# CIDC insurance limit... per account ?



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

> CDIC insures eligible deposits at each CDIC member institution up to a maximum of $100,000 (principal and interest combined) per depositor (or, in the case of joint deposits, per set of joint owners), for each of the following:
> 
> savings held in one name,
> joint deposits (savings held in more than one name),
> ...


Source: http://www.cdic.ca/e/depositinsurance/faq.html#increase in limit

Suppose that (for various reason), i have 200k that i need to keep in cash/money market account. In my TD account i would hold:

100k in MIP510
100k in RBF2001

Would both be insured by CIDC ?

EDIT
I also found this:



> The maximum basic protection for eligible deposits is $100,000 (principal and interest combined) per depositor in each CDIC member institution. Deposits are not insured separately if made at different branch offices of a member.


http://www.cdic.ca/multimedia/Website/Documents/pdf/en/CDIC-ProtectingYourDeposits.pdf#zoom=100

So if i understand correctly, both account would be insured, anyone can confirm ?


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

larry81 said:


> So if i understand correctly, both account would be insured, anyone can confirm ?


That's my understanding as well. Both accounts would be covered because they are offered by two different financial institutions.


----------



## larry81 (Nov 22, 2010)

Just confirmed this with TD president rep, the insurance is PER institution.

Now the 200k question is, are MIP510 (bank) and MIP710 (trust) considered different institution when it come to CIDC insurance


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i'm certainly not knowledgeable, but to split a hair, i wonder whether the interposition of a third party brokerage house such as td waterhouse reduces or even cancels the cdic insurance that might otherwise be available if said investor were to maintain accounts directly with each of the named institutions.

i for one am not worried about td waterhouse failing any time soon. However i vaguely recall it being explained to me that cdic insurance does not apply to sub-accounts held in street name at brokerage houses. What does apply is cipf insurance.

this investor protection fund is a whole other subject. CIPF insurance does not exist as a pooled fund. It is the collective ability of the brokerage industry in canada to raise funds by assessing members in the event that an individual brokerage may fail.

in the event of a true global financial collapse, ie a collapse mighty enough to take down a broker such as td waterhouse, most other canadian financial institutions would have already failed. There would never be enough cipf money to bail out all of them.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

larry81 said:


> Just confirmed this with TD president rep, the insurance is PER institution.
> 
> Now the 200k question is, are MIP510 (bank) and MIP710 (trust) considered different institution when it come to CIDC insurance


Manulife Bank of Canada and Manulife Trust Company (which is a separate subsidiary of the bank) are listed separately on the CDIC member page, so the assumption would be that they are considered separate institutions for insurance purposes.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Yes, separate entities that are subsidiaries of the banks are covered separately by CIDC. For instance, my GICs at ScotiaBank are spread out between The Bank of Nova Scotia, Scotia Mortgage Corporation, National Trust Company, and Montreal Trust Company of Canada - up to $100,000 at each institution for my unregistered GIC accounts. The GICs in my RRSP are also spread out between those four institutions and are covered separately by CDIC.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i'm certainly not knowledgeable, but to split a hair, i wonder whether the interposition of a third party brokerage house such as td waterhouse reduces or even cancels the cdic insurance that might otherwise be available if said investor were to maintain accounts directly with each of the named institutions.
> 
> i for one am not worried about td waterhouse failing any time soon. However i vaguely recall it being explained to me that cdic insurance does not apply to sub-accounts held in street name at brokerage houses. What does apply is cipf insurance.
> 
> [...]


I don't believe a brokerage account has any impact on the eligible CDIC covered accounts.

Looking at CDIC's web site, http://www.cdic.ca/e/index.html, both the main page and the "what's covered" section refer to CDIC membership as a criteria for eligibility. None of the brokerages are members so deposits would not be covered and therefore wouldn't affect any other eligible deposits or limits at CDIC member institutions.


Which is what I vaguely recall from when I opened a brokerage account where the comment was "there is no CDIC coverage but there is CPIF coverage, so read up on CPIF if interested".


Cheers


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

There's a related conversation over in this thread.



Eclectic12 said:


> ... so deposits would not be covered and therefore wouldn't affect any other eligible deposits or limits at CDIC member institutions.


This is wrong if Eclectic means that the Manulife or RBC funds Larry mentioned in the original wouldn't be covered. They would be. However, my reading is that these deposits would effectively be in the broker's name, in trust for you. So Larry's $100,000 in MIP510 would be registered at Manulife something like a deposit for "TD Waterhouse, in trust for Larry81". "Savings held in trust for another person" is a separate CDIC category, and wouldn't affect your own limits at the bank in question.

If I'm correct, there are a couple of other wrinkles involved. One is that if the deposit is in your broker's name ("nominee" or "street" name), it would be they who would deal with CDIC if necessary. Also, if your broker goes kaput, that deposit isn't "yours" directly - it would go into the asset pot the same as your stock positions as CPIF does its cleanup, and you'd get refunded through the CPIF process. 

Finally, you could possibly do multiple $100,000 deposits with the same bank via multiple brokerage accounts. Larry might have $100,000 of RBF2001 at TDW, and another $100,000 of RBF2001 with, say, BMO InvestorLine. CDIC could consider "TDW in trust for Larry81" as a separate depositor from "BMO in trust for Larry81", and each brokerage account would have a separate $100,000 limit for a particular bank.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> There's a related conversation over in this thread.
> 
> 
> This is wrong if Eclectic means that the Manulife or RBC funds Larry mentioned in the original wouldn't be covered.
> ...


Sorry ... I meant general deposits, not the RBF2001 and MIP510 funds.

Humble's question referred to general accounts which I took to mean general deposits in either the brokerage or a CDIC member institution.


I should have qualified my post a bit better.



Cheers


----------



## Rob79 (Feb 16, 2011)

Does not seem like many people are aware of this but Credit Unions, at least the ones in Sask and Alberta a fully insured 100%, they use CUDG for insurance, I do not know why Credit unions do not advertise this more as it really is important and even more so after the last meltdown. Anyways just thought I would help get the word out.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Sorry ... I meant general deposits, not the RBF2001 and MIP510 funds. Humble's question referred to general accounts which I took to mean general deposits in either the brokerage or a CDIC member institution


I believe Humble was still referring to those funds, just questioning whether holding them in a brokerage account would affect the CDIC coverage. As I said, my reading is that the deposit is covered, but for your broker who is the "owner" of the deposit. I'm not sure what you mean by "general deposits" - you cash balance at a brokerage is certainly not a CDIC deposit, so CDIC coverage questions are moot.



Rob79 said:


> Does not seem like many people are aware of this but Credit Unions, at least the ones in Sask and Alberta a fully insured 100%, they use CUDG for insurance, I do not know why Credit unions do not advertise this more as it really is important and even more so after the last meltdown. Anyways just thought I would help get the word out.


Credit unions have to be careful about advertising outside their own province. They are not federally regulated banks, so the provincial regulators in the various provinces strongly frown on any advertising. Hubert got caught by this when they started up last year - they had newspaper and/or bus ads in places like Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and those regulators issued cease and desist orders. That wound up triggering alerts at the Canadian and US regulators, and was probably rather embarrassing for Sunova/Hubert. As for the unlimited guarantee, most of the online Manitoba CUs do mention this. Of course, there is also the issue that the guarantor is the provincial deposit corp, not CDIC. I think Alberta's is explicitly backed by the province, but most aren't, so you have to make your own judgements about the consequences of an apocalyptic meltdown.


----------



## leoc2 (Dec 28, 2010)

I emailed the CDIC the following questions:


> I have a BMO investorline brokerage account. I have purchased $100,000 worth of RENAISSANCE HIGH INTEREST SAVING ACCOUNT symbol ATL5000. It is offered by CIBC and is CDIC insured. I know my BMO brokerage account is not CDIC insured. Would I receive the insurance payout for my ATL5000 if BMO investorline becomes insolvent? Would I receive the insurance payout for my ATL5000 if CIBC Renaissance becomes insolvent?


Here is their reply:


> Thank you for your e-mail of September 4, 2011 in which you inquired about deposit insurance coverage provided by Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC).
> 
> We must point out to begin that CDIC does not provide legal advice to third parties and does not issue rulings on the interpretation or application of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act (“CDIC Act”), its by-laws, or any related legislation. These are legal matters for which only the courts can provide decisive answers. This reply is subject to those caveats.
> 
> ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

leo i thought your email was very clear & to the point.

how unfortunate that the cdic's answer seems to sidestep your question.

are we not discussing whether & how CDIC insurance would apply to an eligible & insured product that was sold to an investor by a broker-dealer, in the event that such broker-dealer would fail.

and has the discussion not led on to speculations here about how these individual investments would actually be registered & held at the broker, which normally holds all investments in street form.

but the catch-22 is that broker-dealers aren't cdic members, so the question arises as to whether & how holdings in street form or in trust would be cdic-insured if a broker failed.

& possibly there was speculation somewhere that if a broker failed, CIPF protection would automatically take over. However this makes no sense to me, since in this scenario the issuer is still valid, the CDIC as federally-backed insurer is still valid, and it is only the broker-dealer interposed like a blind in the middle that has failed.

CDIC insurance is preferable to CIPF protection imho & should not be cancelled just because a vending/custodial intermediary like a broker goes out of business. But i'm not sure how this would work out.

on a practical note, we are far away from bmo nesbitt failing so please don't worry too much, leo.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

@leoc2: You weren't quite detailed enough in your question to CDIC. You told them you had purchased $100K of ATL5000, but neither you or CDIC addressed who exactly is named on the deposit. If it is you, directly, then the CDIC answer of a single $100,000 limit would be correct. But if your ATL5000 is on deposit for something like "BMO, in trust for leoc2", then it is possible it would come under that separate "savings held in trust for another person" category. ATL5000 is available in "Nominee accounts only", and others like the Manulife MIP ones seem to be the same.

This informative CDIC bulletin states that "_the interest of a beneficiary in a trust deposit is separate from any other deposits of the beneficiary either in its *personal capacity* or as *beneficiary in a different trust*_". That first bolded bit would suggest that your BMO ATL5000 would not combine with your vanilla CIBC savings account or GIC held directly. The second bit would seem to indicate that ATL5000 in BMO would not combine with ATL5000 held at other brokers, assuming things are in the broker's name and that constitutes a trust. There's a section in that bulletin on securities firms that makes this seem quite likely.

I've sent off a request for info to my broker (TDW) on exactly how these are held, and once I've got that I'll try and confirm with CDIC. I'll post anything more I find out.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Humble's reply must have crossed with mine, but seems consistent. Under my reading, CDIC has a relationship with the broker, *not* with you. The ATL5000 is an asset of the broker (with a corresponding fiduciary liability to the client) if they go boom, and would go into CIPF's pot - CDIC is completely uninvolved. You'd get some or all of your ATL5000 money back from CIPF's payout on your entire brokerage claim. The CDIC bulletin says as much: "_From CDIC's perspective, as well as from the perspective of the member institution, it is the [broker] as nominee that is entitled to the repayment of the deposit. The customer looks to the [broker] for payment._"


----------



## leoc2 (Dec 28, 2010)

Raven/Humble

I wish CDIC's reply was as informative as yours. sighhhh
Looking forward to what you find out Raven.

Take care.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

interesting. Raven seems to be working his way towards the interpretation that in the event of broker failure, only CIPF would apply.

this is really not very nice news imho. The problem is that if senior houses like bmo nesbitt & tdw were to fail, then canada would be a financial mess while the rest of the planet would be a nuclear wreck.

i've posted this before, to deaf ears i think, but maybe i'll try it again. The CIPF to best of my knowledge is not an existing insurance fund per se, with real dollars in it. It's just the collective ability of the brokerage industry in canada to assess its members to raise money in the event that an odd brokerage here or there might fail.

a global financial collapse would wipe out most of the brokerage industry & the silly CIPF would not be able to raise one thin dime.

the CDIC on the other hand is backed by the federal government, so might survive armageddon to pay something. Though it's worth remembering that the equivalent FDIC in the US has been bankrupt since sometime around 2009 & survives only by extra-assessing the surviving banking industry.

on a practical note, if i had a million dollars that i wanted to park in 10 different GICs so as to get full CDIC coverage for each, i would not do this through a broker. I'd probably take the pesky trouble to run around to each of 10 different institutions to apply & pay for a GIC at each one of them. Hereinafter known as the dog-&-hydrant style of financial management.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> interesting. Raven seems to be working his way towards the interpretation that in the event of broker failure, only CIPF would apply.


Yup, always assuming that the deposits are in the broker's name, I can't see any way CDIC takes cognizance of a broker failure, as nothing has happened at the CDIC institution. If the deposit is somehow in the client's name directly, CDIC still wouldn't be involved, but there might be a way of claiming it directly instead of it going through the CIPF windup. There might be some parallel to stocks in street name - does anyone know if there is a mechanism to have them put in one's own name at a discount brokerage?



humble_pie said:


> this is really not very nice news imho. The problem is that if senior houses like bmo nesbitt & tdw were to fail, then canada would be a financial mess while the rest of the planet would be a nuclear wreck.
> 
> i've posted this before, to deaf ears i think, but maybe i'll try it again. The CIPF to best of my knowledge is not an existing insurance fund per se, with real dollars in it. It's just the collective ability of the brokerage industry in canada to assess its members to raise money in the event that an odd brokerage here or there might fail.
> 
> a global financial collapse would wipe out most of the brokerage industry & the silly CIPF would not be able to raise one thin dime.


CIPF's fund supposedly had around $385 million, plus a $100 million line of credit and an insurance policy for $70-200 million of losses. Presumably that would enable them to clean up one of the tiddler brokerages that might actually have likelihood of failing. As Humble points out, unfixable or multiple Big5 brokerage failures would be asteroid-striking-earth sort of probabilities. 




humble_pie said:


> on a practical note, if i had a million dollars that i wanted to park in 10 different GICs so as to get full CDIC coverage for each, i would not do this through a broker. I'd probably take the pesky trouble to run around to each of 10 different institutions to apply & pay for a GIC at each one of them. Hereinafter known as the dog-&-hydrant style of financial management.


I too don't know why anyone would actually have huge sums in low-rate brokerage CDIC accounts for any substantial length of time - might as well transfer out to higher paying HISAs and transfer back when needed. But it is an interesting theoretical research exercise...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> I believe Humble was still referring to those funds, just questioning whether holding them in a brokerage account would affect the CDIC coverage. As I said, my reading is that the deposit is covered, but for your broker who is the "owner" of the deposit. I'm not sure what you mean by "general deposits" - you cash balance at a brokerage is certainly not a CDIC deposit, so CDIC coverage questions are moot.
> 
> [...]


Re-reading Humble's post, likely he was still referring to those funds.

The way the question was started made me think that it was a side-bar 
question. As well, where he talked about "maintaining accounts" which in my mind meant cash balances - instead of the funds.


So at the end of the day, I think we agree.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> interesting. Raven seems to be working his way towards the interpretation that in the event of broker failure, only CIPF would apply.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> ...


Agreed ... CPIF doesn't have real dollars behind it. But then again, based on some of the other posts and CDIC's quarterly report, I'm not so sure CDIC has real money behind it either.

One of the posts I saw stated that CDIC had 0.03% of eligible deposits in their war chest. If true, this won't cover a lot of failures. Then too, the lastest quarterly report seems to say that their target is between 40 to 50 basis points of insured deposits yet the June 30th, 2011 figure is below the target.

http://www.cdic.ca/multimedia/Website/Documents/QFR/QFR_2011Q1_narrative.pdf


As you point out - there is a big difference in that CDIC is gov't backed, if the fund is not up to the task and the markets aren't suitable for raising the required funds - the gov't then steps up to the plate.


Cheers


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

This is an interesting topic. Check out the Marlow Bankruptcy case to understand what happens when a broker goes under and funds are missing from trust accounts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...rbiVBQ&usg=AFQjCNHUMsUUYWr8lX436ORqZzMdFT5Nzw

The bottomline is that only securities registered in your name will be returned to you. This is a major reason why your broker should be a big institution. There is no guarantee but you are minimizing the chances of malfeasance.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Agreed ... CPIF doesn't have real dollars behind it. But then again, based on some of the other posts and CDIC's quarterly report, I'm not so sure CDIC has real money behind it either.
> 
> One of the posts I saw stated that CDIC had 0.03% of eligible deposits in their war chest. If true, this won't cover a lot of failures. Then too, the lastest quarterly report seems to say that their target is between 40 to 50 basis points of insured deposits yet the June 30th, 2011 figure is below the target.


0.03% might have been from the comments in this article on CC's site, but that is an error. This was apparently a typo in the CDIC wikipedia article, and should have been 0.33% (since fixed by yours truly). They are now apparently at 0.37% (37 bps), and are currently targeting 40-50bps. If I'm reading things correctly, they also have a $17 billion loan authorization from the federal treasury, which would represent another 275 bps. There's a discussion paper they are circulating about options for raising the fund target to the 100-200 bps range - I think the US FDIC is targeting replenishment to 135bps by 2020, and Manitoba currently has around 100 bps in their fund.

IMO, looking at a fund as a percentage of insured deposits can be a little misleading. If a bank goes insolvent, CDIC isn't going to be out those deposits, but the net difference between the banks assets and liabilities as it winds it down or arranges a merger. The assets (loans, in the simple case) are going to still have some value, and whatever losses there are, first eat away at the bank's equity. So a fund of $X can clean up the failure of a bank or banks with a significant multiple of $X in deposits. Now if TD and Scotia and CIBC were to develop multi-billion holes in their balance sheets, that's another story, but whatever might cause that is going to cause half a dozen other catastrophes before breakfast as well!

I think the FDIC fund was at around 120 bps of deposits in 2008 before the crash, and was pretty much wiped out (but they've got huge backing from Treasury until they rebuild). Obviously things would have been worse if the TARP program hadn't also been supporting their banks.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> 0.03% might have been from the comments in this article on CC's site, but that is an error. This was apparently a typo in the CDIC wikipedia article, and should have been 0.33% (since fixed by yours truly). They are now apparently at 0.37% (37 bps), and are currently targeting 40-50bps. If I'm reading things correctly, they also have a $17 billion loan authorization from the federal treasury, which would represent another 275 bps. There's a discussion paper they are circulating about options for raising the fund target to the 100-200 bps range - I think the US FDIC is targeting replenishment to 135bps by 2020, and Manitoba currently has around 100 bps in their fund.
> 
> IMO, looking at a fund as a percentage of insured deposits can be a little misleading. If a bank goes insolvent, CDIC isn't going to be out those deposits, but the net difference between the banks assets and liabilities as it winds it down or arranges a merger. The assets (loans, in the simple case) are going to still have some value, and whatever losses there are, first eat away at the bank's equity. So a fund of $X can clean up the failure of a bank or banks with a significant multiple of $X in deposits. Now if TD and Scotia and CIBC were to develop multi-billion holes in their balance sheets, that's another story, but whatever might cause that is going to cause half a dozen other catastrophes before breakfast as well!
> 
> [ ... ]


Hmmmm ... I recalled it being CC's site but it wasn't the Hubert article.


IAC, good points about the additional funds as well as the CDIC portion being the difference between liabilities and assets.


The scenario Humble referred to was


> ... a global financial collapse...


as well as


> The CDIC on the other hand is backed by the federal government, so might survive armageddon to pay something.


Only Humble knows for sure but this seems to imply he is assuming multiple CDIC members have failed plus any other "pre-breakfast catastrophes". *grin*


In such an environment, one would expect fewer instituations to be bidding for the assets which likely would result in heavy discounting. The end result may well be that CDIC would end up on the hook for more than usual.



Thanks for the link to the discussion paper. When I have more time, I'll look through it in detail.

Cheers


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm sure the CDIC system could handle "multiple" failures if they were small - some overly-aggressive regional banks or groups of undercapitalized mortgage trusts as has happened in the past. No plausible insurance fund is going to be able to handle something systemic that makes the subprime problem look mild - either the government finds a way to shore up the banking system or your economy is dead. The fix might indeed involve allowing deposit insurance to fail, but that would be a very last resort. Not only do you not want lots of average citizens to be wiped out and increase their future drag on the economy, but you need confidence in the deposit system going forward.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

The experience of US money market funds in 2008 is instructive here. When it appeared that the funds may break the buck, the Feds stepped in and guaranteed these funds. The alternative was awful: a run on the funds and the possibility that even solvent, well-capitalized companies may be unable to raise short-term loans. 

The Armageddon scenario is the reason why we should think that deposit insurance is as safe as it gets.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> The experience of US money market funds in 2008 is instructive here. When it appeared that the funds may break the buck, the Feds stepped in and guaranteed these funds. The alternative was awful: a run on the funds and the possibility that even solvent, well-capitalized companies may be unable to raise short-term loans.
> 
> The Armageddon scenario is the reason why we should think that deposit insurance is as safe as it gets.


True.

As well, it is incentive to keep the politicians staying with conservative legislation. I was amused at how the Canadian bank reps in 2009+ were just about saying "we'd never get as aggressive as the US banks did." It wasn't that long before then that the CEO's etc. were lambasting Martin and company for "not allowing them to compete directly with US banks" (i.e. aggressive one.

This stance seems to have been one of the factors that helped the Canadian banks avoid the full extent of the problem - as much as they didn't like it at the time.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> I'm sure the CDIC system could handle "multiple" failures if they were small - some overly-aggressive regional banks or groups of undercapitalized mortgage trusts as has happened in the past. No plausible insurance fund is going to be able to handle something systemic that makes the subprime problem look mild - either the government finds a way to shore up the banking system or your economy is dead.
> 
> [ ... ]


Agreed ... and based on CDIC's list of failed members, the high water mark so far is seven members failing in the same year - which happened in 1983 and 1985.

Interestingly, in 1983 all seven were either mortgage/trust whereas in 1985 two banks failed, then the rest are all mortgage/trust.



Cheers


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

are we getting serious or what. Nobody here is a seasoned prof teaching securities law for insolvency cases in law school ... we are all just plain folks stumbling around a little-known, hidden but complex issue, peering into it as best we can.

and not doing too bad a job, either ! 

this is good imho, because the bright cheery reassuring remarks that broker reps across canada are trained to say - Yes ! You Have $1,000,000 of Account Insurance ! Plus CDIC Insurance up to $100,000 for each different Investment Product issued by a CDIC Member ! - are a bit misleading, as this thread is already showing.

Marlow as cited by CC is one case. Ideally, the entire body of jurisprudence should be examined. I believe insolvency cases are handled by the provincial securities authorities, ie jurisprudence could vary slightly especially in quebec under civil law.

it was in quebec that norbourg collapsed after most of its funds were stolen by then-ceo vincent lacroix. Assets of 2 funds survived intact because they had outside managers, ie lacroix could not raid those funds because he would have been detected. 

investors who had owned all the other funds then sued to have the monies distributed to all norbourg clients pro-rata. The case was fought all the way up to the quebec supreme court. Unlike CC's Marlow case, at every level the quebec courts ruled that only the owners of the 2 funds- all unregistered of course - would receive any reimbursement.

the irony was that the trustees' fees, the 6 or 7 years of litigation, the lawyers' fees, the court costs & all gobbled up most of the monies that had survived in the 2 intact funds. To this day the trustees are still holding back some of these assets, just in case they might be sued again ...


----------

