Andrew Harmes

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceeding, the applicant Hudson's Bay Company ULC and related entities sought approval of an Art Collection Auction Process Order to authorize the auction of artwork and artifacts held by the company.

The court approved the proposed auction procedures, which included both live and online auction components.

The court noted that certain items were excluded from the auction, including the Royal Charter, artifacts previously donated to the Manitoba Museum, the company's reference collection donated to the Archives of Manitoba, and war memorials.

Additionally, 24 artifacts believed to be of Indigenous origin or representative of Indigenous culture were excluded from the auction and would be donated to appropriate custodians in consultation with Indigenous communities.

The court found that the proposed procedures satisfied the applicable legal tests and represented the most appropriate process for disposing of the art collection while balancing the interests of creditors with cultural and historical considerations.

This endorsement grants an unopposed application by RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust and related entities for the appointment of FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver over the assets of the RioCan-HBC joint venture entities.

The court reviews the legal test for appointing a receiver under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, referencing relevant case law and statutory factors.

The receivership is found to be just and convenient in light of the joint venture’s financial distress, the failure of restructuring efforts, and the need to preserve and maximize value for stakeholders.

The order authorizes the receiver to borrow up to $20 million and provides for allocation of costs and a mechanism for secured lenders to terminate the receivership as to their collateral.

The Applicants, a group of Hudson’s Bay Company entities, sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and authorization to make certain distributions to secured creditors.

The Court granted both orders, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that the proposed distributions were appropriate in the circumstances.

The decision addresses concerns raised by RioCan regarding the timing of distributions in light of the Neiman Marcus Transaction, but concludes that the distributions should proceed.

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This decision grants a Confirmation Recognition and Termination Order in respect of Mitel Networks Corporation’s cross-border restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

The Court recognizes and enforces the US Confirmation Order, approves the restructuring plan, and terminates the Canadian recognition proceedings, finding the plan fair, reasonable, and consistent with Canadian public policy.

This endorsement concerns an unopposed motion by Yellow Corporation, as Foreign Representative, seeking recognition and enforcement in Canada of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order approving the termination of certain Canadian real property leases (the "Reimer Leases") as part of cross-border insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court finds the negotiated lease termination agreement to be fair and reasonable, maximizes value for the debtors, and grants the requested relief, including recognition of the U.S. order and authorization for related asset transfers.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.

Yellow Corporation, as Foreign Representative for its affiliates (including Canadian Debtors), brought a motion for recognition and enforcement of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order (the "Lienholder Rolling Stock Settlement Order").

This U.S. order approved settlement agreements with possessory lienholders regarding rolling stock assets, which resulted in a waiver or reduction of claims against the Debtors' estates in exchange for surrendering title of the assets.

The motion was unopposed and supported by the Information Officer.

The court granted the recognition order, finding it fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and beneficial to the Debtors and stakeholders, consistent with principles of comity and cooperation in cross-border insolvency.

The Foreign Representative, Yellow Corporation, brought an unopposed motion under the CCAA for a Fifth Supplemental Order recognizing and enforcing three orders granted by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chapter 11 proceedings.

The orders authorized the abandonment and destruction of certain documents, compelled specific performance of an asset purchase agreement, and authorized the assumption of certain unexpired leases.

The court found it appropriate to grant the requested relief and recognize the U.S. Orders in Canada.

Yellow Corporation, as Foreign Representative for itself and its Canadian affiliates (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 49 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to recognize and enforce various orders (U.S. Orders) issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in their Chapter 11 proceedings.

The motion, which was unopposed, sought to preserve the value of the Canadian Debtors and business during the wind-down and sale efforts.

The court granted the motion, finding it necessary for the protection of the debtors' property and creditors' interests, and consistent with principles of comity and public policy.

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

The applicant had commenced Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States and sought the interim stay pending the First Day Hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

The court granted the interim stay, finding it within its jurisdiction, consistent with principles of comity, and necessary to preserve the value of the Canadian business during the company's wind-down efforts.

Paladin Labs Inc., as foreign representative for itself and Paladin Labs Canadian Holding Inc. (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for recognition and enforcement of two orders granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court in their Chapter 11 cases: a Bidding Procedures Order and a Bar Date Order.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was consistent with principles of comity and Canadian public policy, and would enable the Canadian Debtors to proceed with the sale process to maximize asset value and ascertain claims.

The Applicants, Nordstrom Canada Retail, Inc. and related entities, sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order (AIRO) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The motion, unopposed and supported by the Monitor, requested an extension of the stay period, approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) and its associated charge, and increases to the Administration and Directors' Charges.

The court granted the AIRO, finding the stay extension appropriate given the applicants' good faith and diligence in pursuing an orderly wind-down, the KERP reasonable and necessary for restructuring, and the charge increases modest and well-supported.

The Foreign Representative brought a motion under section 49 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act for an order recognizing and enforcing several additional orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court in Chapter 11 proceedings.

The Information Officer supported the motion, noting the integrated nature of the operations and the equal treatment of Canadian and US stakeholders.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was appropriate to preserve the value of the Canadian debtors, enable continued operations, and ensure judicial comity.

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, Sherritt International Corporation, sought final approval of a plan of arrangement under section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act to restructure its debt.

The application was opposed by two term lenders, who argued that their term loan was not a 'security' capable of arrangement, that they were unfairly grouped in the same voting class as unsecured noteholders, and that the plan was substantively unfair.

The Superior Court of Justice rejected these arguments, finding that the term loan fell within the statutory definition of a debt obligation, that the voting classification was appropriate given the shared unsecured nature of the claims, and that the plan was fair and reasonable.

The court approved the plan of arrangement, while also providing a detailed critique of the limitations and lack of independence of the fairness opinion submitted by the applicant.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay $874,107.08 to the responding party.

The funds had been mistakenly paid to the moving party by a third-party customer of the responding party.

The moving party argued it was entitled to retain the funds as a set-off against debts owed by the responding party, who was under CCAA protection.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious because set-off did not constitute a juristic reason to retain mistakenly paid funds under the unjust enrichment framework.