L. Joseph Latham

The applicants (Algoma) sought two declarations: (i) that amounts owing under a promissory note from Portco to Algoma had been set off against amounts Algoma owed to Portco under a Cargo Handling Agreement; and (ii) that Algoma's right to terminate related Port Agreements was not subject to Portco's payment of the GIP Loan, which was tied to the set-off amounts.

The court granted the first declaration, finding that equitable set-off applied given the close connection between the parties and transactions, and the manifest inequity of requiring Algoma to pay Portco while the parent company (EGFL) failed to pay the promissory note.

However, the court denied the second declaration, holding that it would contradict a prior oppression judgment and an assignment agreement which explicitly required the GIP Loan to be paid in full in cash before Algoma could terminate the Port Agreements.

The Applicants, a group of Essar Steel Algoma entities, brought two motions in their CCAA proceedings: (i) for approval of a DIP extension agreement with existing DIP lenders, and (ii) for the appointment of a restructuring committee.

The DIP extension was opposed by various stakeholders including the USW, retirees, and GIP Primus, LP, who argued against the short term and potential leverage of the existing DIP lenders who were also Term Lenders.

The court dismissed the DIP extension motion, finding it would not enhance the prospects of a viable restructuring outcome, citing concerns about the alignment of interests between DIP and Term Lenders and the short-term nature of the proposed extension.

The motion for a restructuring committee was also dismissed, as the court found it would create unnecessary overlap with the existing Chief Restructuring Advisor and would not effectively address the core issues preventing restructuring, primarily labour negotiations.

GIP Primus, L.P. and Brightwood Loan Services LLC ("GIP"), along with Portco, brought motions seeking orders for Essar Steel Algoma Inc. ("Algoma") to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement, including arrears, and for a priority charge in the alternative.

The motions were based on section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, arguing that Portco provided critical services or licensed property.

The court dismissed the motions, reiterating previous findings that Portco did not provide services or a license, and that the arguments were previously decided.

The court also declined to grant a critical supplier charge under section 11.4 or the general discretion of section 11 of the CCAA, citing lack of application by the debtor, prior rulings, and potential breach of DIP loan terms and prejudice to other creditors.

Essar Capital Limited and USW Local 2251 brought motions within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

Essar Capital sought to re-open the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) and compel the disclosure of information to Essar Global for a potential bid.

Local 2251 sought court advice on engaging in discussions with Ontario Steel Investments Ltd. regarding potential transactions.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no basis to interfere with the established SISP, noting Essar Global's prior failure to demonstrate financial capability and the lack of a formal bid from Ontario Steel.

The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the court-ordered process and avoid delays detrimental to the restructuring.

The applicants, a group of Essar Steel Algoma entities under CCAA protection, moved for court approval of a Term Sheet with Cliffs Mining Company for the supply of iron ore pellets.

The motion was opposed by USW Locals and Algoma retirees, who sought disclosure of commercial terms and objected to provisions preventing disclaimer of the agreement and allowing Cliffs to terminate if an Essar Global entity acquired Algoma.

The court approved the Term Sheet, finding it beneficial for Algoma's restructuring by ensuring a stable and technically suitable iron ore supply.

The court dismissed the objections, emphasizing the urgency of approval, the confidentiality of pricing, and that the Term Sheet's provisions did not unlawfully fetter judicial discretion under CCAA section 32 or unduly prejudice stakeholders.

In the context of a CCAA proceeding, Port of Algoma Inc. (Portco) brought a motion seeking an order compelling the debtor, Essar Steel Algoma Inc., to make post-filing payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement and for an administrative charge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the Monitor was directed to commence an oppression proceeding regarding the underlying related party transactions.

The court also rejected Portco's renewed arguments under section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, noting they had been decided in a prior motion, and declined to lift the stay of proceedings, emphasizing that doing so would be contrary to the interests of the stakeholders and the restructuring process.

The applicants, a group of real estate development companies, sought an Initial Order under the CCAA and the continuation of their NOI proceedings under the CCAA.

Concurrently, the foreign representative of the parent company sought recognition of Israeli insolvency proceedings as a foreign main proceeding under Part IV of the CCAA.

The court approved a Co-operation Protocol between the foreign representative and the proposed Monitor, recognized the Israeli proceeding as a foreign main proceeding, and granted the Initial Order.

The court also extended the stay of proceedings to related limited partnerships and approved various administrative and interim financing charges.

The United Steelworkers Local Union 2251, supported by USW Local 2724 and Essar Algoma retirees, brought a motion to qualify a "Subject Bidder" as a Phase II Bidder in a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

The Subject Bidder had been disqualified by Essar Algoma, its Chief Restructuring Advisor, Financial Advisor, and the Monitor for failing to provide satisfactory evidence of financial capability to consummate a transaction.

The union argued it was not properly consulted in the disqualification decision and that it should have been allowed to meet with the Subject Bidder.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the union's consultation rights under the Sale and Solicitation Process (SISP) did not extend to decisions on a bidder's financial capability, and that the court should not second-guess the business judgment of the CCAA applicants and their professionals.