was vague and pretty much impossible to meet. In the current decision, the SCC has established a new criterion. A person can sue if the legislation was "clearly unconstitutional" when it was enacted. That is the type of thing about which judges can form their own opinion based on their knowledge of the law. I have written a more detailed commentary here: https://lnkd.in/gmJwhEjR