Massimo Starnino

Representative Counsel for investor claimants in a winding-up proceeding sought approval of a $40 million settlement distribution scheme and $6 million in professional fees.

Two investors objected, arguing for a flat-fee allocation of costs rather than a pro rata deduction, and one objected to the fee amount.

The court approved the pro rata allocation as fair and equitable, noting it avoids arbitrary distinctions between investors.

The court also approved the $6 million fee, finding it reasonable given the significant risks assumed, the excellent results achieved, and the 1.6 multiplier on docketed time.

The Applicants, under CCAA protection, brought a motion seeking an order to authorize and approve the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment.

The motion was opposed by the USW and GIP.

The court granted the motion, finding that the DIP solicitation process was competitive, robust, and fair, and that the Revised Fourth DIP Amendment was the best available proposal.

The amendment addressed previous concerns by providing a maturity date past the winter build period, a sufficient commitment amount, and minimal conditions on covenants.

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.

In CCAA restructuring proceedings, the applicants sought approval of a key employee retention plan (KERP) for 23 management employees and a related charge securing payment obligations.

Unions opposed the motion, arguing insufficient disclosure, excessive compensation, and lack of consultation.

The court held that s. 11 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act provides jurisdiction to approve a KERP and applied established factors including the importance of management continuity, support from the monitor and secured creditors, and the business judgment of the board.

Finding the participants critical to the restructuring and the process for establishing the KERP robust, the court approved the plan and associated charge.

The court also granted a sealing order over confidential information identifying participants and compensation amounts.

Various parties brought motions seeking reconsideration or clarification of a prior joint allocation decision determining the distribution of $7.3 billion in escrow among debtor estates in multinational insolvency proceedings.

The moving parties argued that aspects of the allocation methodology—including treatment of bond guarantee claims, certain asset sale proceeds, intercompany claims, tax claims, and settled claims—required amendment or clarification.

The court reiterated that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy and rejected most requests because the issues either had been addressed at trial or could have been raised earlier.

Limited clarification was granted regarding the treatment of bondholder claims against guarantors and recognition of certain court‑approved settled pre‑filing claims that had been paid.

Other requested clarifications or amendments were denied.