Sanja Sopic

Lydian International Limited, the applicant in CCAA proceedings, sought an order to extend the stay of proceedings until March 31, 2021, or the filing of the Monitor's CCAA Termination Certificate, and to approve the Monitor's Eighth Report.

The CCAA Plan was sanctioned earlier, and Lydian International was undergoing an orderly wind-up in Jersey.

Due to unforeseen delays in the Jersey winding-up process, an extension of the stay was required.

The court found that the parties were working diligently and the applicant had sufficient financial resources.

The Monitor's report received no adverse comments.

Representations from shareholders regarding their investment loss were noted but deemed irrelevant to the requested relief, which did not alter the Plan Sanction and Implementation Order.

The court granted the motion, extending the stay and approving the Monitor's report.

The Applicants, part of the Lydian Group which owns a development-stage gold mine in Armenia, sought an order sanctioning their Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA.

The Plan, supported by the Monitor and the requisite majority of secured creditors, provides for the privatization of the Lydian Group and the release of existing indebtedness to Senior Lenders.

The court found the Plan to be fair and reasonable, noting that while equity claimants would receive no compensation, this reflected the economic reality of the insolvency.

The court also approved third-party releases, an increase to the DIP charge, an extension of the stay period, a sealing order for commercially sensitive information, and the Monitor's activities and fees.

The Applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought a Meeting Order to accept the filing of a Plan of Compromise or Arrangement, approve creditor classification, authorize a meeting for voting on the Plan, set a sanction hearing date, and seal certain affidavits.

The court granted the motion, finding the Plan had sufficient support to summon a creditors' meeting, the proposed single class of secured creditors had a commonality of interest under CCAA s. 22(2), and the sealing of commercially sensitive information in the affidavits was appropriate.

The Applicants (Green Growth Brands Inc. et al.) sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order and approval of a Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) and a Stalking Horse Agreement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Mr. Michael D. Horvitz, an investor, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking to set aside the Initial Order, adjourn the comeback motion for discovery, and direct the Monitor to investigate certain transactions.

The court dismissed Mr. Horvitz's cross-motion, finding his complaints largely constituted inter-creditor disputes outside the scope of CCAA proceedings.

The court approved the Applicants' requested orders, finding the SISP and Stalking Horse Agreement reasonable and compliant with CCAA criteria, despite Mr. Horvitz's objections regarding fairness, break fees, and the treatment of the GAOC Note.

This endorsement addresses a motion by Lydian International Limited and its affiliates to extend a stay period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

Following an initial order granting a 10-day stay, the applicants sought an extension.

The court had previously declined to grant the extension at the initial hearing, interpreting CCAA s. 11.001 to limit initial orders to ordinary course relief and maintain the status quo during the initial 10-day period.

The motion for extension was deferred to allow stakeholders to consider their positions.

With no opposition filed and the Monitor's support, the court found that the applicants were acting in good faith and with due diligence, justifying an extension of the stay period to January 23, 2020, to facilitate discussions with lenders and stakeholders regarding financing and sale options for their gold mine project.

The Applicants, part of a gold exploration and development business, sought an initial order for creditor protection under the CCAA due to liquidity issues caused by blockades at their Amulsar Project in Armenia.

The court granted the initial order, including a 10-day stay of proceedings, the appointment of a monitor, and the approval of Administration and D&O charges, finding them reasonably necessary for continued operations.

However, the court declined to immediately grant a stay extension beyond the initial 10-day period, emphasizing that recent CCAA amendments limit initial relief to what is necessary to avoid immediate liquidation, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicants, a group of Essar Steel Algoma entities, brought a motion under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) and related relief.

GIP and PortCo objected to certain aspects of the APA and the orders sought.

The court approved the APA and the Sale Transaction, finding it to be in the best interests of Algoma and its stakeholders.

The approval was granted without prejudice to the rights of GIP and PortCo to raise further objections regarding the Approval and Vesting Order at a later date.

Several other motions, including those by GIP, PortCo, and Garden River First Nations, were adjourned.

The court also ordered certain cross-examination transcripts and exhibits to be sealed based on the principles from the Sierra Club of Canada case.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the Board of Directors of Essar Steel Algoma Inc. brought a motion seeking to resume regular board meetings, receive confidential information, and be paid outstanding fees.

The Board had been previously disengaged due to an information sharing protocol and a prior court endorsement because the parent company was a bidder.

Although the parent company was no longer a bidder, the court dismissed the motion to reengage the Board, finding that the existing governance arrangements were functioning well and reengaging the Board could disrupt the restructuring.

However, the court granted the Board's request to have its independent counsel paid and included in discussions regarding the directors' potential liability.

The applicants (Algoma) sought two declarations: (i) that amounts owing under a promissory note from Portco to Algoma had been set off against amounts Algoma owed to Portco under a Cargo Handling Agreement; and (ii) that Algoma's right to terminate related Port Agreements was not subject to Portco's payment of the GIP Loan, which was tied to the set-off amounts.

The court granted the first declaration, finding that equitable set-off applied given the close connection between the parties and transactions, and the manifest inequity of requiring Algoma to pay Portco while the parent company (EGFL) failed to pay the promissory note.

However, the court denied the second declaration, holding that it would contradict a prior oppression judgment and an assignment agreement which explicitly required the GIP Loan to be paid in full in cash before Algoma could terminate the Port Agreements.

The applicants in a CCAA proceeding sought an order extending the stay period to September 30, 2017, which was unopposed by the Monitor and other stakeholders.

The court granted the extension, finding that the circumstances made it appropriate and that the applicants acted in good faith and with due diligence.

Additionally, the court addressed the disclosure of DIP Loan and Term Loan participant information, approving the Monitor's proposed confidentiality arrangements as a first step, and directing the documentation to be filed under seal.

Motions for leave to appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing a motion to require Algoma to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement in the context of CCAA proceedings.

The applicants sought to invoke section 11.01(a) of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to compel payment for post-filing services.

The motion judge had dismissed the motion three times on the same legal grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave motions, finding no prima facie merit due to issue estoppel and no significance to the practice, as the issues were specific to the unique agreements underlying the Port Transaction.

The City of Sault Ste.

Marie moved for immediate payment of Essar Steel Algoma Inc.'s outstanding and future post-filing property tax obligations, totaling approximately $10.8 million post-filing.

The court considered Algoma's precarious financial position, volatility of steel prices, and upcoming capital expenditures, including a significant blast furnace stove replacement.

While dismissing the City's motion for immediate payment of arrears, the court ordered Algoma to pay $350,000 per month for ongoing property taxes, acknowledging the City's difficulties and Algoma's assessment appeal.

GIP Primus, L.P. and Brightwood Loan Services LLC ("GIP"), along with Portco, brought motions seeking orders for Essar Steel Algoma Inc. ("Algoma") to resume payments under a Cargo Handling Agreement, including arrears, and for a priority charge in the alternative.

The motions were based on section 11.01(a) of the CCAA, arguing that Portco provided critical services or licensed property.

The court dismissed the motions, reiterating previous findings that Portco did not provide services or a license, and that the arguments were previously decided.

The court also declined to grant a critical supplier charge under section 11.4 or the general discretion of section 11 of the CCAA, citing lack of application by the debtor, prior rulings, and potential breach of DIP loan terms and prejudice to other creditors.

Essar Capital Limited and USW Local 2251 brought motions within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding.

Essar Capital sought to re-open the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) and compel the disclosure of information to Essar Global for a potential bid.

Local 2251 sought court advice on engaging in discussions with Ontario Steel Investments Ltd. regarding potential transactions.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no basis to interfere with the established SISP, noting Essar Global's prior failure to demonstrate financial capability and the lack of a formal bid from Ontario Steel.

The court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the court-ordered process and avoid delays detrimental to the restructuring.