Linc Rogers

The applicants, Xplore Inc. and a wholly-owned subsidiary, sought a final order approving a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA).

The arrangement aimed to implement a comprehensive recapitalization transaction to significantly deleverage the company's secured debt and secure new financing.

A key component of the plan was a reverse vesting order (RVO) to separate uneconomic satellite business obligations from the ongoing operations.

The court found that the arrangement met all statutory requirements, was proposed in good faith, and was fair and reasonable to all stakeholders, including the initially opposing satellite providers who reached a commercial resolution.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction under s. 192(4) of the CBCA to grant an RVO and approved the inclusion of third-party releases.

The applicants, Xplore Inc. and 16029167 Canada Inc., sought a preliminary interim order under s. 192(4) of the CBCA to facilitate a comprehensive recapitalization transaction.

The applicants requested a stay of proceedings to prevent unsecured creditors, particularly satellite providers, from taking unilateral actions that could disrupt services to rural customers while definitive agreements were finalized.

The court granted the preliminary interim order, finding that the proposed transaction constituted an arrangement, the solvency requirement was met, and the stay was necessary to provide stability during negotiations.

Voyager Digital Ltd. applied under Part IV of the CCAA for an Initial Recognition Order of its Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

The central issue was whether the US proceeding should be recognized as a 'foreign main proceeding' or a 'foreign non-main proceeding', which depended on determining the company's Centre of Main Interests (COMI).

Despite being incorporated in British Columbia and listed on the TSX, the court found that the company's COMI was in the US, where its operations, management, and principal assets were located.

The court recognized the US proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and granted the requested stay.

The Applicants, licensed cannabis producers, sought court approval and sanction of their second amended and restated plan of compromise and arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan aimed to implement a settlement framework for multiple securities class actions arising from the Applicants' illegal cannabis growing operations.

While the court found the Allocation and Distribution Scheme reasonable and rejected KPMG's complaint about being excluded from voting, it refused to sanction the Plan.

The court held that the Plan's provisions regarding the assignment of claims against KPMG and the Judgment Reduction Provision in the Bar Order were not fair and reasonable to the non-settling defendants, as they failed to limit the non-settling defendants' liability to several liability.

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.

The applicant, a major Canadian toy retailer, sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a liquidity crisis triggered by the bankruptcy filing of its US parent company.

The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings to stabilize operations ahead of the holiday season.

The court also approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lending facility to replace existing secured debt and fund ongoing operations, while limiting the DIP lenders' enforcement rights to require court approval.

Provisions allowing the Monitor to pay pre-filing claims of critical suppliers and establishing charges for administration and directors/officers were also approved.

Following dismissal of a creditor’s motion seeking to compel a court‑appointed receiver to answer extensive questions and pay funds relating to a claim under s. 81.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court addressed the receiver’s entitlement to costs.

The responding creditor argued costs should await determination of a separate request to unseal confidential documents and contended it had achieved partial success.

The court rejected those submissions, holding the creditor had been entirely unsuccessful and that delaying costs would improperly leave their determination in the creditor’s control.

Finding the motion constituted an unwarranted fishing expedition that unnecessarily increased the receivership’s expenses, the court concluded the conduct was sufficiently improper to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The receiver’s costs were assessed at $23,236.76 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court heard two motions in a receivership proceeding.

The Receiver moved for its discharge and release from liability, having completed its mandate to close a sale transaction.

A creditor brought a motion to compel the Receiver to answer 114 questions, unseal confidential appendices, and pay out funds held in trust for its s. 81.1 claim.

The court dismissed the creditor's requests for answers and payment, finding the questions to be an unreasonable fishing expedition and the payment premature as the claim was not yet determined.

The request to unseal documents was adjourned to allow the affected party to respond.

The court granted the Receiver's discharge, finding no evidence of improper conduct.