50 total
Motion for proprietary interest in HBC historical assets and $30 million restitution dismissed for lack of evidence.
Robert Rene Turpin brought a motion within the CCAA proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) seeking a declaration of a proprietary interest in the HBC Charter and historical assets, a $30 million restitution order, and a stay of the distribution of Hardship Funds and the auction of HBC assets.
He claimed a 10-generation lineage to ancestors who allegedly held land in the Red River Settlement.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the archival records relied upon by the moving party documented employment relationships, not property ownership.
The court held that the moving party failed to meet the evidentiary burden to establish a proprietary claim and that the Monitor had no duty to investigate unsubstantiated historical assertions.
Blanket request for written-only hearings as disability accommodation denied; specific proprietary claims motion directed in writing.
A self-represented litigant in a complex CCAA proceeding brought a motion requesting that all proceedings involving him be conducted entirely in writing as an accommodation for his documented disabilities (ASD, ADHD, and Dyslexia).
The court balanced the litigant's accommodation needs against the rights of other stakeholders and the need for real-time litigation in restructuring proceedings.
The court denied the blanket request for all future hearings to be in writing, finding it would cause undue hardship and prejudice to other parties.
However, the court directed that the litigant's specific motion regarding his proprietary claims to certain assets proceed entirely in writing, subject to a strict timetable.
Commercial landlords awarded partial indemnity costs for successfully opposing lease assignments in CCAA proceedings, with payment deferred.
The Opposing Landlords sought costs after successfully opposing the debtor Applicants' motion to assign 25 commercial leases to a third party in a CCAA proceeding.
The court found that the dispute was a classic adversarial proceeding, entitling the successful landlords to costs.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the landlords, including additional costs to Ivanhoe Cambridge for opposing ipso facto relief.
However, the court deferred payment of the costs until the end of the CCAA proceeding to avoid unfairly prejudicing the secured creditors' collateral before priorities are finally determined.
The court approved the unopposed auction procedures for the disposition of the debtor's corporate art collection.
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.
The court approved lease assignments, extended the stay, and granted a sealing order under CCAA.
In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.
The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.
The court appointed a receiver over a commercial real estate joint venture to preserve stakeholder value.
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 court approved the sale of Hudson's Bay's intellectual property to Canadian Tire under the CCAA.
This decision approves four orders sought by the Applicants under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA): (1) approval of an asset purchase agreement (APA) with Canadian Tire Corporation for the sale of Hudson’s Bay’s intellectual property; (2) a sealing order for the confidential appendix summarizing bids; (3) termination of the stay of proceedings and CCAA proceedings for certain entities, concurrent with the appointment of a receiver; and (4) a declaration under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) to assist terminated employees.
The Court found the sale process fair and transparent, the consideration reasonable, and the relief unopposed and supported by the Monitor.
The Court granted the applicants' motion to extend the CCAA stay of proceedings and authorized interim distributions to secured creditors.
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 court appointed an independent evaluator for representative counsel and approved a separate art auction.
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.
The court declined to approve a restructuring framework agreement that would grant secured lenders inappropriate veto rights over the debtor's assets.
The Applicants sought approval of a Restructuring Framework Agreement (RFA) in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
The Court declined to approve the RFA, finding it neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.
The decision details the reasons for refusing approval, including concerns about the appropriateness of granting control and veto rights to the Lenders, the lack of disclosure of the Budget, and the sufficiency of existing court and Monitor oversight.
The Court also set out directions for ongoing cash flow monitoring and reporting by the Monitor.
Stay granted decision
This decision concerns the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities.
The Court addresses the extension of the stay of proceedings, approval of a liquidation sale, lease monetization process, and a sales and investment solicitation process (SISP).
The Court also considers the repayment of the DIP facility, approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), and a sealing order for confidential employee information.
The Court grants most of the relief sought, defers approval of the Restructuring Support Agreement to allow further stakeholder review, and provides detailed reasons for each order.
The court granted an unopposed extension of the CCAA stay of proceedings, increased the Directors' Charge, and approved a financial advisor's engagement.
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.
The court granted an initial CCAA order to Hudson's Bay Company, including a stay of proceedings, DIP financing, and a co-tenancy stay.
This decision grants initial relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, including a stay of proceedings, approval of DIP financing, and various charges to facilitate restructuring.
The court reviews the history and financial distress of Hudson’s Bay, the legal standards for CCAA relief, and the appropriateness of extending the stay to non-applicant parties and co-tenants.
The judgment also addresses the maintenance of the cash management system, appointment of a monitor, and the criteria for administration and directors’ charges.
The court finds the relief sought is necessary and appropriate to stabilize operations and maximize value for stakeholders during the initial stay period.
The court declined to compel securitization parties to fund a CCAA wind-down, finding section 11.01(b) prohibits ordering new money advances.
The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought a Funding Contribution and Turn-Over Order to compel various financiers to contribute to a $40 million wind-down cost, an extension of the stay period, and approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP).
The court declined the Funding Order and KERP, finding that CCAA section 11.01(b) prohibits compelling new money advances from stakeholders, and that securitization parties are differently situated with assets excluded from the debtor's property.
The court did grant a shorter extension of the stay of proceedings.
The court approved a Reverse Vesting Order and third-party releases for a consensual CCAA restructuring.
Tacora Resources Inc. brought a motion for an Approval and Reverse Vesting Order (RVO) and associated third-party releases under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
The RVO was sought in respect of a Subscription Agreement with a group of investors, including certain noteholders and Cargill, Incorporated, aimed at deleveraging Tacora's capital structure and preserving it as a going concern.
The court granted the RVO and approved the broad third-party releases, finding them necessary to preserve valuable permits, licenses, and tax attributes, and that the transaction represented the best available outcome for all stakeholders, particularly given the lack of opposition.
The court dismissed a motion by non-settling plaintiffs to stay a $150 million opioid class action settlement and compel financial disclosure from a non-debtor related party in CCAA recognition proceedings.
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.
The court approved the debtor's preferred DIP financing agreement and extended the CCAA stay period.
The applicant, Tacora Resources Inc., sought approval for an Amended and Restated Debtor in Possession (DIP) financing agreement with Cargill and an extension of the CCAA Stay Period.
The Ad Hoc Group of Noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP, proposing an alternative and seeking renegotiation of terms, including an exit fee, legal costs, and the "Offtake Condition" related to a pre-existing commercial agreement with Cargill.
The court approved the Cargill DIP and extended the stay, finding the Cargill agreement offered greater short-term stability and liquidity, was recommended by the Monitor, and did not materially prejudice other stakeholders beyond what already existed due to the pre-CCAA Offtake Agreement.
The court held that the DIP approval motion was not the appropriate forum to address the enforceability or commercial reasonableness of the Offtake Agreement itself.
The court approved Tacora's requested CCAA initial order and Cargill DIP facility, dismissing the noteholders' competing proposal.
Tacora Resources Inc. sought an amended and restated initial order (ARIO) and a solicitation order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to facilitate its restructuring, including approval for a $75 million debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing facility from Cargill.
An ad hoc group of senior noteholders (AHG) opposed the Cargill DIP facility, alleging a flawed process and material prejudice, and brought a cross-motion for approval of their own competing DIP proposal.
The court found that Tacora's Board exercised reasonable business judgment in selecting the Cargill DIP facility, which was financially superior and less prejudicial to creditors overall than the AHG's proposal.
The court dismissed the AHG's cross-motion, finding no evidence of improper conduct by Cargill or the Board, and granted Tacora's requested ARIO and Solicitation Order, including approval of the Cargill DIP facility, an extended stay period, a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), and a sealing order for KERP details.
The court granted recognition of US Chapter 11 financing, cash management, and bidding procedure orders to facilitate cross-border insolvency proceedings.
The Applicant, Instant Brands Inc., as Foreign Representative of the Chapter 11 Debtors, sought recognition of several US Chapter 11 orders, including the Supplemental Interim DIP Order, Final DIP Order, Final Cash Management Order, and Bidding Procedures Order.
The relief was unopposed and supported by the Information Officer.
The court granted the recognition orders, finding them necessary and appropriate to fund operations, maintain an integrated cash management system, and facilitate a competitive sale process, thereby furthering comity and ensuring fair treatment of stakeholders in the cross-border insolvency proceedings.
The court recognized a US interim DIP financing order and approved a priority charge.
The Foreign Representative of Instant Brands Inc. and other Chapter 11 Debtors sought recognition and enforcement of an Interim DIP Order from the US Bankruptcy Court, along with approval of a corresponding priority charge in Canada under section 49 of the CCAA.
The motion was unopposed.
The court, applying principles of comity and cooperation in cross-border insolvency, recognized the Interim DIP Order and granted the priority charge, including the rollup of prepetition debt into post-petition super priority financing, finding it necessary for the debtors' ongoing operations and restructuring costs and that Canadian debtors were not materially prejudiced.