Fulltext Search

Cryptocurrency has been recognized as “property” for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Re Quadriga Fintech Solutions Corp. et al.,[1]the first Canadian case of its kind.

  • 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

Federal Bill C-63, which received first reading on October 27, 2017, will amend the eligible financial contracts (EFC) stay safe-harbour where a Canadian financial institution is subject to a resolution procedure under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act(CDIC Act). The amendments will clarify that the limits that apply to relying on the safe-harbour based on insolvency or deteriorated financial condition are limited to two business days unless effective resolution actions have been taken.

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case ofDonnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland (Donnelly) and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond (Dooneen).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.