The applicants, who invested approximately $15 million in the respondent companies, sought the appointment of a receiver following defaults on loans and breaches of a forbearance agreement.
The respondents had agreed to the appointment of a monitor and provided consents to a receivership held in escrow, but subsequently failed to provide the monitor with unfettered access to financial records, delayed adding the monitor as a bank signatory, and made preferential payments to the principal's family members.
The court found that the respondents materially breached the forbearance agreement and side letter, making it just and convenient under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to appoint a receiver over all three respondent companies.
