In CCAA proceedings, the debtor sought approval of a claims procedure order establishing a process for identifying and determining claims against the company and its current and former officers and directors.
Noteholders opposed aspects of the proposed order, including provisions granting the debtor broad set‑off rights, the absence of creditor consent for large claims, and the ability to appoint a claims officer without court approval.
The court held that creditors should not have a veto over claims exceeding $100,000 but ordered a compromise requiring notice to stakeholders before acceptance of claims exceeding approximately $2.5 million.
The court further ruled that proposed set‑off provisions improperly affected substantive rights and should not appear in a claims procedure order.
The draft order was required to remove those provisions and to provide that appointment of a claims officer requires court approval.
