Maria Konyukhova

The applicant, acting as Foreign Representative for the Chapter 11 Debtors, brought an unopposed motion under the CCAA to recognize several orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, including the Confirmation Order approving the Chapter 11 Plan.

The court found that the Plan was overwhelmingly supported by creditors, treated Canadian and U.S. stakeholders equitably, and was in the best interests of the debtors.

The court granted the recognition orders, approved the corporate steps necessary to implement the Plan, and authorized a mechanism to terminate the CCAA proceedings.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding moved for approval of a subscription agreement and a reverse vesting transaction, along with a back-up agreement, releases, a claims process, a stay extension, and a sealing order.

The court found the reverse vesting structure necessary to preserve the value of the business as a going concern, particularly to maintain highly regulated cannabis licences and permits.

The transaction would satisfy all secured liabilities and leave a surplus for unsecured creditors.

The court approved the requested relief, noting it was unopposed and supported by the Monitor.

In the context of Laurentian University's CCAA proceedings, Thorneloe University appealed a Claims Officer's decision valuing its loss of commercial value claim at zero following the disclaimer of their Federation Agreement.

Thorneloe argued the Claims Officer erred by applying a lost profits approach rather than a loss of business value approach, relying on an expert report valuing the enterprise at $9.8 million.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Claims Officer's factual determination that Thorneloe was an unprofitable entity and his subsequent rejection of the expert's revenue multiplier methodology.

The court affirmed that expectation damages (lost profits) is the customary remedy for breach of contract, and a non-breaching party is not entitled to be put in a better position than if the contract had been performed.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a bankruptcy application against the defendant for an alleged indebtedness of approximately US$32.4 million for unpaid wholesale apparel.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss the application, arguing there was a bona fide dispute over the debt due to the plaintiffs' alleged breaches of a Master Sourcing Agreement, which contained an exclusive forum clause designating New York courts.

The court found a bona fide dispute existed and that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the contractual claims due to the forum selection clause.

The bankruptcy application was stayed on terms, including a requirement for the defendant to pay funds into court, pending the resolution of the New York proceeding.

The Applicants, part of the Lydian Group which owns a development-stage gold mine in Armenia, sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan, supported by the Monitor and the requisite majority of secured creditors, provides for the privatization of the Lydian Group and the release of existing indebtedness to Senior Lenders.

The court found the Plan to be fair and reasonable, noting that while equity claimants would receive no compensation, this reflected the economic reality of the insolvency.

The court also approved third-party releases, an increase to the DIP charge, an extension of the stay period, a sealing order for commercially sensitive information, and the Monitor's activities and fees.

The Liquidator of Maple Bank GmbH brought a motion seeking approval of a Settlement Agreement and a Sale Transaction with the Bank of Montreal, as well as an order sealing a Confidential Supplement containing unredacted transaction details.

The court applied the Soundair principles and the Sierra Club test, finding the settlement and sale to be fair, reasonable, and beneficial to the estate.

The court also granted the sealing order to protect commercially sensitive information that could prejudice ongoing negotiations with other parties.

The motion was granted on consent.

The moving party, Zayo Inc., previously had its motion dismissed.

The motion sought an order for the Monitor to pay Zayo $1,228,799.81 from the proceeds of the sale of the applicants' assets.

In this costs endorsement, Zayo argued that costs are not the norm in CCAA proceedings.

The court disagreed, finding this to be an exceptional case where the normal rule of costs should apply, as the real opponents (the secured lenders and the purchaser) were not insolvent.

The court awarded costs against Zayo, fixing them at $30,000 each for Primus and BMO, and $20,000 each for Birch and the Monitor.

In a CCAA restructuring proceeding, the moving parties (Cliffs) brought a motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court to hear a dispute over a terminated iron ore supply contract.

Cliffs argued that the contract was governed by Ohio law and that Ohio was the convenient forum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it had jurisdiction simpliciter because the contract was made in Ontario and Cliffs carried on business in Ontario.

Applying the single control model for insolvencies, the court held that the dispute should be resolved within the CCAA proceedings.

The court also found that Cliffs failed to establish that Ohio was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The applicants, a group of integrated telecommunications companies operating in Canada and the US, sought an initial order under the CCAA.

Facing declining revenues and defaults on secured credit agreements, the companies required protection to implement a pre-filing sales process.

The court granted the initial order, finding the applicants were insolvent debtor companies.

The court also approved an Administration Charge of $1 million, a Directors' and Officers' Charge of $3.1 million, and authorized FTI Consulting Canada Inc. to act as the foreign representative to seek recognition of the proceedings in the United States under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A secured creditor applied for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of an insolvent mining company following defaults under a secured credit facility.

The debtor had failed to make scheduled interest payments, was unable to obtain further financing, and its financial position had deteriorated significantly.

The lender had security over all assets and shares of a Colombian subsidiary holding the company’s principal mining properties, but governance disputes and creditor protection proceedings in Colombia created uncertainty and risk to asset value.

The court considered the statutory authority under s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, along with established principles governing when it is “just or convenient” to appoint a receiver.

Finding that the debtor was in default and that a receivership was necessary to stabilize governance and preserve enterprise value, the court appointed KPMG as receiver.

In CCAA proceedings involving a mining company, competing motions were brought concerning the restructuring process.

The debtor sought directions regarding the procedure for resolving noteholder claims and the alleged misuse of confidential information by certain creditors, while the noteholders sought an order convening a meeting of creditors to vote on their proposed plan of arrangement.

The court held that calling a creditors’ meeting was premature because the proposed plan conflicted with the debtor-in-possession financing facility, had been introduced without meaningful consultation, and unresolved claims and litigation issues could affect voting rights and recoveries.

The court dismissed the noteholders’ motion without prejudice and declined to order disclosure sought by the debtor.

The stay of proceedings was extended to facilitate continued negotiations and mediation.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants (Hollinger Inc. et al.) sought approval of settlement agreements with their former auditors (KPMG) and lawyers (Torys).

The Non-Settling Defendants, including Conrad Black and David Radler, opposed the settlements, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction and that the included third-party releases and bar orders would deprive them of procedural rights to discovery.

The court held it had jurisdiction under the CCAA to manage litigation as a corporate asset.

The court approved the Pierringer-style settlements, finding that the procedural rights of the Non-Settling Defendants could be adequately protected through active case management and the application of the principle of proportionality in discovery.

In a CCAA proceeding, a former CEO moved for an order compelling the debtor company to continue paying his monthly consulting fees under a 1996 agreement.

The debtor company brought a cross-motion declaring the obligations were pre-filing obligations stayed by the Initial Order, or alternatively, seeking to disclaim the agreement under s. 32 of the CCAA.

The court held that the consulting fees were in substance termination or retirement benefits, constituting unsecured pre-filing obligations that were stayed.

Alternatively, the court found that disclaiming the agreement was advantageous to the restructuring and would not cause significant financial hardship to the former CEO.