Geoffrey B. Morawetz

In the context of CCAA proceedings for Carillion Canada Holdings Inc. and related entities, the affected parties reached an agreement on a Directors and Officers (D&O) Claims Process Order.

The Monitor supported the order to finally resolve D&O claims and complete the administration of the proceedings.

The court found the proposed order reasonable and granted the requested relief, noting that the D&O Insurers' participation does not constitute an admission of coverage or liability.

The Monitor brought an unopposed motion for an order extending the Stay Period under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to November 18, 2023.

The court found that the parties were working in good faith and with due diligence, and that the applicants had sufficient liquidity.

To ensure supervision over ongoing litigation regarding documentary production, the court granted the stay extension to April 3, 2023, rather than the requested date.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver and manager, brought an unopposed motion in CCAA proceedings for an extension of the stay period, a DIP amendment, approval of a Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP), and approval of the Monitor's Fourth Report.

The court found that the parties were acting in good faith and with due diligence, and that the company had sufficient liquidity to maintain operations.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

The applicant, acting as the Foreign Representative in Chapter 11 proceedings, brought a motion under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to recognize and enforce Second Day Orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was appropriate to preserve the value of the Canadian debtors, enable continued operations, and ensure judicial cooperation and comity.

The Court-appointed Monitor in the CCAA proceedings of Laurentian University brought an unopposed motion for approval of its reports, activities, and professional fees.

The Court applied the factors from Confectionately Yours and found the requested fees for the Monitor, EY FAAS, and the Monitor's counsel to be fair and reasonable, given the novel and complex nature of the proceedings.

The Court approved the fees, disbursements, and the Monitor's reports.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, the moving party brought a motion seeking an order to direct the Monitor to engage in mediation regarding its appeal of a Claims Officer's decision.

The Claims Officer had upheld the Monitor's disallowance of the moving party's $9.8 million claim for loss of commercial value.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the existing claims process provided an adequate mechanism for resolving the dispute through the pending appeal.

The court also noted that the request for mediation was made too late, as it was brought only after the Claims Officer had already determined the matter on its merits.

Laurentian University of Sudbury brought an unopposed motion for an order sanctioning its Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Plan had been approved by the requisite double majority of affected creditors.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the applicant strictly complied with all statutory requirements, no unauthorized steps were taken, and the Plan was fair and reasonable.

The Court also approved the third-party releases contained in the Plan, unsealed previously sealed exhibits, and extended the stay of proceedings to allow for the Plan's implementation.

Carillion Canada Inc. brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings for an order directing HSBC Bank Canada to return $6.8 million that HSBC had unilaterally debited from Carillion's operating account to set off obligations under letters of credit.

The court found that while HSBC breached the initial stay order by exercising self-help without seeking leave, the funds were legally available for set-off.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Montréal, the court held that HSBC's claim was a valid 'pre-pre' set-off preserved under section 21 of the CCAA.

The motion was dismissed, but HSBC was ordered to pay $50,000 in costs due to its conduct in breaching the stay.

The Canadian Debtors, part of the global Endo pharmaceutical group, applied under Part IV of the CCAA for an interim order recognizing Chapter 11 proceedings commenced in the United States.

The court found that Ontario was the proper jurisdiction for the recognition proceedings due to the debtors' substantial business presence and security agreements governed by Ontario law.

The court granted the interim order, including a stay of proceedings in favour of the Canadian Debtors and affiliated non-applicant entities facing opioid-related class action litigation in Canada, to protect the operations of the Canadian business pending a full recognition hearing.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion in the context of CCAA proceedings.

The court approved the activities and conduct of the Monitor as described in the Second Report, finding the requested relief appropriate in the circumstances.

The Applicants brought an unopposed motion in their CCAA proceedings for an Amended and Restated Initial Order and an order approving a sale and investment solicitation process (SISP).

The court granted the requested relief, extending the stay period, increasing the Directors' and DIP Lenders' Charges, elevating their priority, and relieving the Applicants from incurring further expenses for certain Securities Filings.

The court also approved the SISP, noting appropriate precautions regarding information sharing with the Debenture Trustee.

A request by a litigation counterparty for a specific document preservation order was declined as unnecessary.

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.

The applicants, a group of companies in the cannabis industry, sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to an urgent liquidity crisis.

The court found that the applicants were debtor companies under the CCAA and granted a stay of proceedings, extending it to certain non-applicant subsidiaries that were highly integrated into the business.

The court also approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) loan and associated charge to fund operations during the initial 10-day stay.

Additionally, the court granted an administration charge, a directors' charge, authorized certain pre-filing payments, and postponed the ultimate parent company's annual general meeting.

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.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver, brought an unopposed motion in a CCAA proceeding for an Amended and Restated Initial Order.

The requested relief included extending the stay of proceedings, appointing a Chief Restructuring Officer, approving a $2 million debtor-in-possession credit facility, and increasing various court-ordered charges.

The applicant also sought a sealing order for confidential appendices containing individual consultant compensation and sensitive commercial information.

The court granted the motion, finding the relief reasonable and appropriate, and applied the Sherman Estate test to grant the sealing order.

The applicant, in its capacity as court-appointed receiver of Bridging Finance Inc., brought a creditor-initiated application for an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in respect of the respondent cannabis companies.

The respondents were indebted to the applicant for approximately $178 million and were in default.

The court found that the respondents were debtor companies to which the CCAA applies and granted the Initial Order, including a stay of proceedings, the appointment of a monitor, and the approval of administration, DIP lender, and directors' charges.

The court-appointed receiver of MJardin Group, Inc. brought a motion for a discharge order to facilitate the transition from receivership proceedings to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The proposed order provided for the receiver's discharge upon the issuance of a CCAA Initial Order, while preserving the receiver's charges.

As the CCAA Initial Order had been granted, the court granted the motion and signed the discharge order.

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.

The Monitor in CCAA proceedings moved for an extension of the stay of proceedings, approval of its activities as described in its Fortieth Report, and approval of its fees and disbursements.

The motion was unopposed.

The court found that the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that the extension was reasonable.

The court also approved the Monitor's activities and found the fees and disbursements to be reasonable.

The motion was granted.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, a former student (BR) and the University of Sudbury sought to lift the stay of proceedings to pursue civil litigation regarding historical sexual assault allegations.

BR argued that her claim was exempt from the CCAA claims process under s. 19(2)(b)(i), which exempts awards of damages for sexual assault.

The court dismissed the motions, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Montreal (City) v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc. to hold that the s. 19(2) exception must be interpreted narrowly and only applies once an award of damages has actually been established.

Consequently, the claims must be determined within the CCAA Claims Process.