Adam Gotfried

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.

In the receivership proceedings of Bridging Finance Inc. and related entities, the Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), a tolling order for limitation periods, a sealing order for confidential appendices, and the formation of Limited Partner Advisory Committees (LPACs).

An Ad Hoc Group of Retail Investors brought a cross-motion seeking the appointment of Representative Counsel.

The court granted the Receiver's requests, finding the KERP necessary, the sealing order justified under the Sherman Estate test, and the LPACs appropriate for providing input during the strategic review.

The court time-limited the LPACs to 60 days and dismissed the motion for Representative Counsel with leave to reassess in 60 days, prioritizing the portfolio review before addressing allocation issues.

The applicant sought an order rectifying a series of corporate transactions carried out in December 2007 to allow it to realize a tax loss of approximately $168 million to offset foreign exchange gains.

The Canada Revenue Agency had reassessed the applicant, disallowing the loss on the basis that the dissolution of a partnership was effected on a tax-deferred rollover basis under s. 98(5) of the Income Tax Act.

The court granted the application, finding that the parties had a continuing specific intention to carry out the transactions to create a tax loss, and that the failure to avoid the application of s. 98(5) was a mistake.

A motion by the applicant to amend its notice of application was dismissed as unnecessary.