On 21 December 2021 the Government launched a consultation into the future of insolvency regulation. The changes proposed in the consultation document will have a wide ranging impact on the insolvency profession (and its insurers) with the proposals including: the direct regulation of insolvency firms, the introduction of a single regulatory body with powers to order compensation against insolvency practitioners and firms, a new additional requirements regime, changes to the bond regime and a public register of insolvency practitioners and firms.
This recent interlocutory decision in The Deposit Guarantee Fund for Individuals (" the DGF") v Bank Frick & Co AG ("Bank Frick") & Anor deals another blow to the DGF in its recent attempts to pursue claims in England which allegedly arise following the 2014-15 banking crisis in Ukraine.
Background
The single proceeding model, which is a core tenet in insolvency proceedings, was recently reaffirmed in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings of Bloom Lake in Re Bloom Lake, 2021 QCCS 3402.
The Nortel Networks Corporation saga was unique for the parties, the lawyers and the judges. Judge Gross of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware and I presided over the case in a joint trial that had never occurred before3.
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2021 SCC 30 [Canada North] recently held that courts in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) have the authority to rank super-priority charges ahead of the Crown’s deemed trust claim for unremitted source deductions.
Good faith, honesty, and transparency are the watchwords of Canada’s insolvency regimes. Where a debtor makes a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), but the Court finds that instead of acting in good faith it engaged in self-interested behavior designed to benefit other members of a corporate group, the Court will uphold the BIA’s principles and refuse to sanction the proposal.