The collapse of the Urbancorp group of companies has provided an opportunity for an unusual interplay of bankruptcy proceedings between Canada and Israel. The courts in both countries have had to address issues and demonstrate significant judicial cooperation between two countries with vastly different legal systems. This article provides a brief background around the companies and touches on three of the orders that are of interest to practitioners from an international perspective.

The Urbancorp group was a real estate development company in the Greater Toronto area. Alan Saskin was the directing mind of the group, which he founded in the early 1990s. As is typical in the real estate industry, each project had its own company. Eventually, in 2015, as the cash flows of the group became more challenging, Saskin incorporated a new company, Urbancorp Inc. (UCI), an Ontario corporation. UCI was to become the new parent company for many of the companies in the group. UCI would generate cash through a public bond-raising in Israel. The bond-raising appeared to be successful and generated approximately CAD$64 million in December 2015.

The new safe harbour from insolvent trading is the most significant change to corporate insolvency law in Australia since the introduction of voluntary administration in 1993. Before the reform was enacted, directors of insolvent companies were effectively mandated to appoint a voluntary administrator. The new safe harbour encourages directors to attempt an informal turnaround upon insolvency rather than immediately appointing a voluntary administrator or liquidator.

Background: Insolvent Trading Prohibition and Voluntary Administration

Australia has developed a formal insolvency regime that is creditor-centric, and through voluntary administration the control of corporate insolvency is given to specialist insolvency practitioners. In stark contrast to a debtor-in-possession system, the voluntary administrator assumes the powers of directors and is required by statute to act in the best interests of creditors if the business cannot be salvaged. After five weeks of voluntary administration, the creditors decide on whether to accept a compromise offer or place the company into liquidation. Liquidation results in the termination of the business, the destruction of any remaining goodwill and a fire sale of assets.

At this year's Annual Spring Meeting in Washington, D.C., the Consumer Bankruptcy Committee paired with the Ethics & Professional Compensation Committee to host a session titled Blurring the Lines: The Advent and Ethics of Multidisciplinary Practice. Speakers for this session included: 

• Jerry Henechowicz - MNP Ltd.; Toronto
• James Horgan - PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Edison, NJ
• Annerose Tashiro - Schultze & Braun GmbH; Achern, Germany
• Ian G. Williams - RSM Restructuring; London

Laura Davis Jones (Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP; Wilmington, Del.), Debra A. Dandeneau (Baker & McKenzie; New York), Patrice Benoit (Gowling WLG; Montreal), E. Patrick Shea (Gowling WLG; Toronto) and Robert J. Keach (Bernstein Shur; Portland, Maine) (l-r) presented an excellent panel on cross-border issues involved in mass tort and mass disaster cases during the INSOL Americas Conference in New York. The panelists were principals in the Takata airbag liability bankruptcy case and the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway derailment cases in the U.S. and Canada.