16 total
The court sanctioned the CCAA plans of major tobacco companies to effect a global settlement.
This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.
The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.
The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.
Court approved CCAA plan amendments and dismissed a social stakeholder's objection for lack of standing.
This endorsement addresses motions by the court-appointed Monitors in the ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The Monitors sought approval for amendments to the CCAA Plans to resolve the allocation of a $750 million working capital holdback among the Tobacco Companies.
The only opposition came from the Heart and Stroke Foundation, which objected as a social stakeholder but was found to lack standing.
The court granted the motions, finding the amendments did not adversely affect any creditors and were appropriate in the circumstances.
The court granted an unopposed motion to approve a notice protocol order for class action plaintiffs.
This endorsement concerns ongoing insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) involving JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The specific motion, brought by the applicants, sought a Quebec Class Action Plaintiffs Notice Protocol Order.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with the requested order signed.
The court granted an unopposed motion for a Sanction Protocol Order in ongoing CCAA proceedings.
This endorsement concerns a joint motion brought by the court-appointed Monitors for JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. in their ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The Monitors sought a Sanction Protocol Order to establish the date for the Sanction Hearing, ratify the litigation timetable, approve the dissemination of the Agenda and Sanction Hearing procedure, approve the Omnibus Sanction Hearing Notice, and set the deadline for Sanction Hearing Objection Notices.
The motion was unopposed and was granted by the court, with three orders signed.
The court confirmed that notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders were reasonable.
This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.
The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.
The court granted Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders to advance a $32.5 billion global settlement of tobacco claims under the CCAA.
The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.
These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.
The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.
Initial CCAA order granted for major toy retailer, approving stay of proceedings and DIP financing.
The applicant, a major Canadian toy retailer, sought an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a liquidity crisis triggered by the bankruptcy filing of its US parent company.
The court granted the initial order, including a stay of proceedings to stabilize operations ahead of the holiday season.
The court also approved a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lending facility to replace existing secured debt and fund ongoing operations, while limiting the DIP lenders' enforcement rights to require court approval.
Provisions allowing the Monitor to pay pre-filing claims of critical suppliers and establishing charges for administration and directors/officers were also approved.
The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for leave to appeal a CCAA sanction order.
Self-represented long-term disability beneficiaries sought leave to appeal a sanction order from the Superior Court of Justice in the Nortel Networks CCAA proceedings.
The applicants challenged their binding status under the 2009 Representation Order for Disabled Employees and the 2010 Employee Settlement Agreement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings was not met.
The proposed appeal lacked merit, the applicants were bound by the settlement agreement, and further delays in the protracted litigation were to be avoided.
The court also rejected a late-filed notice of constitutional question challenging sections 6(1) and 11 of the CCAA.
Lockbox funds were allocated pro rata across debtor estates.
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.
Leave to appeal denied in CCAA proceeding regarding insurer's obligation to pay directors' legal fees.
The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay the legal fees of Nortel's executives without reference to a $10 million retention amount or a directors and officers trust fund.
The motion judge had found that the indemnification was a pre-filing claim subject to the CCAA stay, and that allowing access to the trust would improperly elevate the insurer's priority.
The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding the motion judge's conclusions were within his expertise and entitled to deference, and the issues were specific to the case rather than of broader interest.
The Court also declined to consider fresh evidence filed by the applicant because no motion for leave to admit it was brought.
Initial CCAA order granted approving restructuring steps and related charges.
A debtor company sought an initial order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to implement a consensual recapitalization transaction supported by major secured creditors.
The motion requested a stay of proceedings, approval of debtor‑in‑possession financing and related charges, authorization for certain pre‑filing payments, and the appointment of a monitor and foreign representative.
The court was satisfied that the company qualified as a debtor company and that the restructuring proposal had substantial creditor support.
The court granted the requested relief, including a sealing order for confidential financial materials and approval of claims procedure and creditors’ meetings orders to facilitate the restructuring plan.
Court refuses premature creditor vote on restructuring plan in ongoing CCAA negotiations.
In CCAA proceedings involving a mining company, competing motions were brought concerning the restructuring process.
The debtor sought directions regarding the procedure for resolving noteholder claims and the alleged misuse of confidential information by certain creditors, while the noteholders sought an order convening a meeting of creditors to vote on their proposed plan of arrangement.
The court held that calling a creditors’ meeting was premature because the proposed plan conflicted with the debtor-in-possession financing facility, had been introduced without meaningful consultation, and unresolved claims and litigation issues could affect voting rights and recoveries.
The court dismissed the noteholders’ motion without prejudice and declined to order disclosure sought by the debtor.
The stay of proceedings was extended to facilitate continued negotiations and mediation.
CCAA stay extended after court found good faith and ongoing progress in claims process.
In ongoing proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the applicants sought approval of an Employee Hardship Application Process and an extension of the stay of proceedings.
The requested hardship process was unopposed and approved.
Certain noteholders sought conditions requiring enhanced reporting and procedural safeguards in relation to the claims process and employee claims.
The court held that the statutory test under s. 11(6) of the CCAA was satisfied because the circumstances warranted the extension and the applicants had acted in good faith and with due diligence.
The stay extension was granted, while proposed procedural changes to the claims process were found more appropriately addressed through a motion to vary existing orders.
Registered mortgage priority upheld over unregistered investor interests absent fraud.
The applicant first mortgage creditor sought declarations confirming the validity and priority of its registered security over multiple real estate development properties subject to receivership, and an order directing distribution of sale proceeds by the court‑appointed receiver.
Various investors holding undivided interests and lot purchasers opposed the motion, arguing that their prior contractual interests and alleged breaches of trust by the debtor should defeat the applicant’s mortgage priority.
Relying on Alberta land titles legislation, the court held that registered interests take priority over unregistered interests absent fraud, and that mere knowledge of unregistered claims does not amount to fraud or equitable subordination.
The court also rejected arguments that postponements granted by mortgage investment corporations were invalid.
The applicant’s priority was confirmed and the requested declaratory and distribution relief granted.
Appeal dismissed; no error in finding no unrealized assets or in awarding substantial indemnity costs.
The appellant bank appealed a decision dismissing its motion to reappoint a trustee in bankruptcy and annulling a bankruptcy order, as well as the substantial indemnity costs awarded against it.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there were no unrealized or undistributed assets under s. 41(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, noting the bank failed to adduce evidence that certain appraisals would have altered property valuations.
The Court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs orders, finding the trial judge acted within his discretion.
The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.
Leave to appeal CCAA reorganization plan denied due to unsubstantiated complaints and appellant's delay.
The appellant, representing unsecured noteholders, sought leave to appeal orders approving a CCAA reorganization plan for the GT Group of Companies.
The appellant argued the plan was unfair because it excluded the parent company, required the parent to transfer assets to subsidiaries, and deprived noteholders of rights to sue.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, finding the asset transfer complaint illusory as the assets would be lost to secured creditors anyway, and the loss of rights to sue unsubstantiated.
The Court also noted the appellant's delay and failure to propose an alternative plan.