50 total
The court approved unprecedented class counsel fees totaling over $900 million in the tobacco insolvency proceedings.
This decision concerns three motions to approve class counsel fees in the context of insolvency proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act involving three major tobacco companies.
The court approved the Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs' counsel fee request of approximately $901 million (representing 22% of the $4.119 billion allocated to the Quebec class members), the Knight Class Counsel fee request of $5 million plus disbursements, and the Tobacco Producers' counsel fee request of $3.75 million.
The court found that the fees were fair and reasonable given the exceptional risks assumed, the unprecedented outcome achieved, and the unique circumstances of the case.
A $50 million reserve was established from the Quebec counsel fees to protect against any pro-rata reduction in class member compensation due to actual take-up rates or other factors.
The court sanctioned the CCAA plans of major tobacco companies to effect a global settlement.
This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.
The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.
The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.
Court approved CCAA plan amendments and dismissed a social stakeholder's objection for lack of standing.
This endorsement addresses motions by the court-appointed Monitors in the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The Monitors sought approval for amendments to the CCAA Plans to resolve the allocation of a $750 million working capital holdback among the Tobacco Companies.
The only opposition came from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which objected as a social stakeholder but was found to lack standing.
The court granted the motions, finding the amendments did not adversely affect any creditors and were appropriate in the circumstances.
The court granted an unopposed motion for a Sanction Protocol Order in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.
Shareholder rights plan with 15% trigger cease traded for undermining take-over bid regime animating principles.
Riot Platforms, Inc., the largest shareholder of Bitfarms Ltd., applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal for an order under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act to cease trade a shareholder rights plan adopted by Bitfarms.
The plan featured a 15% trigger, which was below the 20% threshold established in the take-over bid regime.
Riot did not allege a contravention of Ontario securities law but argued the plan was contrary to the public interest.
The Tribunal clarified the standard for intervening without a contravention, holding that an applicant must demonstrate the conduct undermines clearly discernible animating principles of securities law in a real and substantial way, with a public dimension.
The Tribunal found that the 15% trigger undermined the predictability and certainty of the take-over bid regime.
As Bitfarms failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the departure from the 20% threshold, the Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to cease trade the plan.
The court confirmed that notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders were reasonable.
This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Centa J. dated May 29, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.
The court granted Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders to advance a $32.5 billion global settlement of tobacco claims under the CCAA.
The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.
These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.
The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.
Court granted CBCA interim order and upheld stay allowing reduced payments to critical satellite suppliers.
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.
Summary judgment Relief granted
The Plaintiffs moved for approval of Pierringer settlement agreements with Third Party Defendants.
The Citibank Defendants consented to the approval but cross-moved for conditions ensuring continued discovery rights, including the right to examine Michael Yurkovich as a party.
The court approved the Pierringer agreements, imposing the condition that Third Party Defendants retain their obligations as if they remained parties, specifically granting the Citibank Defendants discovery and cross-examination rights due to the non-arm's-length relationship between the Plaintiffs and Third Party Defendants.
The court granted unopposed motions extending the CCAA stay period and authorizing ancillary operational relief for the applicant tobacco companies.
This endorsement concerns three tobacco companies (JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) operating under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Each applicant sought an extension of their stay period until September 30, 2024, to continue formulating plans of arrangement.
Imperial also requested authorization to terminate a retirement plan and post security for a vaping product license.
RBH sought a procedural amendment for employee grievances.
The court, finding no opposition and satisfied with the applicants' good faith, diligence, and sufficient resources, granted all requested relief, noting significant progress in ongoing mediation.
The Court of Appeal quashed an appeal of an order granting leave to amend a statement of claim, confirming such orders are interlocutory.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's order granting leave to amend a statement of claim.
The respondents moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.
The court found the order to be interlocutory, confirming that appeals of such orders lie with the Divisional Court with leave, not the Court of Appeal.
The motion to quash was granted.
The court granted an unopposed stay extension in complex CCAA proceedings and directed the Monitors and Mediator to collaboratively develop plans of arrangement.
This endorsement concerns the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings for JTI-MacDonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted an unopposed motion to extend the stay period until March 29, 2024.
Recognizing the complexity and the four-and-a-half-year duration of negotiations, the court directed the three court-appointed Monitors, in conjunction with the court-appointed Mediator, to collaborate and develop comprehensive Plans of Compromise or Arrangement.
The objective is to finalize plans that are fair and reasonable to all applicants and creditors, moving from observable activity to meaningful action.
The court approved a plan of arrangement for a corporate acquisition, finding it fair and reasonable.
This application sought court approval for a plan of arrangement under section 182 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, involving the acquisition of Magnet Forensics Inc. by Morpheus Purchaser Inc. The arrangement included the acquisition of all issued and outstanding shares, options, DSUs, and RSUs of Magnet, with different pricing for 'Rolling Shareholders' who would maintain an equity interest in the combined entity.
The court applied the three-part test for approving arrangements, assessing whether statutory procedures were met, the application was in good faith, and the arrangement was fair and reasonable.
Despite some shareholder dissent, which was below the termination threshold, the arrangement was approved, satisfying all legal requirements.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the supervising judge's broad discretionary power to direct the claims administration process in a class action settlement.
This appeal arose from the claims process of a class action settlement concerning price-fixing in the cathode ray tube (CRT) market.
The appellant, Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party claims filer, appealed the supervising judge's dismissal of its motion for directions regarding the reconsideration of rejected claims.
CAC argued that the Claims Administrator failed to follow a deficiency notice process as per the Distribution Protocol and that the supervising judge exceeded jurisdiction by effectively amending the protocol.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the supervising judge's order did not contemplate further deficiency notices and was within the broad discretionary power granted by section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, during the settlement administration stage.
The court also noted that the appeal constituted a collateral attack on an unappealed prior order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to quash, affirming its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a class action settlement distribution protocol.
This motion to quash, heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arose in the settlement administration phase of a class action concerning price-fixing of cathode ray tube products.
Class Counsel, representing the plaintiff Fanshawe College, sought to quash an appeal brought by Class Action Capital Recovery LLC (CAC), a third-party filer for claimants.
The grounds for the motion were that the Distribution Protocol prevented further appeals and that CAC lacked standing.
The Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, CAC had standing as an agent for its clients, and the appeal was not time-barred, as the appeal period began when the lower court's order achieved sufficient clarity.
Class action Relief granted
The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.
Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.
The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.
The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
Hostile take-over bid allowed to proceed; target's poison pill cease-traded and bidder ordered to amend disclosures.
Aurora Cannabis Inc. launched a hostile take-over bid for CanniMed Therapeutics Inc., conditional on CanniMed abandoning its proposed acquisition of Newstrike Resources Ltd. Aurora applied to the Ontario Securities Commission and the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan for exemptive relief to shorten the 105-day minimum deposit period for its bid and to cease-trade CanniMed's newly adopted shareholder rights plan.
CanniMed and its Special Committee brought cross-applications seeking to prohibit Aurora from using the 5% exemption for market purchases and to declare Aurora and certain locked-up shareholders as joint actors.
The panels held a joint hearing and determined that the 105-day minimum deposit period should not be shortened, as the Newstrike transaction was not an alternative transaction that extinguished shareholder interests.
The panels declined to prohibit Aurora from using the 5% exemption and found insufficient evidence that Aurora and the locked-up shareholders were acting jointly or in concert.
However, the panels found that Aurora had received material non-public information about CanniMed's acquisition plans, giving it a tactical advantage, and ordered Aurora to amend its take-over bid circular and news releases to disclose these circumstances.
Finally, the panels cease-traded CanniMed's shareholder rights plan, finding it to be an impermissible defensive tactic that interfered with the established take-over bid regime.
Claims Officer decision remitted for failing to construe lease as a whole; duty of forthrightness affirmed.
In a CCAA proceeding, the Monitor appealed a Claims Officer's decision allowing a landlord's claim for liquidated damages under a lease guarantee.
The Monitor argued the Claims Officer failed to consider a lease provision regarding the sale of the property.
The landlord cross-appealed the Claims Officer's finding that it breached a duty to be forthright by failing to disclose the property's foreclosure.
The Superior Court granted the Monitor's appeal, remitting the quantification issue back to the Claims Officer due to an error of law in contractual interpretation.
The court dismissed the landlord's cross-appeal, affirming that creditors owe a duty of forthrightness in a CCAA claims process.
Application dismissed decision
Octagon Capital Corporation, an investment dealer, brought an application against Niko Resources Inc., an oil and natural gas company, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to a $211,500 fee.
Octagon claimed that Niko's December 2013 debt restructuring, which involved JGB Management Inc., constituted "further financing" under their May 2013 Engagement Agreement's "Tail Provision." The court dismissed the application, finding that "further financing" meant the supply of additional funds, and the debt conversion by JGB did not involve new money but rather a restructuring of existing debt.