Huntington, TCF receive all required regulatory approvals for pending merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMay 25th, 2021

Bogota Financial, Gibraltar Bank receive regulatory approvals for merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallJan 25th, 2021

Broadway Financial, CFBanc receive regulatory approvals for merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallJan 4th, 2021

BB&T, SunTrust receive regulatory approvals for merger of equals

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallNov 19th, 2019

S&T Bancorp and DNB Financial receive regulatory approvals for merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallSep 5th, 2019

Regulators approve local bank"s 14-branch buy

First Commonwealth Financial Corp. on Thursday said has received all required regulatory approvals for its pending acquisition of 14 branches from Santander Bank. The deal, announced on April 22, is expected to be completed by Sept. 9. Both the Feder.....»»

Category: topSource: bizjournalsJun 27th, 2019

Berkshire Hills, SI Financial receive all regulatory approvals for merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMay 15th, 2019

Ocwen, PHH Corp. receive all regulatory approvals for merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallSep 28th, 2018

Akari Therapeutics Reports Second Quarter 2021 Financial Results and Highlights Recent Clinical Progress

Currently opening sites for Phase III study of nomacopan in bullous pemphigoid (BP). Phase III study of nomacopan in severe pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant-related thrombotic microangiopathy (HSCT-TMA) open for enrollment. Evaluating the potential for long-acting PAS-nomacopan as a treatment for dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Collaborating with clinical partners to explore potential for treating exacerbations in severe lung diseases where inhaled nomacopan can be potentially delivered directly to the lung. Active pipeline exploring treatment of head trauma with nomacopan and the development of votucalis, a new anti-histamine biopharmaceutical with a similar structure to nomacopan. NEW YORK and LONDON, Sept. 22, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Akari Therapeutics, Plc (NASDAQ:AKTX), a late-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on innovative therapeutics to treat orphan autoimmune and inflammatory diseases where complement (C5) and/or leukotriene (LTB4) systems are implicated, today announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2021, as well as recent clinical progress. Akari's two lead programs, in BP and HSCT-TMA, are in Phase III clinical development and have been granted both Orphan Drug and Fast Track designations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Company also has earlier stage programs with nomacopan addressing ophthalmology and pulmonary diseases. "We have made progress with our clinical pipeline since the beginning of 2021, and have two orphan disease programs in Phase III clinical development," said Clive Richardson, Chief Executive Officer of Akari Therapeutics. "In parallel we are actively exploring partnering opportunities for disease areas such as those for the eye and the lung, using different routes of administration for nomacopan." Clinical highlights Phase III clinical trial in patients with bullous pemphigoid BP is a severe autoimmune blistering disease of the elderly with no specific approved treatments. The Company is opening sites for a Phase III study of nomacopan for the treatment of BP. The FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have granted Orphan Drug Designation for nomacopan for the treatment of BP, and the FDA has granted Fast Track designation to nomacopan in BP. Miles Nunn, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer of Akari Therapeutics, and Sanjeev Khindri, M.D., Medical Director of Akari Therapeutics, recently presented a poster at the 2021 International Pemphigus & Pemphigoid Foundation (IPPF) Scientific Symposium which outlines the design of the Company's Phase III planned pivotal study of nomacopan in patients with moderate to severe BP. The Company is considering additional opportunities to expand into other dermatological conditions where both complement C5 activation and LTB4 are believed to have key roles in driving the disease pathology including hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) and other pemphigoids. Phase III clinical trial in patients with HSCT-TMA HSCT-TMA is a severe disease in pediatric patients with an estimated 80% mortality rate and no approved treatments. Phase III study in pediatric HSCT-TMA is open for enrollment at sites in the U.S. and Europe, subject to the ongoing impact of COVID-19 related restrictions. Akari has FDA Fast Track and Orphan Drug Designations for pediatric HSCT-TMA patients. Success in pediatric HSCT-TMA would provide opportunities to expand into adult HSCT-TMA and related TMA-like diseases where complement and LTB4 are believed to have important roles such as atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus and anti-phospholipid syndrome. Long term data Our first PNH patient has now been treated with nomacopan for over five years. Over 35 cumulative patient years of long-term treatment data shows the drug is well tolerated with a marked clinical effect such that 79% of formerly transfusion dependent patients became transfusion independent. OTHER CLINICAL PROGRAMS Akari Therapeutics is also pursuing other earlier stage programs that are primarily focused on large disease areas with high unmet need. For these programs we are using alternative formulations of nomacopan (topical, nebulized or long acting), which provides an opportunity for separate partnering options. Ophthalmology program Ongoing PK studies with PAS-nomacopan, an engineered form of nomacopan with an extended half-life, to estimate injection interval in the back of the eye are ongoing, with data expected by the end of 2021. Recent publications (Eskandarpour et al 2020 and 2021) support a potential therapeutic role for PAS-nomacopan in sight threatening retinal diseases given its inhibition of both complement and VEGF via LTB4. This unique combination may be particularly relevant to dry AMD where complement is a key treatment target and VEGF inhibition may prevent the risk of conversion to wet AMD where VEGF inhibitors are the primary treatment. A recent publication (Sanchez-Tabernero et al 2021) highlights that nomacopan delivered topically in Part A of a Phase I/II study in patients with atopic keratoconjunctivitis had a positive safety profile and was well tolerated. Part B of the study confirmed these findings. The Company is currently exploring options for a Phase II study in the front of the eye. To maximize the potential of nomacopan in the ophthalmology setting, Akari is exploring opportunities to collaborate with partners to accelerate the development of these ophthalmology programs. Lung program Learning from the viral induced mechanisms of COVID-19 pneumonia that involve terminal complement pathway and LTB4 dysregulations we are exploring the development of nomacopan in severe asthma to reduce the use of systemic steroids, and hospital admissions.  This remains an area of unmet medical need where respiratory viral infection still triggers life threatening exacerbations across a range of inflammatory lung conditions. Proposed publication of the Akari sponsored observational study and role of nomacopan in COVID-19 patients is in preparation. Initiation of further studies is subject to optimizing patient selection to align with the findings of the review. Trauma The role of both C5 and LTB4 has been implicated in trauma and Akari is exploring both blast injury and hemorrhagic shock with the USAISR. In addition, a separate new collaborative study in traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage is being initiated. Histamine inhibitor Votucalis is a new histamine inhibitor with a similar structure to nomacopan but a distinct and unique mode of action by binding directly to histamine and thereby preventing the activation of all four histamine G-protein coupled receptors. Ongoing work in collaboration with Durham and Newcastle Universities in the UK is focused on using votucalis to expand the Company's existing dermatology franchise in atopic dermatitis and pain management. In both cases initial skin penetration data indicates a potential opportunity for topical delivery. Second Quarter 2021 Financial Results As of June 30, 2021, the Company had cash of approximately $3.8 million, compared to cash of approximately $14.1 million at December 31, 2020. Following the end of the second quarter, Akari closed a private placement of approximately $12.3 million in gross proceeds by issuing approximately 7.9 million ADSs. Furthermore, Akari received approximately $3 million in annual R&D tax credits from the UK tax authorities. In June 2020, Akari entered into a securities purchase agreement with Aspire Capital Fund, LLC (Aspire Capital) whereby Aspire Capital is committed to purchase up to an aggregate of $30.0 million of the Company's ADSs. During the six months ended June 30, 2021, the Company sold to Aspire Capital ordinary shares for gross proceeds of $2.0 million. As of June 30, 2021, $22.0 million of the original purchase commitment remains available. Research and development expenses for the second quarter 2021 were approximately $2.2 million, as compared to approximately $3.0 million in the same quarter the prior year. This decrease in expenses was primarily due to lower expenses incurred for clinical trials during the year. General and administrative expenses for the second quarter 2021 were approximately $2.1 million, as compared to approximately $2.9 million in the same quarter the prior year. The decrease was primarily due to a one-time non-cash financing expense related to the 2020 Purchase Agreement with Aspire Capital. For the second quarter 2021, total other expense was approximately $16,000 as compared to total other expense of approximately $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2020. This change was primarily due to the accounting reclassification of warrant liabilities to shareholders' equity as of December 2020. Net loss for the second quarter 2021 was approximately $4.3 million, as compared to approximately $7.4 million for the period of 2020. This decrease was primarily due to the aforementioned lower research and development expenses as well as lower total other expense. About Akari Therapeutics Akari is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing inhibitors of acute and chronic inflammation, specifically for the treatment of rare and orphan diseases, in particular those where the complement (C5) or leukotriene (LTB4) systems, or both complement and leukotrienes together, play a primary role in disease progression. Akari's lead drug candidate, nomacopan (formerly known as Coversin), is a C5 complement inhibitor that also independently and specifically inhibits leukotriene B4 (LTB4) activity. Nomacopan is currently being clinically evaluated in four areas: bullous pemphigoid (BP), thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), as well as programs in the eye and lung. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this press release constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You should not place undue reliance upon the Company's forward-looking statements. Except as required by law, the Company undertakes No obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this press release. These forward-looking statements reflect our current views about our plans, intentions, expectations, strategies and prospects, which are based on the information currently available to us and on assumptions we have made. Although we believe that our plans, intentions, expectations, strategies and prospects as reflected in or suggested by those forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that the plans, intentions, expectations or strategies will be attained or achieved. Furthermore, actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors that are beyond our control. Such risks and uncertainties for our company include, but are not limited to: needs for additional capital to fund our operations, our ability to continue as a going concern; uncertainties of cash flows and inability to meet working capital needs; an inability or delay in obtaining required regulatory approvals for Nomacopan and any other product candidates, which may result in unexpected cost expenditures; our ability to obtain orphan drug designation in additional indications; risks inherent in drug development in general; uncertainties in obtaining successful clinical results for Nomacopan and any other product candidates and unexpected costs that may result therefrom; difficulties enrolling patients in our clinical trials; our ability to enter into collaborative, licensing, and other commercial relationships and on terms commercially reasonable to us; failure to realize any value of nomacopan and any other product candidates developed and being developed in light of inherent risks and difficulties involved in successfully bringing product candidates to market; inability to develop new product candidates and support existing product candidates; the approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and any other similar foreign regulatory authorities of other competing or superior products brought to market; risks resulting from unforeseen side effects; risk that the market for nomacopan may not be as large as expected; risks associated with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; inability to obtain, maintain and enforce patents and other intellectual property rights or the unexpected costs associated with such enforcement or litigation; inability to obtain and maintain commercial manufacturing arrangements with third party manufacturers or establish commercial scale manufacturing capabilities; the inability to timely source adequate supply of our active pharmaceutical ingredients from third party manufacturers on whom the company depends; unexpected cost increases and pricing pressures and risks and other risk factors detailed in our public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), including our most recently filed Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the SEC. Except as otherwise noted, these forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of these statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring after this press release. We caution investors not to place considerable reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.     AKARI THERAPEUTICS, Plc   CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETSAs of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020(in U.S. dollars, except share data)                    .....»»

Category: earningsSource: benzinga1 hr. 21 min. ago

Update on Regal Beloit (RBC), Rexnord October Deal Closure

Regal Beloit (RBC) advances on closing its deal with Rexnord. On completion, the combination of Regal Beloit and Rexnord's PMC business will become a major provider of power transmission solutions. Regal Beloit Corporation RBC, on Sep 17, announced an update on its pending deal with Rexnord Corporation RXN. This is the third update so far this month.Before discussing the announcement, it is worth noting here that the deal between the companies was signed in February 2021 and calls for the combination of Regal Beloit’s operations with Rexnord’s Process & Motion Control (“PMC”) segment. The transaction has been valued at $3.69 billion.Regal Beloit’s shares declined 3.18% on Sep 17, closing the trading session at $142.66.Inside the HeadlinesPer the terms agreed upon, Rexnord will initially distribute the shares of Land Newco, Inc. to its shareholders in the form of a pro-rata dividend. Land Newco is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rexnord and is the owner of its PMC business. The record date of the pro-rata dividend is fixed at Sep 29, 2021, and the payment date is set at Oct 4.The above-mentioned process will result in the spin-off of Land Newco. Post this, Regal Beloit will acquire Land Newco in a stock transaction, which, in turn, will become its wholly-owned subsidiary. Also, Regal Beloit will reward its shareholders with a payment of a special cash dividend for which the record date has been set at Oct 1. The payment date for the same has been fixed at Oct 15.As the transaction gets completed, shareholders of Regal Beloit will own their shares and will receive special cash dividend payments. Then again, Rexnord shareholders will own their shares and that of Regal Beloit — obtained as part of the Land Newco stock merger.A brief discussion on earlier announcements is provided below:September announcements: On Sep 13, 2021, the parties involved announced that they anticipate completing the deal on Oct 4. The consummation, however, is still subject to the fulfillment of closing conditions or waiver of the same.Upon completion, Regal Beloit will be renamed as “Regal Rexnord Corporation”, while it will trade on the NYSE under the symbol “RRX”. Rexnord will be known as “Zurn Water Solutions Corporation” and its stock’s trade symbol on the NYSE will be “ZWS”.On Sep 1, 2021, Regal Beloit received shareholders’ approval for the issuance of common shares. Also, the company’s shareholders approved to make changes in the company’s Articles of Incorporation. This will enable it to change its name and increase authorized shares. August announcement: Regal Beloit announced planned changes to its power transmission business, which is subjected to the closing of the above-mentioned deal. The company intends on grouping its power transmission business — including its existing Power Transmission Solutions (“PTS”) segment and Rexnord’s PMC segment — under the Motion Control Solutions (“MCS”) segment. The MCS segment will be led by Kevin J. Zaba and its president, Integration will be Jerry Morton. While Zaba is currently capacitated as the president of PMC, Morton is the current president of PTS. Rationale of the Deal: The transaction is anticipated to boost Regal Beloit’s product line and enhance its position as a major provider of power transmission solutions. The transaction will also strengthen its market presence and shareholder value. As noted, within three years of the completion, the deal is likely to generate cost savings of $120 million for Regal Beloit. Adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization are expected to be $1 billion for 2022.Post the deal completion, Regal Beloit’s shareholders will own 61.4% of the combined entity (“New Regal”), while the rest 38.6% will be owned by Rexnord’s shareholders.Zacks Rank, Estimates and Price PerformanceWith a market capitalization of $5.8 billion, Regal Beloit currently carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). The company anticipates benefiting from strengthening end markets and margin improvements in 2021. It expects adjusted earnings per share of $8.70-$9.00, suggesting growth of 53% (at the mid-point) from the previous year’s reported number. Sales are expected to grow in the high-teens on a year-over-year basis.In the past three months, the company’s shares have gained 9.9% compared with the industry’s growth of 3.6%. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Meanwhile, the Zacks Consensus Estimate for its earnings is pegged at $8.81 for 2021 and $9.85 for 2022, reflecting growth of 12.5% and 13.9% from the respective 60-day-ago figures. Earnings estimates for the third quarter are pegged at $2.34, increasing 21.9% from the 60-day-ago figure.Regal Beloit Corporation Price and Consensus  Regal Beloit Corporation price-consensus-chart | Regal Beloit Corporation QuoteOther Stocks to ConsiderTwo other top-ranked stocks in the industry are SPX FLOW, Inc. FLOW and Eaton Corporation plc ETN. Both companies currently carry a Zacks Rank #2. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.In the past 60 days, earnings estimates for both companies have improved for the current year. Further, earnings surprise in the last reported quarter was 6.78% for SPX FLOW and 10.97% for Eaton. Breakout Biotech Stocks with Triple-Digit Profit Potential The biotech sector is projected to surge beyond $2.4 trillion by 2028 as scientists develop treatments for thousands of diseases. They’re also finding ways to edit the human genome to literally erase our vulnerability to these diseases. Zacks has just released Century of Biology: 7 Biotech Stocks to Buy Right Now to help investors profit from 7 stocks poised for outperformance. Recommendations from previous editions of this report have produced gains of +205%, +258% and +477%. The stocks in this report could perform even better.See these 7 breakthrough stocks now>>Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Eaton Corporation, PLC (ETN): Free Stock Analysis Report Regal Beloit Corporation (RBC): Free Stock Analysis Report SPX FLOW, Inc. (FLOW): Free Stock Analysis Report Rexnord Corporation (RXN): Free Stock Analysis Report To read this article on click here. Zacks Investment Research.....»»

Category: topSource: zacksSep 21st, 2021

Flood and Disaster Disclosures: Law, Precedent and Grades for All 50 States

As more and more climate change-fueled extreme weather events—from historic hurricanes to unexpected summer downpours—affect homes, one issue anyone selling or buying a home needs to be aware of is disclosure. While some states require a seller to expansively detail any history of flood damage, flood zone designation or other natural disaster threats, others have […] The post Flood and Disaster Disclosures: Law, Precedent and Grades for All 50 States appeared first on RISMedia. As more and more climate change-fueled extreme weather events—from historic hurricanes to unexpected summer downpours—affect homes, one issue anyone selling or buying a home needs to be aware of is disclosure. While some states require a seller to expansively detail any history of flood damage, flood zone designation or other natural disaster threats, others have little or no disclosure requirements or provide only vague guidelines on what needs to be disclosed A recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) panel rated all 50 states on the transparency of their flood disclosure policies on a letter grade from “A” for very transparent to “F” for failing to provide adequate policies or guidance. With 21 states receiving an “F” grade, the FEMA panel recommended the creation of a nationwide database of flood events, flood insurance claims and disaster claims. Though most local REALTOR® associations offer a voluntary form which can be provided to clients—all of which include some flood or disaster disclosures—every real estate professional should be aware of the legal requirements and precedents around flood and disaster disclosure in their state. ALABAMA — GRADE: F Alabama has no statutory or regulatory requirements for disclosure of flood risk, federal flood insurance requirements or past flood damages. Sellers must disclose a “material defect or condition that affects health or safety [when] the defect is not known to or readily observable by the buyer,” and a jury found in the 2000 court case Cooper & Co. v. Lester that this applies to “misrepresentations and suppression of material facts” related to flooding. ALASKA — GRADE: C Sellers in Alaska must disclose the flood zone designation and any floods they are aware of on the property, as well as damage caused from “landslide, avalanche, high winds, fire, earthquake or other natural causes.” It also requires that sellers disclose water or leakage in the basement along with frozen pipes or drains. ARIZONA — GRADE: F Arizona state statute requires licensed real estate agents to notify buyers through a written affidavit whether or not the property is on a FEMA-designated floodplain. Arizona also offers a list of other items to disclose, including fissures and environmental hazards affecting, but this report is explicitly not mandatory. Licensed real estate agents must also disclose any water that is a “feature” of the property, and whether it fluctuates “substantially in size or volume.” The in the 2011 court case Barton v. Boesen ruled that a real estate agent and his brokerage could not be held responsible for selling a new house with a defective, regularly leaking foundation because the buyers could not prove he “knew or should have known any information about the construction of the home.” ARKANSAS — GRADE: F Arkansas’s real estate commission explicitly states that no state law requires disclosure of specific information about their property, including floods and natural disasters. However, licensed real estate agents have to make “reasonable efforts” to obtain and disclose information that is “material to the value or desirability” of the property. In the 2011 court case Worley v City of Jonesboro, buyers sued a seller and her brokerage for allegedly understating flooding issues ruled in favor of the seller, with a judge saying that sellers can only be held responsible for nondisclosure in “special circumstances” when they have knowledge a buyer is relying on incorrect or misleading information in a transaction. CALIFORNIA — GRADE: C California has a specific and detailed mandatory form that statutorily requires property sellers to disclose a variety of past damages or potential future hazards, including major flood damage, flood zones, historic forest fire risk and earthquake fault lines. Whether or not a property will require flood insurance does not need to be disclosed. Two new laws passed in 2021 also require sellers to disclose certain fire hazard risks, including any fire hazard zone the property is part of and specific mitigation steps taken to defend against wildfires—everything from ember-resistant roof vents to non-combustible landscaping buffer zones. COLORADO — GRADE: F Real estate brokers are required by the state Department of Regulatory Agencies (DRE) to use state-approved disclosure forms “when appropriate.” While certain disclosures are codified in state law, disaster disclosure—whether a property has been damaged by “hail, wind, fire, flood or other casualty”— is not. The DRE vaguely warns on its website that real estate brokers are “responsible to make all required disclosures to all parties under applicable laws, rules and regulations governing real estate brokers.” In Jehly v. Brown, a 2014 court case involving buyers who were not informed their newly constructed house was built in a floodplain, saw a judge rule in favor of the seller (who did not fill out the disaster disclosure form) despite the fact that the third-party builder of the home knew about the floodplain. CONNECTICUT — GRADE: D Connecticut requires by law that sellers disclose flood hazard and inland wetland designations along with fire and smoke damage, but does not mandate anything regarding past flooding events or damage, or whether flood insurance is required on that property. DELAWARE — GRADE: C Delaware has a mandatory seller disclosure form that includes flood damage, drainage problems and flood zone or wetland designations. Flood insurance, and the current annual premium cost, must also be disclosed when applicable. The state also requires sellers to disclose if the property owner is responsible for repairing nearby streets or sidewalks, and the estimated cost if they are. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA — GRADE: C The district does have a mandatory disclosure form that asks if there are any exterior drainage problems or if there has been previous flood, fire or wind damage to a property. There are no requirements to disclose flood insurance or floodplain designations. FLORIDA — GRADE: F While Florida has no statutory requirements regarding flood or disaster disclosure, courts have sometimes found that sellers can be held liable for not disclosing “facts or conditions about the property that could have a substantial impact on its value or desirability.” In the 1985 court decision in Johnson v. Davis, a seller was held responsible for not disclosing that a window regularly “gushed” water during rainstorms after they had told the buyer leaking issues had been mitigated, with the judge saying that enough omissions or misrepresentations by sellers could “amount to fraud in the legal sense.” On the other hand, a 1997 decision in Nelson v. Wiggs ruled in favor of a seller who had not disclosed regular property flooding, faulting the buyers for not asking questions of the seller or doing their own research. GEORGIA — GRADE: F Georgia has no codified or statutory mandatory disclosures for flooding. A 2010 appeals court ruling in Shaw v. Robertson faulted a homebuyer and their agent after they discovered significant flooding on a newly-purchased property, saying they “failed to act diligently” by doing more research or observing land conditions before making an offer. HAWAII — GRADE: D Sellers in Hawaii must disclose if a property is in a flood hazard area, but not any flood damage or flood insurance requirements. A mandatory form also asks sellers to disclose “material facts” that “are within the knowledge or control of the seller” or “can be observed from visible, accessible areas,” though how and when this would include flood damage or other natural disaster concerns is not defined. IDAHO — GRADE: F Idaho does not have disclosures for flood damage, flood zones or flood insurance, though a mandatory form does ask if there are “specific problems” with drainage or basement water. That form also has a space requiring “legal, physical, or other” disclosures, though it is not clear if flooding would be included. A 1997 court ruling in Enright v. Jonassen held a seller partially responsible after he failed to disclose a floodplain designation after he was asked explicitly by the buyer about additional building restrictions on the property. ILLINOIS — GRADE: C Sellers must disclose in Illinois whether there has been flooding or leaking in a basement, or whether it is located in a flood plain or currently has flood insurance. Sellers must also disclose if the property has “earth stability defects.” Licensed real estate agents must also disclose “latent material adverse facts pertaining to the physical condition of the property that are actually known by the licensee and that could not be discovered by a reasonably diligent inspection,” but cannot be held liable for passing on false information from a client if they did not have “actual knowledge the information was false.” INDIANA — GRADE: C Sellers in Indiana must disclose if there is any damage to the property due to “wind, flood, termites or rodents,” along with floodplain designations and current flood insurance. That mandatory form also includes “hazardous conditions,” including mine shafts or radioactive material on site. IOWA — GRADE: C Iowa does have mandatory disclosures, though how they are presented can vary. A recommended form requires sellers to disclose past flooding, drainage, grading issues, or floodplain designations, along with “water or other problems” in the basement or foundation. Iowa law specifically allows sellers to draw up their own disclosure form as long as it “contain[s] at a minimum the information required by” the recommended form, and complies generally with state statutes. NAR guidance warns that “no particular language is required provided all mandatory items are included” in a disclosure. KANSAS — GRADE: F Kansas generally requires that a seller discloses “[a]ny environmental hazards affecting the property which are required by law to be disclosed.” This does not explicitly mention flooding or any other natural disaster, though according to the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), courts have provided some precedent that sellers can be held responsible for certain material omissions, which might include flooding. In the 2013 court case Stechschulte v. Jennings, which involved a seller who had misrepresented repairs he made to windows—leaving behind a can of paint expressly designed to conceal water damage that buyers discovered—the court ruled the seller could be held liable. The seller’s real estate agent, who was also his fiance could be held liable as well, the court ruled, even though she did not live in the home at the time and claimed she had no direct knowledge of leaks or flooding. KENTUCKY — GRADE: C Kentucky requires mandatory disclosure of “draining, flooding, or grading,” as well as its flood hazard designation and flood insurance. It also requires sellers to disclose nearby bodies of water adjoining the property. Kentucky also sets specific sanctions against licensed real estate agents who do not disclose these things, including revoking licenses and levying fines of up to $1,000. LOUISIANA — GRADE: A As a state that has seen some of the worst flooding disasters in recent memory, Louisiana’s disclosures are extensive. The state’s mandatory disclosure form includes any past “flooding, water intrusion, accumulation or drainage problem” as well as its nature and frequency. This information must be provided for every structure on the property, and explicitly includes the time period before the seller owned the property. Flood designations and hazard zones must be disclosed, and the seller must also provide the source and date for these designations—FEMA flood maps, surveys or other third-party oversight. Whether the property is in a wetland, or even has a pending wetland designation, must also be included in the form. Apart from floods, sellers must also disclose “property damage, including, but not limited to, fire, wind, hail, lightning,” that occurred both before and during the seller’s ownership of the property. MAINE — GRADE: F Maine has no mandatory disclosure form, and state statute simply states that that sellers “shall disclose in a timely manner to a prospective buyer all material defects pertaining to the physical condition of the property of which the seller agent knew or, acting in a reasonable manner, should have known” without mentioning floods. Seller’s agents are “not obligated to discover latent defects in the property,” and cannot be held liable if they pass on false information that was provided by a client. The 1999 court case Kezer v. Mark Stimson Assocs. held that sellers and their agents could not be held liable for failing to disclose neighborhood environmental hazards that had not significantly affected the property in question. MARYLAND — GRADE: D While Maryland does have a mandatory disclosure form, the only flood-related item asks if the property is located in a “flood zone, conservation area, wetland area, [or] Chesapeake Bay critical area.” The form also asks for the disclosure of “material defects,” though whether that applies to flooding or flood damage is not explicit. MASSACHUSETTS — GRADE: F State statute requires that a seller “disclose known material defects in real property” but provides no other guidance on floods and no mandatory form. In 2008, the Massachusetts Supreme Court case Grossman v. Pouy saw a seller leave blank sections on a voluntary disclosure form related to roof and other structural deficiencies when the roof needed to be immediately replaced and walls were filled with mold and rodents. The court in this case found that failure to disclose serious defects that rose to the level of fraud could render sellers liable. MICHIGAN — GRADE: C Michigan does have mandatory disclosures, including for flood insurance, drainage or grading issues, and any “major damage to the property from fire, wind, floods or landslides.” Interestingly, the state explicitly allows counties or towns to add their own additional forms or disclosures, meaning some areas have potentially more stringent flood disclosure requirements for sellers or their agents. MINNESOTA — GRADE: D Though Minnesota does not have a mandatory disclosure form, state statute requires that a licensed real estate agent “disclose to a prospective purchaser all material facts of which the licensee is aware, which could adversely and significantly affect an ordinary purchaser’s use or enjoyment of the property, or any intended use of the property of which the licensee is aware.” According to NAR, this would include flooding or flood damage. Ghost hunters, however, will be disappointed to learn that Minnesota explicitly exempts sellers from disclosing if there was any “perceived paranormal activity” on the property. MISSISSIPPI — GRADE: A Boasting one of the most comprehensive mandatory flood disclosure laws alongside Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, Mississippi requires sellers to detail, including dates and descriptions, of “damage to any portion of the physical structure resulting from fire, windstorm, hail, tornados, hurricane or any other natural disaster.” Additionally, the form asks for any “malfunction or defects” with windows or other infrastructure related to leaking. Flood plan hazard designations, including the FEMA map number must be disclosed, as well as current flood insurance and the price of the current premium. If the property has experienced standing water in the yard for more than 48 yards after a rain, that must also be disclosed. Sellers must also detail any water damage regardless of source or reason, as well as steps taken to remedy those issues. MISSOURI — GRADE: F There are no mandatory flood disclosures or required forms in Missouri. Though licensed real estate agents must “disclose to any customer all adverse material facts actually known or that should have been known by the licensee,” they also “owe no duty to conduct an independent inspection or discover any adverse material facts for the benefit of the customer.” In Keefhaver v. Kimbrell—a 2001 court case in which a buyer accused a seller of understating flood risk and basement leaks—the court ruled in favor of the buyer, even though she had only spent 30 minutes on the property before making an offer and waived her right to an inspection. The buyer was entitled to rely on the seller’s representations, the court ruled, due to their superior knowledge of facts that were “latent and…not easily ascertainable.” MONTANA — GRADE: F Though there are no mandatory forms or disclosures required of sellers, Montana state statute dictates that sellers must disclose “adverse material facts,” and defines those as “a fact that should be recognized by a broker or salesperson as being of enough significance as to affect a person’s decision to enter into a contract to buy or sell real property.” At the same time, a licensed real estate agent must “ascertain all pertinent facts concerning each property in any transaction…so that the licensee may fulfill the obligation to avoid error, exaggeration, misrepresentation or concealment of pertinent facts.” A 2015 court ruling in Rutterud v. Gilbraith stated that that a real estate agent could not be held liable for failing to investigate a mold problem caused by known flooding under that law. NEBRASKA — GRADE: C State law requires sellers to provide a written statement that “substantially” follows the format of a standard disclosure form, which includes whether the property is in a flood hazard zone, a “floodway,” or if there are any “flooding, drainage or grading problems.” The law also requires disclosure of “adverse material facts,” which NAR states would likely include other flood or natural disaster related issues. NEVADA — GRADE: C Nevada requires a mandatory disclosure form for sellers that includes “previous or current moisture conditions and/or water damage,” along with “drainage, flooding, water seepage or high-water table.” Sellers must also disclose floodplain designations, along with “earth stability” and other landslide or earthquake-related issues. NEW HAMPSHIRE — GRADE: F The “Live Free or Die” state unsurprisingly has minimal requirements for seller disclosures around flooding. Real estate agents must disclose “material physical, regulatory, mechanical or on-site environmental condition[s] affecting the subject property of which the licensee has actual knowledge,” but the law explicitly states that it “shall not create an affirmative obligation on the part of the licensee to investigate material defects.” Snierson v. Scruton, a 2000 court Supreme Court Case, ruled that a seller who used a voluntary disclosure form could still be held liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation over septic tank leaching, even though that form “expressly warned that it did not constitute a warranty and was not a substitute for a buyer’s inspection.” The buyer still had to prove, however, that the seller demonstrated “conscious indifference to [the] truth with the intention to cause another to rely upon it.” NEW JERSEY — GRADE: F New Jersey’s code requires licensed real estate agents to provide a disclosure form that includes whether the property has flood or drainage problems or is located in a flood hazard. Agents are also specifically empowered to add or request more disclosures when appropriate, and are exempted from liability if they made a “reasonable and diligent inquiry” to discover if information given to them by a seller was false. There is no requirement that unlicensed sellers provide this disclosure. The 1974 court case Weintraub v. Krobatsch held a seller and their agent responsible for not disclosing a cockroach infestation, which the FEMA panel posited could also apply to non-disclosure of flooding. NEW MEXICO — GRADE: F New Mexico requires licensed agents and brokers to disclose “any adverse material facts actually known by the associate broker or qualifying broker about the property or the transaction,” but makes no mention of flood or disasters and has no mandatory forms. A 1984 court ruling in Gouveia v. Citicorp Person-to-Person Fin. Ctr., Inc. determined a broker could be held liable in a case where a property was listed as “All Top Shape” despite the fact that parts of the home had no foundation, could not be heated and had other major structural deficiencies. In this case, the broker had not even interacted directly with the buyer, but had simply provided a description of the property to an MLS. NEW YORK — GRADE: F New York’s mandatory flood disclosure law has an odd loophole: the penalty for not including the disclosure form is a paltry $500 credit due at closing. Both NAR and FEMA found that many attorneys have advised home sellers to simply pay this penalty rather than disclose potentially deal-sinking information about standing water on the property, historic flooding issues or floodplain designations. A bill currently stalled in the state legislature would repeal the $500 penalty system and add significant new flood disclosure requirements. Simply paying the penalty, however, does not exempt a seller or agent from being held liable for “active concealment of a defect,” according to the 2018 court case Pesce v. Leimsider, in which a seller allegedly concealed water damage during a sale and inspection. Another court case in 2005 (Gabberty v Pisarz) in which a seller withheld information about chronic basement flooding ruled that a buyer can be awarded damages when there is a “willful failure” to disclose these things. NORTH CAROLINA — GRADE: D North Carolina does have a mandatory disclosure form that asks narrowly if the property is “subject to a flood hazard or…located in a federally-designated flood hazard area.” It also asks about water seepage or standing water in the basement, but does not require any disclosures related to flood damage or historic flooding. NORTH DAKOTA — GRADE: C State statute in North Dakota requires significant disclosures around flooding, including whether it was ever damaged by a flood, has drainage issues or is in a flood zone. It also asks whether the property has been “damaged by fire, smoke, wind, floods, hail, snow, frozen pipes or broken water line…condensation or ice buildup,” and requires explanations for those issues. A 1985 court case (Holcomb v. Zinke) also explicitly exempted certain real estate transactions from the “buyer beware” doctrine of common law, ruling that “passive concealment” by a seller could constitute fraud. OHIO — GRADE: C A mandatory Ohio disclosure form asks if there are previous or current water leaks, rain gutter issues, water accumulation, moisture, or other material damage related to flooding or any other water intrusion. Fire or smoke damage is also included, and any mitigation or repairs over the last five years to address these things must also be divulged. It also requires disclosure of historic flooding, as well as if the property is in a designated floodplain or Lake Erie Coastal Erosion Zone. OKLAHOMA — GRADE: A Any seller who has occupied a property in Oklahoma must fill out a mandatory disclosure form and must disclose a variety of specific flood zone designations, flood insurance, historic flooding and interior leakage or drainage issues. They must also disclose “major fire, tornado, hail, earthquake or wind damage.” An additional stipulation requires licensed real estate agents to disclose property defects they know of that are not stated on the seller’s disclosure form, and they can be disciplined by the state if they fail to do so. OREGON — GRADE: C Oregon has a mandatory form that must be proactively delivered to each person that makes an offer on a property. That disclosure includes whether there has been “material damage to the property or any of the structure from fire, wind, floods, beach movements, earthquake, expansive soils or landslides.” There are also questions as to floodplain designation or “geologic hazard zone.” There is no requirement to disclose flood insurance mandates, though the form does advise buyers that any floodplain designation could result in the need for insurance. PENNSYLVANIA — GRADE: C A mandatory form in Pennsylvania asks sellers about leaky roofs, basement leakage or dampness or repairs to mitigate those issues. It also requires floodplain disclosure, as well as past or present flooding issues affecting the property generally. RHODE ISLAND — GRADE: D Rhode Island mandates certain disclosures without providing a form. Among the required information is the vague directive that sellers include “Basement (Seepage, Leaks, Cracks, etc.)” along with “Flood Plain (Flood Insurance)” and  “Fire,” without further defining what any of this means. Location of nearby wetlands, or if the property is on wetlands, must also be disclosed. . A 2003 court ruling in Stebbins v. Wells, involving undisclosed severe erosion on a coastal property, stated that sellers and their agents could be held liable for “passive concealment” in some circumstances and explicitly pushed back against the “buyer beware” doctrine. SOUTH CAROLINA — GRADE: C South Carolina’s mandatory disclosure form includes specific statutory language requiring sellers to report flood problems, flood hazards or designations, all FEMA claims and the dates they were filed, as well as current flood insurance. Fire, smoke or other water “problems” must be divulged as well. It also requires a real estate agent to disclose known “adverse facts” about the property even if the seller omitted them. South Carolina also explicitly allows waiving all these disclosure requirements as long as both parties agree to do so in writing. Certain time-sharing and vacation home plans are also exempt from disclosure. SOUTH DAKOTA — GRADE: C South Dakota has a mandatory disclosure form laid out in state statute that includes “water penetration” issues, standing water on the property, roof leaks and any water damage that was repaired or not repaired. Sellers must also disclose previous flood insurance claims made on the property. TENNESSEE — GRADE: B Tennessee offers a disclosure form that is technically not mandatory, but state statute warns that any real estate transaction must include all items and provisions laid out in that form. Those items and provisions include “flooding, drainage, or grading problems,” flood insurance requirements, and property damage from fire, earthquakes, floods or landslides, as well as if that damage has been repaired. Sellers must also disclose any recent surveys conducted of the property, which could include information about flooding or flood risk. TEXAS — GRADE: A A state that has seen more than its share of flooding and disasters, Texas’s disclosure laws require comprehensive declarations regarding flooding and other adverse natural events. Water damage, fire damage, flooding from a “controlled or emergency release” of a reservoir, or from natural flood event, and six specific floodplain designations must all be disclosed by law. Sellers must also divulge current flood insurance and past flood insurance claims. Additionally, the law explicitly allows a buyer to terminate a contract if the seller does not provide the mandatory disclosures when entering into a purchase agreement. UTAH — GRADE: F With no flood or mandatory disclosure rules, Utah only generally asks real estate agents to divulge “known material facts” regarding “a defect in the property.” A 2002 court case involving a real estate agent who was selling property owned by her husband found that the agent and her brokerage were liable for failing to disclose “chocolate pudding-like” mud that made the land untenable for development. VERMONT — GRADE: F There are no mandatory flood disclosure forms or requirements in Vermont. A state statute regarding “unprofessional conduct” by licensed real estate agents allows the state to discipline those who fail “to fully disclose…all material facts within the licensee’s knowledge concerning the property being sold.” A 1998 court case (Carter v. Gugliuzzi) held a seller’s brokerage responsible for failing to disclose regular dangerous wind on a property, even though the broker was only aware of this fact because he happened to live in the area. VIRGINIA — GRADE: F The FEMA panel excoriated Virginia’s flood disclosure laws as “the opposite of buyer friendly.” While the state does have a mandatory disclosure form, that form explicitly exonerates the seller from disclosing flood-related items and warns the buyer to “exercise whatever due diligence they deem necessary” to learn about flood risks, flooding or flood designations on the property. An update to the relevant statute scheduled to go into effect in 2022 will “make available” a flood information sheet to buyers that speaks generally about flooding and insurance requirements under federal law. In the 2015 court case Devine v. Buki, a seller was held liable for fraudulently lying about leaks and water damage in the foundation of a 200-year-old house, with a judge rescinding the sale and awarding the buyer $100,000 in attorney’s fees. WASHINGTON — GRADE: C Washington’s disclosure rules are applied differently to “improved” residential real estate—properties that have a structure or structures on them—and “unimproved” properties that do not. For both types of properties, sellers must disclose flooding events, material damage from “floods, beach movements, earthquake, expansive soils or landslides” and “shorelines, wetlands, floodplains or critical areas” on the property. “Improved” properties must also include basement flooding events, while “unimproved” properties must specifically disclose federal floodplain designations. WEST VIRGINIA — GRADE: F West Virginia does not even have a state law that generally governs real estate disclosures—though at least two have been introduced by the legislature since 1996. Thacker v. Tyree, a 1982 court case provided some precedent that “defects or conditions which substantially affect the value or habitability of the property” must be disclosed by a seller, and another court case (Darrisaw v. Old Colony Realty Co.) in 1997 applied that doctrine in part to a home with an undivulged “high water problem.” That ruling added that a misrepresentation like this must be proven a “substantial factor in inducing the purchaser to buy the property” in order to hold the seller liable. WISCONSIN — GRADE: D Wisconsin has two mandatory disclosure forms: one for vacant land containing no buildings, and one for property with dwelling units. The form dealing with inhabited structures only asks if the property is in a floodplain, wetland or shoreland zoning area, along with a specific question about basement defects which “may include items such as flooding.” The vacant land disclosure form includes the same floodplain disclosures, but additionally asks if the property has suffered “material damage from fire, wind, flood, earthquake, expansive soil, erosion or landslide,” or if there is “water diversion, water intrusion or other irritants emanating from neighboring property.” WYOMING —GRADE: F With no mandatory form or flood disclosures, licensed real estate agents must still disclose “adverse material facts actually known by the licensee” to buyers, including “material defects in the property and any environmental hazards.” In the 2006 court case Reed v. Cloninger the court stated that buyers could pursue legal claims against real estate agents “for misrepresenting the condition of the property, provided they knew or reasonably should have known of the defect.” Jesse Williams is RISMedia’s associate online editor. Email him your real estate news ideas to The post Flood and Disaster Disclosures: Law, Precedent and Grades for All 50 States appeared first on RISMedia......»»

Category: realestateSource: rismediaSep 21st, 2021

Wabco, ZF receive regulatory approval in China for proposed merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMay 15th, 2020

Evans Bancorp receives regulatory approvals for FSB Bancorp merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallApr 17th, 2020

Raytheon, United Technologies receive regulatory approval to close merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMar 30th, 2020

Goldman, Morgan Stanley receive approvals for majority stakes in China ventures

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley said on Friday they had received the final regulatory approvals to take majority stakes in their China securities joint ventures, as Beijing continues to open its financial sector to foreigners......»»

Category: topSource: reutersMar 27th, 2020

Aircastle receives final regulatory approval in connection with pending merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMar 24th, 2020

Wabco and ZF receive approvals for merger in China

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallMar 24th, 2020

Transat A.T. Inc. - Results for fourth quarter 2019

Fourth quarter and annual results are up;Acquisition of the Corporation is pending regulatory approvals For the fourth quarter: Revenues of $693.2 million. Adjusted operating income1 of $50.9 million (Operating income.....»»

Category: earningsSource: benzingaDec 12th, 2019

Buckeye Partners receives all regulatory approvals for pending acquisition

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallOct 21st, 2019

Centene, WellCare announce five additional approvals for pending merger

See the rest of the story here. provides the latest financial news as it breaks. Known as a leader in market intelligence, The Fl.....»»

Category: blogSource: theflyonthewallOct 18th, 2019

Transat A.T. Inc. - Results for third quarter of 2019

Third quarter results are up;Acquisition of the Corporation is pending regulatory approvals For the third quarter: Revenues of $698.9 million. Adjusted operating income1 of $21.8 million (operating loss of $7.6 million). * Adjusted net income3.....»»

Category: earningsSource: benzingaSep 12th, 2019