On July 28, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its decision in Canada v Canada North Group Inc.^[1] (2021 SCC 30) confirming that court-ordered super-priority charges ("Priming Charges") granted pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrang

Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.

Some further important guidance by Zacaroli J in the recent judgment on Hurricane Energy. In that case, the company (with the support of the company's ad hoc committee of bond holders who were going to take 95% of the equity under the plan in return for certain adjustments to the bonds) sought to cram down the class of dissenting shareholders through a restructuring plan ("plan").

An important judgment by Snowden J yesterday, sanctioning Virgin Active's restructuring plans after a contested sanction hearing, which included a cram down of several landlord classes that did not approve the plans by the requisite majorities in those classes.

The decision is important as among the many points covered, it considers certain key issues including:

An important judgment handed down by Zacaroli J yesterday in the New Look CVA challenge. The New Look CVA proposal involved treating landlords of different leases in various different ways, including (i) resetting rent to a turnover percentage (ii) keeping rent intact and (iii) reducing rent to nil. Landlords are given the flexibility to terminate leases within a prescribed period where they identify a tenant prepared to pay better rent (important to ensure the landlord's proprietary right is not interfered with). In a CVA, all unsecured creditors are invited to vote.

The UK's accession to the Lugano Convention has become somewhat politicised, with the EU stating that it is not minded to allow the UK to accede, as that will then set a precedent for other third party states.

This will impact certain UK restructuring tools.

Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 regulations come into force on 26 March 2021 extending the duration of COVID-19 related temporary measures, including:

Some interesting recent scheme and plan law of late, proving that schemes and plans continue to be popular restructuring tools for all types of companies and international groups.

DeepOcean companies (Part 26A plans) – January 2021

This was the first time that the court had to consider the application of the new ‘cross-class cram down’ procedure under Part 26A. Trower J approved the plans proposed by three DeepOcean companies but had reserved judgment and in late January handed down a written judgment with important guidance for future plans.

Another interesting case on schemes around the issue of insolvency. A judgment handed down yesterday by Snowden J in MAB Leasing Limited (a Malaysia Airlines leasing company) "parked" the issue of whether a Part 26 scheme (note, not a Part 26A plan) was an insolvency related event under the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol, as there was unanimous creditor consent. At the earlier convening hearing, Zacaroli J, without needing to decide the issue, stated that the company counsel's skeleton provided a "powerful case for concluding that the [Cape Town Convention] did not apply".

Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.