Elizabeth Pillon

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.

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.