Philip Yang

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

This endorsement concerns the costs of an injunction motion where the plaintiffs' request to prohibit the defendant Dongab Co. Inc. from exercising its power of sale on two mortgages was denied.

Dongab and Network Sewer and Watermain Ltd., the successful defendants, sought costs on a full indemnity basis, or alternatively substantial or partial indemnity.

Despite mortgage documentation calling for full indemnity, the court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding the requested amounts extraordinarily high and exceeding the plaintiffs' reasonable expectations.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $163,000.00 in all-inclusive costs.

The Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Defendant Dongab Co. Inc. from exercising its power of sale on two mortgages secured on the Plaintiffs' property.

The Plaintiffs argued that preconditions to repayment were not met and that the Notice of Sale had deficiencies, including improper service and incorrect interest calculation.

The court found no serious issue to be tried regarding the mortgages being due and payable, the amounts owing, or the validity of the Notice of Sale.

The court determined that the Plaintiffs' arguments were tactical attempts to delay payment.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment, arguing the motion judge erred in finding the respondent met her duty to mitigate following his breach of a contract of purchase and sale, and that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's reasons functionally adequate and her determination on mitigation reasonable.

The respondent was not obligated to grant further extensions or engage with the appellant's subsequent offers after his repeated failure to close the transaction.