Daniel Loberto

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and other applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants sought court approval for three main items: a pre-filing agreement of purchase and sale for the Bolingbrook Property, approval of the Monitor's First and Second Reports, and an amendment to the Amended and Restated Initial Order to allow the sale of redundant, surplus, or non-material property up to certain financial thresholds without further court approval.

The court, applying the Soundair Principles, found the pre-filing sale to be in the best interests of stakeholders, noting the extensive negotiations and lack of opposition.

All requested relief was granted, with the court emphasizing the practical benefits of the proposed amendments for maximizing recovery and minimizing professional fees.

The applicants, Pride Group Holdings Inc. et al., sought an amended and restated initial order under the CCAA, including an extension of the stay period, approval of a debtor-in-possession (DIP) facility, elevation of charge priorities, confirmation against set-off, and approval of governance, real estate monetization, and intercompany/unsecured claims preservation protocols.

The court granted the requested stay extension to June 30, 2024, approved the $30 million DIP facility, and approved all proposed protocols.

The court declined to add an exception to the paramountcy provision as requested by certain securitization funders and approved a carve-out for Triumph Business Capital but limited it to CDN $3 million.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding moved for a reverse vesting order to approve a transaction with a purchaser related to a secured creditor, Marzilli.

The transaction would vest out the first-ranking security interest of another creditor, 212, and transfer its debt to a residual entity with no assets. 212 opposed the motion, arguing its debt assumption was part of the stalking horse bid that set the floor for the sales process.

The court applied the Third Eye and Harte Gold factors, finding that 212 had not consented to the vesting out of its interest and that the equities favoured 212.

The court dismissed the motion for the reverse vesting order, concluding it was not equitable to extinguish 212's first-ranking security interest under the circumstances.