Michael E. Barrack

The Nortel group of companies filed for insolvency protection across multiple jurisdictions.

Following the sale of Nortel's assets, approximately $7.3 billion was placed in escrow.

The trial judge ordered that these lockbox funds be allocated on a pro rata basis among the various debtor estates, finding that Nortel operated as a highly integrated multinational enterprise and that the master research and development agreement did not govern allocation upon insolvency.

Several parties sought leave to appeal under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals were not prima facie meritorious, did not raise issues of significance to the practice, and would unduly hinder the progress of the proceedings.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., its parent company, United States Steel Corporation, sought approval of several proofs of claim totaling over $2 billion.

Various stakeholders objected, arguing that the intercompany loans should be re-characterized as 'equity claims' under the CCAA and that the security granted for certain advances was void as a fraudulent preference or unenforceable for lack of consideration.

The court rejected the objections, finding that the parent company had a reasonable expectation of repayment when the advances were made, and that the security was validly granted for fresh consideration and did not constitute a fraudulent preference.

The claims were confirmed as debt claims.

In a CCAA restructuring proceeding, stakeholders sought disclosure of a settlement agreement between U.S. Steel, its Canadian subsidiary, and the Attorney General of Canada regarding undertakings under the Investment Canada Act.

The CCAA judge held that the agreement was entirely privileged under s. 36 of the ICA.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while s. 36(5) protects the Crown from being compelled to disclose the agreement, this protection does not extend to the private corporations.

The appeal was allowed, and the issue of whether common law settlement privilege barred disclosure was remitted to the CCAA judge.

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.

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.

In the context of the global insolvency of Nortel Networks, the UK Pension Claimants (UKPC) asserted multiple claims against the Canadian debtors (NNC and NNL).

The UKPC claimed for a contingent Financial Support Direction (FSD) under UK pension law, amounts under a Funding Guarantee and a Swift Guarantee, and remedies for oppression and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the FSD claim as too remote and speculative to constitute a provable claim in the CCAA proceedings.

The court also dismissed the claims under the Swift Guarantee, oppression, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court allowed the UKPC's claim under the Funding Guarantee, finding NNL liable for £339.75 million.

The applicants, owners of designated physiotherapy clinics, sought judicial review to quash Regulation 138/13, which delisted their clinics and changed the funding model for physiotherapy services.

They argued the regulation was enacted in violation of a government policy requiring a 45-day consultation period, thereby breaching their legitimate expectations of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the policy did not create a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified representation, as it expressly allowed for exceptions.

Furthermore, the court noted that quashing the regulation would be futile, as the government could simply re-enact it after a formal consultation period, having already heard and rejected the applicants' views.

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.

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.

The moving parties sought a stay of proceedings relating to a sealing order in a CCAA proceeding pending the determination of their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding that the CCAA judge was better placed to assess the stay, and that the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a sealing order that redacted the amounts to be paid under two proposed settlement agreements in a CCAA proceeding.

The appellants argued the sealing order unjustifiably infringed the open court principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that litigation settlement privilege applied to the settlement agreements until approved by the court.

The court held that the sealing order was a minimal intrusion on the open court principle, the requirement to sign a confidentiality agreement did not impose an undue burden, and the respondents did not waive privilege by complying with the court order.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at a compounded rate of 5.59% semi-annually for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant knew the funds would be reinvested to earn a compound return was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that compound interest is an appropriate measure of damages where the parties knew or should have known the disputed money would bear compound interest.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to correct an error in paragraph 11 of its reasons for judgment released on November 17, 2005.

The court amended the reasons to replace the reference to 'Subordinated Debenture Holders' with 'Senior Debt Holders' in the first two sentences of the paragraph.

The defendants appealed an order certifying a class action regarding defective blood glucose monitors.

The motion judge certified the action on the basis that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in 'waiver of tort', seeking restitutionary remedies of constructive trust or disgorgement of profits rather than compensatory damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the law regarding waiver of tort as an independent cause of action and the availability of the requested restitutionary remedies is unsettled.

Therefore, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs' claims would fail, and the issues should be resolved on a full factual record at trial.

The appellants appealed an order excising references to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from their statement of claim.

The parties had entered into the MOU for a wind energy project, which the respondent later purported to terminate while under CCAA protection.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in determining the validity of the termination notice on a Rule 21 motion and in concluding that the appellants were precluded from pleading a good faith obligation arising from the MOU.