26 total
The court granted an Initial Order under the CCAA to a tobacco company facing a $13.5 billion judgment.
JTI-Macdonald Corp. (JTIM) sought an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other significant health care costs recovery actions.
The court granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings against JTIM and other defendants, appointment of Deloitte Restructuring Inc. as Monitor, approval of administrative, directors', and tax charges, authorization to pay pre-filing and post-filing obligations, appointment of Blue Tree Advisors Inc. as Chief Restructuring Officer, and authorization to appeal the Quebec Judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The court found JTIM to be an insolvent company to which the CCAA applies, and that a stay of proceedings was appropriate to facilitate a collective solution for all stakeholders.
Initial CCAA order granted for major toy retailer, approving stay of proceedings and DIP financing.
The applicant, a major Canadian toy retailer, sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a liquidity crisis triggered by the bankruptcy filing of its US parent company.
The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings to stabilize operations ahead of the holiday season.
The court also approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lending facility to replace existing secured debt and fund ongoing operations, while limiting the DIP lenders' enforcement rights to require court approval.
Provisions allowing the Monitor to pay pre-filing claims of critical suppliers and establishing charges for administration and directors/officers were also approved.
U.S. Chapter 11 proceedings recognized as foreign main proceeding under CCAA; DIP financing charge granted.
The applicant, Zochem Inc., applied under Part IV of the CCAA for recognition of First Day Orders made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chapter 11 proceedings.
The court found that the U.S. proceeding was a foreign main proceeding, as the debtors were managed as an integrated group from the United States, despite Zochem's operations being in Ontario.
The court also recognized the interim financing order and granted a super-priority charge for the DIP lender, noting that the interim advance was necessary to meet payroll and that the directors must act in the best interests of the Canadian corporation.
Court approves stalking horse auction process and priority of receiver’s charges.
A court‑appointed receiver sought approval of bidding procedures and a sales process for a distressed technology company, including the use of a stalking horse credit bid by the senior secured lender.
The receiver also sought confirmation of the priority of the receiver’s charge and borrowings charge over existing security interests and approval of its activities to date.
The court applied the Soundair principles in assessing the fairness, transparency, and commercial efficacy of the proposed sales process.
Given the debtor’s lack of liquidity and the need for a rapid process, the court approved the stalking horse structure, the auction procedures, and the expense reimbursement.
The court also granted priority to the receiver’s charges under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and confirmed the receiver’s reported activities.
CCAA Initial Order granted for orderly liquidation of insolvent investment group, including super-priority administration charges.
The applicants, comprising the First Leaside group of companies, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to conduct an orderly wind-down of their operations.
The court found that the applicants, viewed as a group, were insolvent and that the CCAA could be appropriately used for a liquidating proceeding.
The court also granted super-priority Administration and D&O Charges, dismissing arguments from secured creditors that provincial paramountcy issues precluded such priorities without further notice.
Appeal dismissed; funds collected by receiver remained identifiable trust funds and were not co-mingled.
The appellant appealed an order regarding funds collected by a receiver.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the funds collected by the receiver never lost their character as trust funds because they were not co-mingled with pre-receivership funds and remained identifiable.
The cross-appeal regarding the interpretation of s. 191.0.1(3) was also dismissed, as the provision imposes obligations on persons in Ontario arranging carriage of goods.