D. Tay

The Canadian Debtors brought a motion for approval of an Allocation Protocol to determine the allocation of approximately $9 billion in sale proceeds among the global Nortel entities.

The EMEA Debtors opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to compel arbitration, arguing the parties had agreed to arbitrate under the Interim Funding and Settlement Agreement.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the agreement was merely an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The court granted the Canadian Debtors' motion, holding it had discretionary authority under the CCAA to approve the Allocation Protocol and that the parties had irrevocably submitted to the jurisdiction of the Canadian and U.S. courts.

In ongoing proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicants sought approval of an Employee Hardship Application Process and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The requested hardship process was unopposed and approved.

Certain noteholders sought conditions requiring enhanced reporting and procedural safeguards in relation to the claims process and employee claims.

The court held that the statutory test under s. 11(6) of the CCAA was satisfied because the circumstances warranted the extension and the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence.

The stay extension was granted, while proposed procedural changes to the claims process were found more appropriately addressed through a motion to vary existing orders.