This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.
Cette importante décision prononcée dernièrement par la Cour suprême du Canada confirme : (i) que le juge chargé d’appliquer la LACC possède un vaste pouvoir discrétionnaire et la compétence nécessaire pour empêcher un créancier de voter sur un plan d’arrangement s’il agit dans un but illégitime, (ii) que le financement de litiges n’est pas intrinsèquement illégal et qu’un accord de financement de litige peut être approuvé par la Cour à titre de financement temporaire en situation d’insolvabilité.
This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.
In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) has suspended regular operations at all of its locations from March 19th, 2020 to May 29th, 2020 (the “Suspension Period”).[1] In an effort to balance the seriousness of the situation with the principles of open courts and timely access to justice, the Court continues to hear certain “urgen
With legislation, regulation, jurisprudence and practice evolving continually and rapidly, the need to stay current is more pressing than ever.
As we moved into the new year, we prepared a summary of the main trends in Canadian litigation, grouped into three categories:
- cannabis-related,
- class action, and
- energy sector litigation.
The first two will be felt nationally; the last is more focused on Alberta.
Cannabis-related Litigation
In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?
Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?
- On November 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) reversed the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Callidus Capital Corporation v.
- Dans son arrêt du 8 novembre 2018, la Cour suprême du Canada a infirmé la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale (Callidus Capital Corporation c.
- Draft regulations implementing Canada’s “bail-in” solvency support regime for banks came into effect on September 23, 2018.
- The bail-in regime essentially requires that banks maintain “embedded contingent capital” in the form of bonds that convert automatically to equity in the event that the issuing bank has ceased or is about to cease to be viable.
- Key to the regime is the concept of “total loss-absorbing capacity”, or TLAC, which is the amount of embedded contingent capital that a bank will now be required to maintain (on a consolidated basis).
- As discussed b