Danny Nunes

The Applicants sought an order extending the Stay Period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, approving the Sixty-first Report of the Monitor, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicant’s counsel.

The court found the Applicants acted in good faith and with due diligence, that the extension was reasonable, and that the requested approvals were appropriate.

The motion was granted.

This case conference addressed a dispute over the final form of an order previously issued by a retired judge.

The respondents sought to include language regarding the return of shares, which the applicant contended was never an issue before the court.

The court, interpreting the original order and the scope of the prior hearing, determined that the retired judge had made no finding or determination on the return of shares.

Consequently, the court declined to include the proposed language, settling the order in the form submitted by the applicant.

The parties attended a case conference to settle the form of an order arising from a previous decision by a retired judge.

The respondents sought to include language requiring the return of shares, which the applicant opposed.

The court found that the previous judge made no determination regarding the return of shares, as the issue was not before the court during the prior hearing.

The court declined to include the respondents' proposed language and settled the order in the form submitted by the applicant.

This endorsement addresses an unopposed motion brought by the Applicants in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Applicants sought an order extending the stay period until January 31, 2024, approving the Monitor’s 58th Report and its activities, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor, Monitor’s counsel, and Applicants’ counsel.

The court found that the Applicants continued to work in good faith and with due diligence, had sufficient resources for the extension period, and that the requested extension and fee approvals were reasonable.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in CCAA proceedings for an order extending the Stay Period, approving the Fifty-Fifth Report of the Monitor, and approving the fees and disbursements of the Monitor and counsel.

The court found the Applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence.

The court granted the motion, extending the Stay Period to March 31, 2023, to encourage expedited resolution, and approved the Monitor's report and the requested fees.

The plaintiffs brought two motions in a shareholder dispute.

The first motion sought to dismiss the action against certain bankrupt corporate defendants and their counterclaim, which was granted on consent with prejudice and without costs.

The second motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim against the remaining defendants to add an oppression remedy claim and further particulars.

The remaining defendants opposed the amendments, arguing the oppression claim was untenable and that some claims were derivative in nature.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were not doomed to fail and that an oppression claim could co-exist with breach of contract and derivative claims.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in their CCAA proceedings to extend the Stay Period to August 31, 2021, assign certain letters of credit to the Israeli Functionary, and approve the Monitor's Forty-Sixth Report along with professional fees.

The court found the Applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that they had sufficient resources to continue functioning during the proposed stay period.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in their CCAA proceedings seeking an extension of the Stay Period to August 31, 2021, and authorization for the Monitor to effect the return of trust property to Lien Claimants and Trust Claimants.

The court found the Applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that the return of trust property did not constitute a distribution or dividend under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court granted the stay extension, authorized the distributions, and approved the Monitor's activities and fees.