Sarah Schultz

The applicant, CURO Group Holdings Corp., as Foreign Representative, sought a Third Recognition Order under section 49 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to recognize and enforce several orders of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

These orders included the Combined Order approving the Debtors’ Joint Prepackaged Plan, the Estimation Order, and the Second Interim Cash Management Order.

The motion also sought termination of the Canadian Recognition Proceedings, discharge and release of the Information Officer, and approval of the Information Officer's reports and fees.

The relief sought was unopposed, and the court granted the Third Recognition Order, finding no public policy reason to deny recognition.

The applicant, CURO Group Holdings Corp., sought foreign recognition and interim stay relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the Courts of Justice Act (CJA) for its Canadian subsidiaries, CURO Canada Corp. and LendDirect Corp. These Canadian Debtors had simultaneously filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

The court granted the interim stay to protect the Canadian Debtors' assets and business in Canada during the period between the commencement of the U.S. Chapter 11 cases and the anticipated formal recognition orders from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

The decision emphasized the necessity of such interim relief to prevent prejudice and uphold principles of cooperation and comity in cross-border insolvency proceedings.

The balance of the application was adjourned for further hearing.

In a CCAA proceeding, the court considered supplementary written submissions regarding the appropriateness of differential consideration offered to unsecured creditors in the proposed Plan.

The court accepted the applicants' submission that the fairness of the differential consideration, which involves providing shares to Term Loan Lenders and cash to General Unsecured Creditors, should be determined at the Sanction Hearing rather than at the Meetings Order stage, given the low threshold for a Meetings Order and the presence of conflicting expert reports.

The Applicants sought an Authorization Order and Meetings Order under the CCAA.

The primary issues in dispute concerned the voting rights and classification of Litigation Claimants, which included uncertified U.S. class actions, a certified Ontario class action, and Texas mass tort claims.

The court held that the Litigation Claimants are creditors entitled to vote, but restricted them to one vote per action to prevent them from overriding other stakeholders on numerosity grounds.

The court also ordered summary proceedings to value their claims rather than accepting the Applicants' proposal to value them at $1.

Finally, the court declined to place the Term Loan Lenders in a separate class from other unsecured creditors, finding sufficient commonality of legal interests.