Company: EMICF
Filing Date: 2025-09-30
Form Type: 424B2
Source: 0000950103-25-012565
Chunk: 21

Company: EMERA INC
Filing Date: 2025-09-30
Form: 424B2
Chunk 21
---
, preferences, transfers at undervalue or on other grounds under applicable
Canadian federal or provincial law. Payments made to the holders of the Notes may be required to be returned or the Guarantees may be
avoided or set aside under Canadian federal or provincial legislation if it is judicially determined that, among other things:

| · | at the time of the payment or of the making of the Guarantee, the payor or Guarantor, as the case may                                       
 be, was insolvent and the payment had the effect of or was given with a view to giving a preference to, or conferred a fraudulent or unjust 
 preference on, the recipient or another Guarantor;                                                                                          |

| · | the payment or making of the Guarantee was a transfer at undervalue and at the time of the repayment or                               
 the making of the Guarantee the payor or the Guarantor, as the case may be, was insolvent or was rendered insolvent by the payment or 
 the making of the Guarantee;                                                                                                          |

| · | the payment or making of the Guarantee was intended to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors; or |

| · | the payment or making of the Guarantee was oppressive to creditors. |

The measure of insolvency
for purposes of these fraudulent transfer laws will vary depending upon the law applied in any proceeding to determine whether a fraudulent
transfer has occurred. Generally, however, a guarantor would be considered insolvent if:

| · | the sum of its debts, including contingent liabilities, was greater than the fair saleable value of all 
 of its assets;                                                                                          |

| · | the present fair saleable value of its assets was less than the amount that would be required to pay its           
 probable liability on its existing debts, including contingent liabilities, as they become absolute and mature; or |

| · | it could not pay its debts as they become due. |

<div align='center'>S-11</div>

We cannot be sure as to the
standards that a court would use to determine whether or not each Guarantor was solvent at the relevant time, or, regardless of the standard
that the court uses, that the issuance of each Guarantee of the Notes would not be voided or each Guarantee of the Notes would not be
subordinated to each Guarantor’s other debt.

If a Guarantee were legally
challenged, such Guarantee could also be subject to the claim that, since the Guarantee was incurred for the Issuer’s benefit, and
only indirectly for the