Elizabeth Pillon

In CCAA proceedings involving a major Canadian retailer in insolvency, Employee Representative Counsel brought a motion to approve a Hardship Programs Term Sheet providing three programs to alleviate hardships for vulnerable non-unionized former employees: a Trust Program extending and settling long-term disability benefits for approximately 157 former employees funded through a pre-existing trust, a Woodwards Replacement Policy funded through a company reserve fund, and an Employee Hardship Program funded by $250,000 in foregone secured lender payments.

The court approved the Term Sheet as fair, reasonable, beneficial to stakeholders, and consistent with the purpose and spirit of the CCAA.

Ancillary relief including releases, declaratory relief characterizing Employee Hardship Fund payments as non-earnings for EI purposes, and a sealing order protecting personal information of LTD recipients and trustees were also granted.

An unsupported objection by one individual was dismissed as lacking credible basis.

In a landmark CCAA proceeding involving Hudson's Bay Company, the court declined to approve the assignment of 25 major retail department store leases across Canada to a new tenant, Ruby Liu Commercial Investment Corp., despite the transaction representing the highest bid and generating approximately $50 million in net proceeds for creditors.

The court found that the proposed assignee failed to meet the reasonableness standard under section 11.3(3) of the CCAA, particularly regarding its ability to perform the substantial and ongoing obligations under the leases.

The decision emphasizes that section 11.3 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly, and that the court must balance the interests of all stakeholders, including the contractual counterparties (landlords) who would be compelled into a long-term relationship with an untested and undercapitalized purchaser.

The court also rejected the applicants' arguments that certain lease provisions constituted ipso facto clauses violating the anti-deprivation rule and section 34 of the CCAA.

In this CCAA proceeding, the court granted multiple orders sought by Hudson's Bay Company and related entities, including approval of lease assignment agreements with YM Inc. and Ivanhoe Cambridge, sealing of confidential bid information, extension of the stay of proceedings to October 31, 2025, and approval of the Monitor's reports and activities.

The court rejected requests for adjournment and conditional distributions, finding the lease monetization process was fair and transparent, and that the proposed transactions represent a positive development for stakeholders.

This decision approves four orders sought by the Applicants under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA): (1) approval of an asset purchase agreement (APA) with Canadian Tire Corporation for the sale of Hudson’s Bay’s intellectual property; (2) a sealing order for the confidential appendix summarizing bids; (3) termination of the stay of proceedings and CCAA proceedings for certain entities, concurrent with the appointment of a receiver; and (4) a declaration under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) to assist terminated employees.

The Court found the sale process fair and transparent, the consideration reasonable, and the relief unopposed and supported by the Monitor.

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 Applicants sought approval of a Restructuring Framework Agreement (RFA) in ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The Court declined to approve the RFA, finding it neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.

The decision details the reasons for refusing approval, including concerns about the appropriateness of granting control and veto rights to the Lenders, the lack of disclosure of the Budget, and the sufficiency of existing court and Monitor oversight.

The Court also set out directions for ongoing cash flow monitoring and reporting by the Monitor.

This decision concerns the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities.

The Court addresses the extension of the stay of proceedings, approval of a liquidation sale, lease monetization process, and a sales and investment solicitation process (SISP).

The Court also considers the repayment of the DIP facility, approval of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP), and a sealing order for confidential employee information.

The Court grants most of the relief sought, defers approval of the Restructuring Support Agreement to allow further stakeholder review, and provides detailed reasons for each order.

This endorsement grants a brief adjournment in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities, following ongoing discussions between the applicants and stakeholders.

The court extends the stay of proceedings, increases the Directors’ Charge, amends the relative priorities of charges, and approves the engagement of Reflect Advisors, LLC as financial advisor.

The court finds the requested relief appropriate, unopposed, and supported by the Monitor, and orders the requested amendments to the Initial Order.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

Laurentian University brought an unopposed motion within its CCAA proceedings for an order extending the stay period to September 30, 2022, and an order approving a Pension Participation Agreement with the University of Sudbury.

The court found that the applicant had acted in good faith and with due diligence, justifying the stay extension.

The court also approved the pension agreement, finding it to be a fair and reasonable settlement that provided substantial benefits to stakeholders and was consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

In the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University, the applicant sought an order regarding a Compensation Claims Process.

On consent, the court deferred relief related to Third Party RHBP Claims to a subsequent hearing, ordering that the deadlines and procedures in the Compensation Claims Process Order would not apply to those claims at this time.

The remaining unopposed relief was granted.

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings seeking the appointment of a Chief Redevelopment Officer, an increase in the fee cap for the Board of Governors' independent counsel, and approval of a claims process.

The court approved the appointment of the CRO and the fee increase.

Regarding the claims process, TD Bank proposed amendments to require consultation on claims over $5 million.

Balancing the need for efficiency with creditor involvement, the court modified the claims process to establish an 'Inspector Group' to authorize the compromise of material claims, drawing on principles from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused leave to appeal a sealing order issued by a CCAA supervising judge in the Laurentian University insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties, including faculty unions, sought access to confidential documents (letters between Laurentian and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities) that were sealed to protect restructuring efforts.

The Court applied the Sierra Club test for sealing orders and the four-factor test for leave to appeal in CCAA cases, finding the proposed appeal was not prima facie meritorious, would unduly hinder the time-sensitive restructuring, and was not of sufficient significance to the action.

The court emphasized deference to the supervising judge's discretion in complex CCAA matters.

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.

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 Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought a Meeting Order to accept the filing of a Plan of Compromise or Arrangement, approve creditor classification, authorize a meeting for voting on the Plan, set a sanction hearing date, and seal certain affidavits.

The court granted the motion, finding the Plan had sufficient support to summon a creditors' meeting, the proposed single class of secured creditors had a commonality of interest under CCAA s. 22(2), and the sealing of commercially sensitive information in the affidavits was appropriate.

This endorsement addresses a motion by Lydian International Limited and its affiliates to extend a stay period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Following an initial order granting a 10-day stay, the applicants sought an extension.

The court had previously declined to grant the extension at the initial hearing, interpreting CCAA s. 11.001 to limit initial orders to ordinary course relief and maintain the status quo during the initial 10-day period.

The motion for extension was deferred to allow stakeholders to consider their positions.

With no opposition filed and the Monitor's support, the court found that the applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence, justifying an extension of the stay period to January 23, 2020, to facilitate discussions with lenders and stakeholders regarding financing and sale options for their gold mine project.

The Applicants, part of a gold exploration and development business, sought an initial order for creditor protection under the CCAA due to liquidity issues caused by blockades at their Amulsar Project in Armenia.

The court granted the initial order, including a 10-day stay of proceedings, the appointment of a monitor, and the approval of Administration and D&O charges, finding them reasonably necessary for continued operations.

However, the court declined to immediately grant a stay extension beyond the initial 10-day period, emphasizing that recent CCAA amendments limit initial relief to what is necessary to avoid immediate liquidation, absent exceptional circumstances.