Regional Senior Justice G. B. Morawetz

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending enterprise, class members in Ontario consumer class actions moved for approval of three settlement agreements forming part of a broader global resolution of litigation involving the debtor companies, their directors and officers, and related parties.

The settlements resolved certain class claims and partially resolved a third‑party lender claim, providing more than $10 million in recovery with potential participation in future litigation proceeds.

The court applied established settlement approval factors including likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel recommendations, absence of objections, and arm’s‑length negotiations.

The court concluded that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and the restructuring process.

In CCAA proceedings involving a payday lending group, class counsel for Ontario consumer class actions sought court approval of contingency fees and disbursements following settlement of related class proceedings.

The settlements produced monetary recoveries exceeding $10 million for class members, with potential additional recovery from future litigation proceeds.

The court reviewed the reasonableness of the requested 25% contingency fee and disbursements using established factors including results achieved, litigation risk, and responsibility assumed by class counsel.

The motion was unopposed.

The court concluded the requested fees and disbursements were reasonable and approved the amounts.

In proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act arising from the insolvency of a payday lending enterprise, class members moved for approval of settlement administration measures related to consumer class action settlements.

The requested approvals included a settlement distribution protocol, notice plan, privacy and information management protocol, and appointment of a claims administrator.

A third‑party creditor that had purchased loan receivables from the debtor sought accommodation to assert an equitable set‑off against class members’ settlement recoveries.

The court held that the creditor’s claim lacked the close connection required for equitable set‑off and was effectively a prejudgment garnishment against settlement funds.

The administrative protocols were approved as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of class members.

In Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings involving several related corporate applicants, the court considered a motion for approval of the professional fees and disbursements of the court-appointed monitor and its counsel.

The fees covered the period of the restructuring proceedings following the initial CCAA protection order.

The monitor reported that it had reviewed its counsel’s accounts and considered them fair and reasonable.

No party objected to the requested amounts, and secured noteholders with a direct financial interest did not oppose the requests.

The court approved the monitor’s and its counsel’s fees and disbursements as reasonable in the circumstances.

In CCAA proceedings involving a global settlement of securities class actions arising from the restructuring of a payday lending group, class counsel sought court approval of legal fees and disbursements payable from the settlement fund.

The requested fees represented approximately 25.29% of the settlement amount and were incurred on a contingency basis.

The court considered the risks undertaken, the success achieved, the terms of the retainer agreements, and the range of percentages approved in comparable class proceedings.

Despite objections from several entities claiming the fees were excessive, the court found the request fair and reasonable.

The court approved the fees, disbursements, and modest honoraria to representative plaintiffs.

The Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicants' Securities moved for approval of a settlement agreement and plan of allocation in the context of CCAA proceedings involving Cash Store Financial Services and related entities.

The settlement provided for a payment of $13,779,167 by the defendants to resolve allegations of false and misleading statements regarding financial results.

The court approved the settlement and the associated third-party releases, finding them fair, reasonable, and consistent with the purpose of the CCAA.

The motion to approve the plan of allocation was adjourned on consent.