33 total
Commercial landlords awarded partial indemnity costs for successfully opposing lease assignments in CCAA proceedings, with payment deferred.
The Opposing Landlords sought costs after successfully opposing the debtor Applicants' motion to assign 25 commercial leases to a third party in a CCAA proceeding.
The court found that the dispute was a classic adversarial proceeding, entitling the successful landlords to costs.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the landlords, including additional costs to Ivanhoe Cambridge for opposing ipso facto relief.
However, the court deferred payment of the costs until the end of the CCAA proceeding to avoid unfairly prejudicing the secured creditors' collateral before priorities are finally determined.
The court appointed a receiver over a commercial real estate joint venture to preserve stakeholder value.
This endorsement grants an unopposed application by RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust and related entities for the appointment of FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver over the assets of the RioCan-HBC joint venture entities.
The court reviews the legal test for appointing a receiver under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, referencing relevant case law and statutory factors.
The receivership is found to be just and convenient in light of the joint venture’s financial distress, the failure of restructuring efforts, and the need to preserve and maximize value for stakeholders.
The order authorizes the receiver to borrow up to $20 million and provides for allocation of costs and a mechanism for secured lenders to terminate the receivership as to their collateral.
The court appointed an independent evaluator for representative counsel and approved a separate art auction.
The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.
The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.
The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.
The court dismissed a real estate broker's claim for commission on an equity transaction because the listing agreements had expired and the transaction fell outside the contractual scope.
This decision addresses whether Cushman & Wakefield ULC (C&W), as real estate broker, is entitled to a commission in respect of Stelco’s purchase of the Stakeholders’ limited partnership units and other equity in the Legacy Lands LP, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.
The court finds that C&W is not entitled to a commission, as the relevant brokerage agreements had expired or were never executed for the properties in question, and the transaction at issue was not contemplated by the commission provisions.
The court also dismisses C&W’s alternative claim for unjust enrichment.
Negligence Stay granted
The Body Shop Canada Limited (TBS Canada) brought a motion seeking three orders: authorization to continue its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proposal proceeding under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), approval of a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP), and a Discharge and Termination Order for the Proposal Trustee.
The court granted all requested relief, finding that the conversion to CCAA was appropriate given the company's insolvency, the ongoing UK sale process for its parent company, and the CCAA's flexibility to maximize stakeholder value and preserve the going concern.
The court also approved the SISP, the continuation of existing charges (administration, D&O, KERP), and the fees and releases for the Proposal Trustee and counsel.
The court dismissed a motion by non-settling plaintiffs to stay a $150 million opioid class action settlement and compel financial disclosure from a non-debtor related party in CCAA recognition proceedings.
The Moving Parties (First Nations and Municipalities) sought to stay the implementation of a $150 million settlement between Purdue Canada and Canadian Governments, arguing it might be unlawful, prejudicial, preferential, or an abuse of process, and sought financial disclosure from Purdue Canada.
The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked a basis to compel disclosure or stay the settlement.
The court affirmed its jurisdiction over Purdue Canada was limited to the CCAA recognition proceedings, not general supervision, and found no evidence of bad faith or insolvency to warrant the requested orders.
The court granted an expanded stay of proceedings, administration charges, and an extension of time to file a proposal for an insolvent retailer.
The Body Shop Canada Limited (TBS Canada) sought various orders under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) following its UK parent's unexpected insolvency and cessation of financial support, which left TBS Canada with significant debts and operational challenges.
The requested relief included expanding the stay of proceedings, granting an administration charge, approving an indemnity and priority charge for directors and officers, directing the production of company records, and extending the time to file a proposal.
The court granted all requested orders, emphasizing the unusual and urgent circumstances, the necessity of the relief for TBS Canada's continued operations and restructuring efforts, and the consent of key stakeholders.
The court approved DIP financing but refused to appoint the debtor's former auditor as monitor.
In a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicants sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order (ARIO) to extend a stay of proceedings, approve debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, and increase court-ordered priority charges.
A central issue was whether Ernst & Young Inc. (E&Y) should continue as Monitor, given that an affiliate had acted as the applicants' auditor within the two-year restricted period under CCAA s. 11.7(2).
The court granted the stay extension, approved the DIP financing, and increased the charges, finding these necessary for the restructuring.
However, the court denied E&Y's continuation as Monitor, emphasizing a stricter interpretation of CCAA s. 11.7(2).
The court found no "extenuating or unique circumstances" to override the general rule against appointing a former auditor within the restricted period, despite arguments of cost-effectiveness and existing knowledge.
FTI Consulting Canada Inc. was appointed as the new Monitor.
The court appointed a receiver and approved a $315 million super-priority funding agreement for a delayed construction project.
The applicants, senior secured lenders, sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of "The One" mixed-use construction project due to financial and covenant defaults by the borrower.
The project, significantly delayed and over budget, had outstanding debt of approximately $1.235 billion.
The appointment of Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc. as receiver was unopposed by any key stakeholder.
The court granted the application, appointed the receiver, approved a super-priority receivership funding credit agreement of up to $315 million, and issued a stay of proceedings, finding it just and convenient to stabilize the situation and maximize recovery for all stakeholders.
The court approved a securities purchase agreement in a CCAA proceeding, finding it beneficial to stakeholders and rejecting allegations of bad faith.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) heard two motions within a long-standing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding concerning U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (now Stelco Inc.).
Stelco Inc. sought approval for a Securities Purchase Agreement (SPA) to acquire the remaining ownership interest in a Land Vehicle from various Stakeholders (employees, retirees, pensioners).
DGAP Investments Ltd., a defendant, brought a cross-motion seeking a strict timetable for the completion of a separate land sale agreement (DGAP Sale Agreement) before the SPA could close, alleging bad faith by Stelco.
The court granted Stelco's motion, finding the SPA beneficial to the Stakeholders by providing immediate monetization and extricating them from ongoing litigation.
DGAP's motion was dismissed, as the court found no evidence of bad faith by Stelco sufficient to delay the SPA, and determined that the SPA and DGAP Sale Agreement were not mutually exclusive.
The court emphasized continued judicial supervision and the Monitor's role in future transactions.
Unopposed motion for a Claims and Unitholdings Identification Order in a receivership proceeding granted.
The Receiver brought an unopposed motion for a Claims and Unitholdings Identification Order and for approval of its activities as described in its 12th Report.
The court found the proposed order practical and reasonable to assist the Receiver with the distribution process.
The motion was granted and the Receiver's activities were approved.
Interim distribution to unitholders approved but reduced pending determination of substantive consolidation issue.
The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving an interim cash distribution of $78 million to the two institutional unitholders in Bridging SMA 2 LP.
The court found it appropriate to make an interim distribution but reduced the amount to $46 million to account for the potential impact of substantively consolidating the various Bridging Funds, an issue that had yet to be determined.
Receiver's motion granted with modifications to ensure independent appointment of Representative Counsel for unitholders.
The Receiver brought a motion to extend the appointment of limited partner advisory committees, approve its activities, and approve a process for appointing Representative Counsel for the Unitholders.
The Ad Hoc Committee of Retail Investors raised concerns about the independence of the proposed appointment process.
The court approved the Receiver's activities and the extension of the committees, but modified the Representative Counsel appointment process to include an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation to the court.
Receiver's proposed sale and investment solicitation process and disclosure of confidential borrower information approved.
The Receiver brought a motion for an order approving a proposed sale and investment solicitation process (SISP) and authorizing the disclosure of Borrower Information to Qualified Bidders.
The court found that the proposed SISP satisfied the test for approval, as it was fair, transparent, and optimized the chances of securing the best price.
The court also authorized the disclosure of Borrower Information, finding that the best interests of investors could be jeopardized without such disclosure, and noting that all borrower concerns had been resolved and confidentiality obligations would apply to bidders.
The motion was granted.
The court granted an extension of the CCAA stay of proceedings to allow for the completion of a foreign wind-up process.
Lydian International Limited, the applicant in CCAA proceedings, sought an order to extend the stay of proceedings until March 31, 2021, or the filing of the Monitor's CCAA Termination Certificate, and to approve the Monitor's Eighth Report.
The CCAA Plan was sanctioned earlier, and Lydian International was undergoing an orderly wind-up in Jersey.
Due to unforeseen delays in the Jersey winding-up process, an extension of the stay was required.
The court found that the parties were working diligently and the applicant had sufficient financial resources.
The Monitor's report received no adverse comments.
Representations from shareholders regarding their investment loss were noted but deemed irrelevant to the requested relief, which did not alter the Plan Sanction and Implementation Order.
The court granted the motion, extending the stay and approving the Monitor's report.
CCAA Plan of Arrangement sanctioned as fair and reasonable, including third-party releases and DIP charge increase.
The Applicants, part of the Lydian Group which owns a development-stage gold mine in Armenia, sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.
The Plan, supported by the Monitor and the requisite majority of secured creditors, provides for the privatization of the Lydian Group and the release of existing indebtedness to Senior Lenders.
The court found the Plan to be fair and reasonable, noting that while equity claimants would receive no compensation, this reflected the economic reality of the insolvency.
The court also approved third-party releases, an increase to the DIP charge, an extension of the stay period, a sealing order for commercially sensitive information, and the Monitor's activities and fees.
The court approved a sales process for two condominium projects in receivership but allowed the debtor to redeem the third.
The Superior Court of Justice considered a motion by BCIMC and Otera Capital to approve a Sale and Investor Solicitation Process (SISP) for three condominium projects (Yorkville, Clover, Halo) under receivership.
The court approved the SISP for the Yorkville project.
For the Clover project, the court declined to approve the SISP, affirming the debtor's right of redemption after Concord Land Developments acquired the debtor's shares and offered to pay out all BCIMC debt and receivership costs.
For the Halo project, the SISP was approved, but without a stalking horse bid and without restrictions on communication between bidders and stakeholders, as the debtor was not yet able to pay out the debt.
The court granted a receivership and dismissed a CCAA application due to debtor financial misconduct.
This proceeding involved competing applications for the appointment of a receiver and manager under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, and an application for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
The applicants, secured creditors, sought receivership over three residential condominium projects (The Clover, Halo, and 33 Yorkville) due to significant financial irregularities, lack of transparency, and loss of confidence in the debtors' management.
The debtors opposed receivership and sought CCAA protection, proposing a share sale to Concord Group Developments and a plan to disclaim existing purchase agreements.
The court dismissed the CCAA application and granted the receivership application, finding that receivership was the preferable route.
The court emphasized the secured creditors' blocking position, the absence of a concrete CCAA plan, and the debtors' deliberate financial misconduct, which outweighed any potential benefits of a CCAA proceeding.
CCAA Initial Order granted for biomass facility, including stay of proceedings and $5 million DIP financing.
The applicant, owner of a biomass electrical co-generation facility, sought an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
Facing significant debt, construction liens, and operational difficulties, the applicant required a stay of proceedings to implement a sales and investment solicitation process.
The court granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, authorization to pay critical pre-filing supplier expenses, approval of a $5 million DIP financing facility with a priority charge, and a sealing order over sensitive commercial information.
US interim DIP order recognition was refused due to inadequate protection for Canadian landlords.
The applicant sought recognition of various interim orders, including an Interim DIP ABL Order, in a cross-border insolvency proceeding under the CCAA.
The court granted most of the requested relief but declined to recognize the Interim DIP ABL Order and the associated DIP ABL Lenders’ Charge.
The refusal was based on the lack of adequate protection for Canadian landlords, who would be detrimentally affected by the Canadian entities guaranteeing and collateralizing the DIP facility without receiving comparable security or the benefit of marshalling, unlike other creditor groups.