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

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case