In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings, the debtor sought approval of short‑term bridge financing pending a larger DIP financing facility.
Competing bridge financing proposals were advanced by an existing lender and by noteholders.
The court approved the debtor’s preferred proposal despite it being more expensive, holding that the board’s decision was protected by the business judgment rule and was supported by the debtor’s financial advisor and the monitor.
A cross‑motion by noteholders seeking revisions to the DIP auction procedures and exemption from signing a non‑disclosure agreement was largely dismissed, though the deadline for qualification as a bidder was briefly extended.
