Alex MacFarlane

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (the Applicants) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a going concern transaction for Pride Group Logistics (PGL), a distinct business line.

The proposed purchasers included principals of the Applicants, leading the Court-appointed Monitor to undertake negotiations and carriage of the motion.

The Monitor, supported by the Applicants, their directors, employees, and some financiers (Daimler, Mitsubishi, Finloc, National Bank), recommended approval, arguing it offered a higher recovery than liquidation, preserved approximately 500 jobs, and avoided significant wind-down costs for the broader Pride Entities.

The transaction was opposed by certain secured lenders, including The Bank of Nova Scotia, The Lending Syndicate, TD Equipment Finance Canada, and RBC entities, who preferred a wind-down.

The court applied the factors under CCAA s. 36(3) and the Soundair Principles, finding the sale process reasonable, fair, and transparent.

The court concluded that the transaction was the only viable going concern option, superior to a wind-down, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose of avoiding social and economic losses from liquidation.

The PGL Going Concern Transaction was approved.

This endorsement addresses motions related to a proposed recapitalization transaction of Xplore Inc. and 16029167 Canada Inc. via a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA).

The applicants sought an Interim Order to facilitate a vote on the arrangement, while certain satellite providers (unsecured creditors) brought 'comeback motions' objecting to the preliminary interim order's stay of remedies and the proposed treatment of their contracts, including non-payment of full contractual rates and the use of a reverse vesting order.

The court granted the Interim Order, finding that the applicants met the statutory requirements and acted in good faith, and that the fairness of the arrangement, including the novel reverse vesting order, warranted a full fairness hearing.

The court upheld the stay, finding the non-disclosure by applicants not material and that the court has broad discretion to impose terms on critical suppliers, drawing analogies to CCAA provisions.

The satellite providers' requests for full contractual payments and security were denied, and their motion to lift the stay for a bankruptcy application was adjourned.

The Moving Parties (First Nations and Municipalities) sought to stay the implementation of a $150 million settlement between Purdue Canada and Canadian Governments, arguing it might be unlawful, prejudicial, preferential, or an abuse of process, and sought financial disclosure from Purdue Canada.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked a basis to compel disclosure or stay the settlement.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction over Purdue Canada was limited to the CCAA recognition proceedings, not general supervision, and found no evidence of bad faith or insolvency to warrant the requested orders.

This application sought recognition of US Chapter 11 proceedings for Hornblower Group, Inc. and its affiliates (including Canadian Debtors) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicant requested orders declaring Hornblower Group as a foreign representative, recognizing the US proceedings as a foreign main proceeding, granting a stay of proceedings in Canada, recognizing US First Day Orders, appointing an information officer, and granting administration, debtor-in-possession (DIP), and directors' and officers' (D&O) charges.

The court granted all requested relief, finding that the Canadian Debtors' centre of main interests (COMI) was in the US, rebutting the statutory presumption, and emphasizing the importance of comity and coordination in cross-border insolvency.

The applicant, Hornblower Group, Inc., sought an interim stay of proceedings in Canada under Part IV of the CCAA and section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The stay was requested in connection with Chapter 11 proceedings commenced by the applicant and its affiliates in the United States.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant the stay, noting it was consistent with principles of comity and cooperation, and granted the interim stay to preserve the value of the Canadian business during the restructuring.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

Hazleton Development Corporation, an insolvent company constructing a condominium complex, applied for an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The application sought a stay of proceedings, approval of Grant Thornton Limited as Monitor, permission for pre-filing payments to critical trades, approval of a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) financing facility, an administration charge, and a directors’ charge.

The court granted the initial order, finding the company met the CCAA's statutory requirements, the stay was appropriate for a 10-day period, the Monitor was qualified, pre-filing payments were beneficial to stakeholders, the DIP facility was essential and reasonably necessary, and both the administration and directors’ charges were warranted.

The order was granted without prejudice to the secured creditors' rights for a subsequent hearing.

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings seeking the appointment of a Chief Redevelopment Officer, an increase in the fee cap for the Board of Governors' independent counsel, and approval of a claims process.

The court approved the appointment of the CRO and the fee increase.

Regarding the claims process, TD Bank proposed amendments to require consultation on claims over $5 million.

Balancing the need for efficiency with creditor involvement, the court modified the claims process to establish an 'Inspector Group' to authorize the compromise of material claims, drawing on principles from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The plaintiffs brought a bankruptcy application against the defendant for an alleged indebtedness of approximately US$32.4 million for unpaid wholesale apparel.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss the application, arguing there was a bona fide dispute over the debt due to the plaintiffs' alleged breaches of a Master Sourcing Agreement, which contained an exclusive forum clause designating New York courts.

The court found a bona fide dispute existed and that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the contractual claims due to the forum selection clause.

The bankruptcy application was stayed on terms, including a requirement for the defendant to pay funds into court, pending the resolution of the New York proceeding.

This motion concerned the winding-up of Maple Bank GmbH.

The Liquidator sought approval for a Fourth Interim Distribution, a reduction in the reserve held, and approval of the Fourteenth Report of the Liquidator and its activities.

Additionally, the Liquidator sought approval for a Data Custodian Order.

There was no opposition to the requested relief, with Canada Revenue Agency's pending claim being addressed by a maintained reserve.

The court granted the motion, approving the distribution, the reduction in reserve, the Liquidator's report and activities, and the Data Custodian Order.

The Bondfield Group, a major construction company, sought CCAA protection due to insolvency, over $1 billion in active contracts, and over 200 lawsuits.

The application was unopposed and resulted from extensive stakeholder negotiations.

The court granted an initial order for CCAA protection, including a stay of proceedings, approval of a tailored $8 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility funded by Zurich Insurance, an Administration Charge for professional fees, and a Directors' Charge for $3 million (excluding John Aquino).

The court emphasized the public interest in completing critical infrastructure projects and the preference for CCAA over receivership to preserve enterprise value.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH's Canadian business sought an interim distribution of surplus funds to the German Insolvency Administrator (GIA) during winding-up proceedings.

The motion was unopposed.

The court approved the interim distribution, finding it appropriate given that adequate reserves were established to cover all proven and potential claims, ensuring no prejudice to Canadian creditors.

The court emphasized a broad, flexible interpretation of insolvency legislation and the policy of assisting foreign insolvency proceedings.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH brought a motion seeking approval of a Settlement Agreement and a Sale Transaction with the Bank of Montreal, as well as an order sealing a Confidential Supplement containing unredacted transaction details.

The court applied the Soundair principles and the Sierra Club test, finding the settlement and sale to be fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the estate.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect commercially sensitive information that could prejudice ongoing negotiations with other parties.

The motion was granted on consent.

The plaintiffs and the Trustee/Receiver sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion and the dismissal of the respondent's cross-motion.

The court found that the respondent's conduct, which included an attempt to circumvent a settlement release and making serious, unsubstantiated allegations against the Trustee/Receiver and opposing counsel, constituted an abuse of process.

Applying the principle that reprehensible or outrageous conduct warrants elevated costs, the court awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs were awarded $35,668.06 and the Trustee/Receiver was awarded $14,197.79.

The Proposal Trustee sought court approval for the proposals of Wasaya Airways Leasing Ltd. (WALL) and the joint proposal of Wasaya Airways Limited Partnership (WALP) and Wasaya General Partner Limited (WGPL).

The court considered the appropriateness of a joint proposal for related corporations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), noting the lack of specific BIA provisions but relying on prior judicial interpretations.

The proposals, which offered unsecured creditors a better outcome than bankruptcy, were overwhelmingly approved by creditors.

The court found the proposals reasonable, beneficial to creditors, and made in good faith, also acknowledging the public interest in the debtors' essential services to remote First Nations communities.

Honeywell brought a motion in Comstock's CCAA proceedings seeking an order directing Comstock to disclaim a subcontract or, alternatively, lifting the stay of proceedings to allow Honeywell to terminate the subcontract.

Comstock had ceased performance on the construction project and stopped paying Honeywell.

The court held it could not force a disclaimer under section 32 of the CCAA without the Monitor's approval.

However, because Comstock was no longer actively involved in the project and it would not form part of the restructuring, the court lifted the stay of proceedings to allow Honeywell to pursue its options.

The applicants sought continuation of insolvency proceedings from a Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act into proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court considered whether the statutory requirements for continuation were satisfied and whether interim restructuring relief, including DIP financing, priority charges, and a stay of proceedings, should be granted.

The court found the debtor companies were insolvent and that continuation under the CCAA would stabilize operations, preserve employment, and maximize recovery for stakeholders.

The court approved DIP financing with a super‑priority charge, granted administration and director charges, authorized payment of critical suppliers, and ordered substituted service and sealing of confidential financial information.

The applicant debtor sought an urgent order appointing an interim receiver under s. 47.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act during a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal proceeding.

The motion requested authority for the interim receiver to borrow up to $1.5 million on a super‑priority basis to fund payroll and contractor obligations in order to maintain business operations.

The court held that the appointment was necessary to protect the debtor’s estate and the interests of creditors.

It further concluded that a super‑priority borrowing charge was appropriate despite the absence of explicit statutory authority for such financing in relation to interim receivers, relying on the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The charges were granted with priority over construction lien and trust claims to avoid operational shutdown and preserve restructuring prospects.

Recognition proceedings were brought under the cross‑border insolvency provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act concerning a foreign main liquidation proceeding in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.

Multiple parties asserted competing claims to approximately $4 million in assets held by a Canadian financial institution.

Motions were pending regarding whether a stay of proceedings should be lifted or modified to permit bankruptcy proceedings in Canada or enforcement of claimed interests.

The court held there was insufficient time to fully argue the issues and maintained the existing interim stay and related orders to preserve the status quo pending a full hearing.

The endorsement emphasized that the interim directions were not intended to interfere with the foreign main proceeding.

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.