Fulltext Search

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

  • 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
  • Le règlement mettant en œuvre le régime de « recapitalisation interne (émission) » au soutien de la solvabilité des banques au Canada est entré en vigueur le 23 septembre 2018.
  • Ce régime de recapitalisation interne exige essentiellement des banques qu’elles maintiennent des « fonds propres d’urgence intégrés » sous forme d’obligations pouvant être automatiquement converties en actions si jamais elles cessent d’être viables ou sont sur le point de ne plus l’être.
  • La clé du régime est le concept de capacité totale d’absorption des pertes

Le 1er mars 2018, la Société d’assurance-dépôts du Canada (la « SADC ») a publié la mise à jour de son document d’orientation intitulé Droits de résiliation de contrats financiers admissibles en situation de règlement de failliteCe nouveau document d’orientation reflète les modifications apportées aux dispositions de la 

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)