Adam Driedger

The Receiver brought an unopposed motion for an order approving a Claims Adjudication Process, appointing a Claims Officer, and approving its Twentieth Report.

The court granted the motion but modified the proposed order to remove limitations on appeal rights and standard of review, noting that such issues remain to be determined by the court hearing any appeal, not by the Claims Officer.

In the receivership of the Bridging Funds, the Receiver brought a motion to determine whether unitholders with Potential Statutory Rescission Claims (based on misrepresentations in offering memoranda) or Potential Redemption Claims (based on unfulfilled redemption requests) were entitled to priority over General Unitholder Claims.

The court held that Potential Redemption Claims were not entitled to priority because the redemption requests had not been completed prior to the receivership.

However, the court held that Potential Statutory Rescission Claims were entitled to priority, finding that the statutory right of rescission under s. 130.1(1) of the Securities Act creates a de facto priority and justifies the imposition of a constructive trust over the invested funds.

The Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its proposed Net Asset Value (NAV) Methodology, the calculation and publication of the 2021 NAV, and the 2022 Permitted Transfers for the Bridging Funds.

The NAV Methodology was developed to facilitate the transfer of units from RRSP to RRIF accounts for unitholders turning 71, as required by the Income Tax Act.

The court found the requested relief appropriate, noting support from Representative Counsel and no opposition from the Ontario Securities Commission or the Canada Revenue Agency.

The motion was granted and the Receiver's Fifteenth Report was approved.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver and manager, brought an unopposed motion in CCAA proceedings for an extension of the stay period, a DIP amendment, approval of a Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP), and approval of the Monitor's Fourth Report.

The court found that the parties were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that the company had sufficient liquidity to maintain operations.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The applicant, acting as receiver for the primary secured creditor, sought the appointment of a receiver and manager over the debtor company.

The debtor company's interim receiver concurrently sought an extension of time to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and approval of its activities.

The court lifted the existing stays of proceedings, appointed the receiver, granted a 45-day extension to file a proposal to avoid automatic bankruptcy, and approved the interim receiver's activities, finding the relief to be just, convenient, and unopposed.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion in the context of CCAA proceedings.

The court approved the activities and conduct of the Monitor as described in the Second Report, finding the requested relief appropriate in the circumstances.

The Receiver brought an unopposed motion for a Claims and Unitholdings Identification Order and for approval of its activities as described in its 12th Report.

The court found the proposed order practical and reasonable to assist the Receiver with the distribution process.

The motion was granted and the Receiver's activities were approved.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving an interim cash distribution of $78 million to the two institutional unitholders in Bridging SMA 2 LP.

The court found it appropriate to make an interim distribution but reduced the amount to $46 million to account for the potential impact of substantively consolidating the various Bridging Funds, an issue that had yet to be determined.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver, brought an unopposed motion in a CCAA proceeding for an Amended and Restated Initial Order.

The requested relief included extending the stay of proceedings, appointing a Chief Restructuring Officer, approving a $2 million debtor-in-possession credit facility, and increasing various court-ordered charges.

The applicant also sought a sealing order for confidential appendices containing individual consultant compensation and sensitive commercial information.

The court granted the motion, finding the relief reasonable and appropriate, and applied the Sherman Estate test to grant the sealing order.

The court-appointed receiver of MJardin Group, Inc. brought a motion for a discharge order to facilitate the transition from receivership proceedings to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The proposed order provided for the receiver's discharge upon the issuance of a CCAA Initial Order, while preserving the receiver's charges.

As the CCAA Initial Order had been granted, the court granted the motion and signed the discharge order.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver of Bridging Finance Inc., brought a creditor-initiated application for an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in respect of the respondent cannabis companies.

The respondents were indebted to the applicant for approximately $178 million and were in default.

The court found that the respondents were debtor companies to which the CCAA applies and granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a monitor, and the approval of administration, DIP lender, and directors' charges.

The Receiver brought a motion to extend the appointment of limited partner advisory committees, approve its activities, and approve a process for appointing Representative Counsel for the Unitholders.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Retail Investors raised concerns about the independence of the proposed appointment process.

The court approved the Receiver's activities and the extension of the committees, but modified the Representative Counsel appointment process to include an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation to the court.

The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving a proposed sale and investment solicitation process (SISP) and authorizing the disclosure of Borrower Information to Qualified Bidders.

The court found that the proposed SISP satisfied the test for approval, as it was fair, transparent, and optimized the chances of securing the best price.

The court also authorized the disclosure of Borrower Information, finding that the best interests of investors could be jeopardized without such disclosure, and noting that all borrower concerns had been resolved and confidentiality obligations would apply to bidders.

The motion was granted.