Latest news with #StandstillAgreement
Cision Canada
06-05-2025
- Business
- Cision Canada
CLEARVIEW ANNOUNCES WITHDRAWAL OF SHAREHOLDER REQUISITION AND REFRESHED BOARD SLATE
CALGARY, AB, May 6, 2025 /CNW/ - Clearview Resources Ltd. (" Clearview" or the " Company") announces that it has reached an amicable settlement with Walter van Woudenberg, Harold Pine, Todd McAllister, Ian MacKellar (the " Requisition Group") and the withdrawal of the shareholder meeting requisition announced March 3, 2025 pursuant to section 142 of the Business Corporations Act (Alberta) (the " Requisition"). As part of the settlement, Clearview, the Requisition Group and certain associates thereof (collectively, the " Settlement Parties") entered into a standstill and support agreement (the " Standstill Agreement"), specifying customary restrictions and covenants of each party, including, among other things: Withdrawal of the Requisition by the Requisition Group; and Agreement to a standstill covenant for a period of two years pursuant to which the Requisition Group and certain associates thereof shall not, among other things, engage in any solicitation of proxies with respect to the voting of Clearview securities or seek, alone or in concert with others, to make a bid for or requisition or call a meeting of securityholders of Clearview, to nominate any candidate for election to the board of directors (the " Board") or to otherwise alter the composition of the Board, including not to solicit proxies, directly or indirectly, in connection with the annual and special meeting of shareholders of the Company (the " Meeting") scheduled for May 28, 2025. At such Meeting and pursuant to the Standstill Agreement, certain incumbent directors of the Company, being Mr. Rod Hume, Mr. David Vankka and Mr. Bruce Francis, will be nominated for re-election, and three mutually agreed upon individuals, being Mr. Craig Hauer, Mr. Steven Glover and Mr. Edward (Ted) McFeely, will be nominated for election (together, the " Board Nominees"). To facilitate the transition to the new Board, Patricia Saputo has agreed to not stand for re-election at the Meeting. "We are happy that we were able to reach a settlement and look forward to focusing on creating growth and value for our shareholders", said Rod Hume, President and Chief Executive Officer of Clearview. "Ms. Saputo played an instrumental role in reaching an amicable settlement with the requisition group. On behalf of the existing board, management and employees of Clearview, I would like to sincerely thank Ms. Saputo for her contribution and dedication to the Company during her time on the board." In addition to the Standstill Agreement, certain key shareholders of Clearview have entered into support agreements with the Company, whereby such shareholders, on their own behalf and on behalf of their representatives and affiliates, support and promise to use commercially reasonable efforts to solicit proxies for the election of each of the Board Nominees at the Meeting and at the 2026 annual general meeting (collectively, the " Support Agreements"). Collectively, the Standstill Agreement and the individual Support Agreements represent approximately 7.275 million or 61.6% of the outstanding shares of the Company. The foregoing descriptions of the Standstill Agreement and the Support Agreements are not intended to be an exhaustive description of their respective terms and conditions and, in each case, are qualified in their entirely by the full text of the Standstill Agreement and Support Agreements, respectively, a copy of which will be made available under Clearview's SEDAR+ profile accessible at Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information This news release contains forward-looking information and forward-looking statements (collectively, " forward-looking information"). Such forward-looking information is provided to inform the Company's shareholders and potential investors about management's current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that reliance on such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Any such forward-looking information may be identified by words such as "anticipate", "proposed", "estimates", "would", "expects", "intends", "plans", "may", "will", and similar expressions, although not all forward-looking information contain these identifying words. More particularly and without limitation, the forward‐looking information in this news release includes expectations concerning the Meeting and timing thereof; and expectations regarding matters that may be voted upon at the Meeting. Forward-looking information is based on a number of factors and assumptions that have been used to develop such information but which may prove to be incorrect. Although the Company believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking information are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking information because the Company can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. The forward-looking information in this news release reflects the Company's current expectations, assumptions and/or beliefs based on information currently available to the Company. Any forward-looking information speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or expressly qualified by this cautionary statement.
Business Standard
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Explained: What India's Indus Waters Treaty suspension means for Pakistan
In a move that signals a sharp escalation in bilateral tensions between India and Pakistan following the terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22, which killed 26 civilians, the Union government on Wednesday (April 23) announced the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. The move came as part of a series of retaliatory measures following the Pahalgam attack. In addition to halting the treaty, India also announced it will shut down the integrated check post at Attari and reduce the strength of Pakistan's High Commission in New Delhi to 30, with reciprocal downsizing of India's mission in Islamabad. The Centre said the treaty would remain suspended until Pakistan 'credibly and irreversibly' ends its support for cross-border terrorism. What happens to Pakistan after the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty? Pakistan is heavily dependent on the Indus River system, with about 80 per cent of its cultivated land — roughly 16 million hectares — relying on water from these rivers. The rivers governed by the treaty (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) supply water for irrigation, urban consumption, and hydropower. Pakistan is already one of the most water-stressed countries globally, with per capita water availability declining. The country's water storage capacity is low, and any interruption exacerbates existing vulnerabilities. About 93 per cent of Indus water is used for irrigation, supporting crops like wheat, rice, sugarcane, and cotton. Any reduction or stoppage in river flows would threaten food security, lower crop yields, and could trigger widespread shortages. Major urban centres such as Karachi, Lahore, and Multan depend on Indus waters for drinking and municipal use. A cut in supply would lead to water scarcity in cities, potentially causing unrest. Additionally, key hydropower plants like Tarbela and Mangla are fed by these rivers. Disrupted flows could stall power generation, crippling industries and homes. What is the Indus Waters Treaty? The Indus Waters Treaty, signed on September 19, 1960, is a water-sharing agreement between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank. It governs the use of the Indus River and its tributaries, which originate in Tibet and flow through India into Pakistan before draining into the Arabian Sea. The river system includes the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers. The agreement is one of the most detailed water-sharing treaties in the world and is often cited as a rare example of cooperation between two hostile neighbours. Also read: Why was the Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960? After the 1947 Partition of British India, the Indus system became a contested resource. The main problem was that key control points for irrigation canals remained in India, while many canals extended into Pakistan. When the short-term Standstill Agreement expired in April 1948, India halted the flow of water into Pakistan, prompting a major crisis. An interim solution was reached through the Inter-Dominion Accord of May 4, 1948, allowing India to restore supplies in return for annual payments. However, this was not a permanent solution. Negotiations dragged on until David Lilienthal, former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority, proposed joint water management. The World Bank took up this idea and mediated talks, leading to the final agreement signed by Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani President Ayub Khan. What are the key features of the Indus treaty? The treaty divides the rivers between the two countries. India was given control over the three eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — while Pakistan was allotted the three western rivers — Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab. Although India was allowed limited use of the western rivers for domestic purposes, agriculture, and hydroelectric power generation, it could not alter the natural flow of these rivers into Pakistan. Pakistan, in return, was allowed to build infrastructure like dams and canals on its rivers with financial assistance from the World Bank and other countries. Key infrastructure built under this arrangement includes the Tarbela Dam on the Indus and the Mangla Dam on the Jhelum. A Permanent Indus Commission was set up, with one commissioner from each country. How has it been implemented? Despite several wars and recurring political tensions, the treaty has remained in force for over six decades. The Permanent Indus Commission has continued to function even during periods of open conflict, such as the 1965 and 1971 wars. The commission serves as a dispute resolution mechanism and has played a key role in resolving many technical disagreements. For instance, the treaty faced one of its most serious challenges in 2017, when India completed the Kishanganga Dam in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan objected to the project, citing concerns over water diversion and treaty violations. Despite discussions mediated by the World Bank, no consensus was reached. Similar objections were raised by Pakistan over India's Ratle hydroelectric project on the Chenab. Why is the treaty often called 'generous'? Under the treaty, around 80 per cent of the total water flow from the Indus system — mostly from the three western rivers — was allocated to Pakistan. This makes it an unusually generous agreement for a lower riparian country like India. By comparison, Mexico receives a far smaller share of water under its treaty with the United States. India is entitled to only 20 per cent of the Indus system's water and is restricted in its use of the western rivers, even though these rivers originate or flow through Indian territory. How are disputes handled? Disagreements are managed through the Permanent Indus Commission, with one member from each country. They meet every year and hold extra sessions if needed. If they cannot resolve a dispute, the issue can be taken to neutral experts or even an international arbitration court, as laid out in the treaty. Both nations have also agreed to take preventive steps against flood damage, working through their own dam and embankment systems. Now, it remains to be seen how Pakistan responds to India's suspension of the treaty and the global pressure that may arise as a result.
