25 total
Court extends CCAA stay and increases DIP financing during restructuring.
In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought an extension of the stay of proceedings and an increase to the debtor-in-possession lending facility.
The court considered the applicants’ liquidity position, workforce reductions, revised cash-flow forecasts, and the monitor’s report supporting the request.
The court found the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence and that extending the stay would permit implementation of an expedited sale and investor solicitation process aimed at preserving the business as a going concern.
The court approved an increase of the DIP facility to $5.35 million and amendments to the loan agreement, but declined to include $650,000 in accrued lender fees within the facility at that stage due to insufficient review.
The stay of proceedings was extended to allow the restructuring process to continue.
Court approves DIP financing increase and extends CCAA stay.
In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought an extension of the stay of proceedings, an increase in debtor-in-possession financing, amendments to a key employee retention plan, and a sealing order.
The court considered the applicants’ efforts to secure additional interim financing and their progress toward a potential long-term supply contract that could enable further investment or restructuring.
Applying the statutory factors under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the court approved an increase in the DIP lending facility and granted the requested stay extension.
The court also approved a minor salary reallocation to retain essential non-management employees and ordered that confidential employee-related schedules be sealed.
Initial CCAA protection granted with DIP financing and priority charges.
Two affiliated technology companies applied for initial protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act after exhausting start-up capital and becoming unable to meet payroll and other obligations.
The applicants sought a stay of proceedings, approval of debtor-in-possession financing, and priority charges for administration expenses and directors’ and officers’ liabilities.
The court held that the companies qualified as debtor companies under the CCAA and that they were appropriately treated as affiliated entities for the purpose of the proceedings.
The court approved the requested stay, DIP facility and related charges, finding them reasonable and necessary to allow time for restructuring or a going-concern sale for the benefit of stakeholders.
Court approves CCAA asset sale and extends stay subject to closing deadline.
In CCAA restructuring proceedings involving a retail apparel company, the monitor sought approval of an asset sale agreement for the debtor’s Costa Blanca business and the debtor sought an extension of the stay of proceedings.
The court considered the criteria under ss. 36(3) and (4) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and found the sale process had been conducted fairly and transparently and that the proposed transaction provided the best available consideration to creditors, notwithstanding that the purchaser was related to the debtor.
Approval of the sale was granted subject to a condition requiring the transaction to close by a specified deadline, failing which the debtor and monitor were required to seek further court directions.
The court also granted the debtor’s request to extend the stay of proceedings, approve liquidation of certain store inventory and fixtures, continue a key employee retention plan, and authorize repayment of secured loans.
Receiver appointed after secured creditor proves default and contractual enforcement rights.
A secured creditor applied for the appointment of a receiver over a debtor real estate holding company under s. 243(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The respondent argued that the appointment of a receiver should not proceed by application and that ordinary remedies were available.
The court held that the governing legislation expressly contemplates appointment by application and that such an order constitutes a final order determining the issues raised.
Given the debtor’s continuing default, the enforceability of the creditor’s security, and the lack of an operating business, the court found it just and convenient to appoint a receiver.