16 total
The court approved lease assignments, extended the stay, and granted a sealing order under 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.
The court appointed a receiver over a commercial real estate joint venture to preserve stakeholder value.
This endorsement grants an unopposed application by RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust and related entities for the appointment of FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver over the assets of the RioCan-HBC joint venture entities.
The court reviews the legal test for appointing a receiver under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act, referencing relevant case law and statutory factors.
The receivership is found to be just and convenient in light of the joint venture’s financial distress, the failure of restructuring efforts, and the need to preserve and maximize value for stakeholders.
The order authorizes the receiver to borrow up to $20 million and provides for allocation of costs and a mechanism for secured lenders to terminate the receivership as to their collateral.
The Court granted the applicants' motion to extend the CCAA stay of proceedings and authorized interim distributions to secured creditors.
The Applicants, a group of Hudson’s Bay Company entities, sought an extension of the stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and authorization to make certain distributions to secured creditors.
The Court granted both orders, finding the Applicants acted in good faith and with due diligence, and that the proposed distributions were appropriate in the circumstances.
The decision addresses concerns raised by RioCan regarding the timing of distributions in light of the Neiman Marcus Transaction, but concludes that the distributions should proceed.
The court appointed an independent evaluator for representative counsel and approved a separate art auction.
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 court granted an unopposed motion to recognize a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order approving a lease termination agreement in a cross-border insolvency proceeding.
This endorsement concerns an unopposed motion by Yellow Corporation, as Foreign Representative, seeking recognition and enforcement in Canada of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order approving the termination of certain Canadian real property leases (the "Reimer Leases") as part of cross-border insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
The court finds the negotiated lease termination agreement to be fair and reasonable, maximizes value for the debtors, and grants the requested relief, including recognition of the U.S. order and authorization for related asset transfers.
The court granted an unopposed extension of the CCAA stay of proceedings, increased the Directors' Charge, and approved a financial advisor's engagement.
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.
The court confirmed that notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders were reasonable.
This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.
The court granted Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders to advance a $32.5 billion global settlement of tobacco claims under the CCAA.
The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.
These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.
The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.
The court granted an unopposed motion under the CCAA to recognize a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order approving settlement agreements with possessory lienholders.
Yellow Corporation, as Foreign Representative for its affiliates (including Canadian Debtors), brought a motion for recognition and enforcement of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order (the "Lienholder Rolling Stock Settlement Order").
This U.S. order approved settlement agreements with possessory lienholders regarding rolling stock assets, which resulted in a waiver or reduction of claims against the Debtors' estates in exchange for surrendering title of the assets.
The motion was unopposed and supported by the Information Officer.
The court granted the recognition order, finding it fair, reasonable, and appropriate, and beneficial to the Debtors and stakeholders, consistent with principles of comity and cooperation in cross-border insolvency.
Monitor's unopposed motion for approval of fees and disbursements in CCAA proceedings granted.
The Monitor in the CCAA proceedings of Nortel Networks Corporation brought an unopposed motion for approval of its fees and disbursements, as well as those of its counsel, for the period of November 1, 2021, to October 31, 2022.
The court applied the overriding principle of reasonableness and considered the significant results achieved by the Monitor, including completing a $38 million distribution and recovering an additional $21 million.
Finding the fees fair and reasonable, the court granted the motion and approved the accounts.
UK scheme of arrangement proceedings recognized as foreign non-main proceedings under Part IV of the CCAA.
The applicant, acting as the foreign representative for the syncreon Group, sought an Initial Recognition Order under Part IV of the CCAA to recognize scheme of arrangement proceedings commenced in the United Kingdom.
The court found that the UK proceedings under Part 26 of the Companies Act constituted 'foreign non-main proceedings' under the CCAA.
The court granted the recognition order, recognized the UK Convening Order, appointed an Information Officer, and dispensed with the statutory publication requirement, finding that a formal cross-border protocol was unnecessary in this case.
CCAA plan allocating $7.3 billion sanctioned; Charter challenge by LTD beneficiaries dismissed.
The Monitor brought a motion to sanction the Canadian Debtors' Plan of Compromise and Arrangement under the CCAA, which implemented a settlement allocating $7.3 billion in sale proceeds.
Two self-represented long-term disability (LTD) beneficiaries objected, arguing the Plan was unfair and violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by treating their claims pari passu with other unsecured creditors.
The court found the Plan fair and reasonable, noting it was approved by 99.7% of creditors.
The court dismissed the Charter arguments, holding that section 7 does not protect pure economic interests and that equal treatment of creditors in insolvency does not constitute discrimination under section 15.
The Plan was sanctioned.
Lockbox funds were allocated pro rata across debtor estates.
In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.
The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.
Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.
The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.
Leave to appeal denied in CCAA proceeding regarding insurer's obligation to pay directors' legal fees.
The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay the legal fees of Nortel's executives without reference to a $10 million retention amount or a directors and officers trust fund.
The motion judge had found that the indemnification was a pre-filing claim subject to the CCAA stay, and that allowing access to the trust would improperly elevate the insurer's priority.
The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the motion judge's conclusions were within his expertise and entitled to deference, and the issues were specific to the case rather than of broader interest.
The Court also declined to consider fresh evidence filed by the applicant because no motion for leave to admit it was brought.
Leave to appeal denied; joint Ontario-Delaware trial for allocating CCAA sale proceeds does not infringe judicial independence.
The EMEA Debtors sought leave to appeal an order approving an Allocation Protocol that provided for a joint trial by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to allocate over US$7 billion in proceeds from the sale of Nortel assets.
The moving parties argued the joint trial violated the Ontario court's independence and that the parties had previously agreed to binding arbitration.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the joint trial did not infringe judicial independence and the relevant agreement did not mandate arbitration.
Publishers lacked priority over bank for accounts receivable as distributor was not required to segregate funds.
The appellants, various book publishers, appealed a decision determining that they did not have priority over the Bank of Nova Scotia regarding accounts receivable collected by the distributor, General Distribution Services Inc. (GDS).
The publishers argued that because they retained title to the books, they had priority.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the arrangement between the publishers and GDS did not require the segregation of funds, allowing GDS to mingle the proceeds with its own money.
Consequently, the relationship was one of debtor and creditor, not trustee and beneficiary, and the publishers did not hold a priority interest.