Nortel Networks Limited (Re), 2010 ONCA 402
CITATION: Nortel Networks Limited (Re), 2010 ONCA 402
DATE: 20100603
DOCKET: M38748
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Winkler C.J.O., Goudge and MacPherson JJ.A.
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED
AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION, NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED, NORTEL NETWORKS GLOBAL CORPORATION, NORTEL NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND NORTEL NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
Joel Rochon, John Archibald, and Sakie Tambakos, for the Objecting LTD Beneficiaries
Alan B. Merskey, and Suzanne M. Wood, for the Applicants
Mark Zigler, Susan Philpott, and Andrea McKinnon, for the Former Employees and Disabled Employees of Nortel
Barry E. Wadsworth, for the CAW-Canada, and George Borosh et al
Lyndon Barnes and Adam Hirsh, for the Boards of Directors of Nortel Networks Corporation and Nortel Networks Limited
Richard B. Swan, for the Informal Nortel Noteholder Group
Alex MacFarlane, for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Fred Myers, Gale Rubenstein, and Melaney Wagner for the Monitor, Ernst & Young Inc.
Considered in writing on: May 31, 2010
On leave to appeal from the order of the Honourable Justice Geoffrey P. Morawetz of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 31, 2010
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Leave to appeal is denied.
[2] The moving parties have not demonstrated that they have been subjected to any procedural unfairness. They have been represented throughout in a case that has been carefully judicially managed from the beginning. Their counsel accepts the settlement. No other LTD beneficiaries assert any unfair process, and the applicants can show none that they have been exposed to.
[3] Nor have they been able to show any substantive unfairness in the settlement. The motion judge exercised his discretion to carefully balance the various interests at stake in approving the settlement. In our view he made no demonstrable error in doing so. The settlement cannot be said to be unreasonable.
[4] The motion is dismissed. No costs are sought by the respondent and none are ordered.
“Winkler C.J.O.”
“S. T. Goudge J.A.”
“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”