COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-615862-00CL DATE: 2019/03/12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
- COMMERIAL LIST
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE OR ARRANGEMENT OF JTI-MACDONALD CORP. Applicant
BEFORE: Hainey J.
COUNSEL: Robert I. Thornton, Leanne M. Williams, Rachel Bengino and Mitch Grossell, for the Applicant Scott A. Bomhof and Adam M. Slavens, for Respondents JT Canada LLC, and PWC, in its capacity as Receiver of JTI-MacDonald TM Pamela L.J.Huff, Linc A. Rogers and Christopher Burr, for the Proposed Monitor, Deloitte Restructuring Inc.
HEARD: March 8, 2019
Endorsement
Background
[1] On March 8, 2019 JTI-Macdonald Corp. (“JTIM” or “Applicant”) sought an Initial Order pursuant to The Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). I granted the Initial Order and endorsed the record as follows:
I am satisfied that this application should be granted today on the terms of the attached Initial Order. There shall be a sealing order on the terms of para. 59 of the Initial Order. I will provide written reasons for my decision to grant this order in due course. The comeback motion referred to in para. 50 shall be on April 4, 2019 at 10 a.m. in this Court.
[2] These are my Reasons.
Facts
[3] As a result of a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal released on March 1, 2019 in a class proceeding (“Quebec Class Action”), JTIM and two other defendants are liable for damages totaling $13.5 billion (“Quebec Judgment”). If this judgment is not stayed, its enforcement could destroy the company because JTIM does not have sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment.
[4] According to JTIM, enforcement of the Quebec Judgment would destroy the company’s value for its 500 employees and 1,300 suppliers. It would also impact approximately 28,000 retailers that sell JTIM’s products and 790,000 consumers of its products. Enforcement of the Quebec Judgment would also jeopardize federal and provincial taxes and duties in excess of $1.3 billion paid annually in connection with JTIM’s operations (of which $500 million per year is paid directly by JTIM and another $800 million per year is paid by third parties and consumers).
[5] JTIM is also a defendant in a number of significant health care costs recovery actions (“HCCR Actions”). The total claims in the HCCR Actions exceed $500 billion.
[6] JTIM wishes to seek a “collective solution” to the Quebec Judgment and the HCCR Actions for the benefit of all of its stakeholders. It is for this reason that it seeks a stay of all proceedings in its application for an Initial Order pursuant to the CCAA.
[7] In its application JTIM seeks protection from its creditors and the following additional relief under the CCAA:
(a) declaring that it is a company to which the CCAA applies;
(b) granting a stay of proceedings against it, and the Other Defendants in the Pending Litigation, as defined and described in the Notice of Application;
(c) appointing Deloitte Restructuring Inc. (“Proposed Monitor”) as Monitor in these CCAA proceedings;
(d) granting an Administrative Charge, Directors’ Charge and Tax Charge;
(e) authorizing the Applicant to pay its pre-filing and post-filing obligations in respect of suppliers, trade creditors, taxes, duties, employees (including outstanding and future pension plan contributions, other post-employment benefits and severance packages) and royalty payments and to pay post-filing interest of certain of its secured obligations in the ordinary course of business in order to minimize any disruption of the Applicant’s business;
(f) approving the engagement letter dated April 23, 2018 (the “CRO Engagement Letter”) appointing Blue Tree Advisors Inc. as the Applicant’s Chief Restructuring Officer (“CRO”);
(g) authorizing it to apply for leave and, if successful, to appeal the Quebec Judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(h) sealing Confidential Exhibit “1” of Robert Master’s affidavit.
Issues
[8] I must decide the following issues:
(a) Should the Court grant protection to JTIM under the CCAA?
(b) Is it appropriate to grant the requested stay of proceedings?
(c) Should the Proposed Monitor be appointed as Monitor in these proceedings?
(d) Should the Court grant the requested charges?
(e) Is it appropriate to allow the payment of certain pre-filing and post-filing amounts?
(f) Should Blue Tree Advisors be appointed as CRO?
(g) Should JTIM be authorized to continue its application for leave to appeal of the Quebec Judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Analysis
Should the Court grant protection to JTIM under the CCAA?
[9] The CCAA applies to an insolvent company whose liabilities exceed $5 million.
[10] JTIM is a company incorporated pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act.
[11] JTIM’s liabilities clearly exceed $5 million. It faces a judgment for $13.5 billion. According to Robert McMaster, JTIM’s Director, Taxation and Treasury, the company does not have sufficient funds to satisfy the Quebec Judgment which is currently payable. Accordingly, JTIM is an insolvent company to which the CCAA applies.
Is it appropriate to grant the requested stay of proceedings?
[12] The Court may grant a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11.02 of the CCAA in respect of a debtor company if it is satisfied that circumstances exist that make the order appropriate. In order to determine whether a stay order is appropriate the Court should consider the purpose behind the CCAA. The primary purpose of the CCAA is to maintain the status quo for a period while the debtor company consults with its creditors and stakeholders with a view to continuing the company’s operations for the benefit of the company and its creditors.
[13] JTIM cannot pay the amount of the Quebec Judgment. Any steps to enforce the judgment could cause serious harm to JTIM’s business to the detriment of all of its stakeholders. In my view, it is appropriate for this reason to grant the requested stay of proceedings in favour of JTIM.
[14] JTIM also requests a stay of proceedings in favour of the other defendants in other litigation relating to tobacco claims in which JTIM is a defendant, including the Quebec Class Action and the HCCR Actions. The Court has discretion under s. 11 of the CCAA to impose a stay of proceedings with respect to non-applicant third parties. In Tamerlane Ventures Inc., Re, 2013 ONSC 5461, Newbould J stated as follows at para. 21:
Courts have an inherent jurisdiction to impose stays of proceedings against non-applicant third parties where it is important to the reorganization and restructuring process, where it is just and reasonable to do so.
[15] I came to the same conclusion in Pacific Exploration & Production Corp., Re, 2016 ONSC 5429, where at para. 26 I set out the following list of factors that courts have considered in deciding whether to extend a stay of proceedings to non-applicant third parties:
(a) the business and operations of the third party was significantly intertwined and integrated with those of the debtor company;
(b) extending the stay to the third party would help maintain stability and value during the CCAA process;
(c) not extending the stay to the third party would have a negative impact on the debtor company’s ability to restructure, potentially jeopardizing the success of the restructuring and the continuance of the debtor company;
(d) if the debtor company is prevented from concluding a successful restructuring with its creditors, the economic harm would be far-reaching and significant;
(e) failure of the restructuring would be even more harmful to customers, suppliers, landlords and other counterparties whose rights would otherwise be stayed under the third party stay;
(f) if the restructuring proceedings are successful, the debtor company will continue to operate for the benefit of all of its stakeholders, and its stakeholders will retain all of its remedies in the event of future breaches by the debtor company or breaches that are not related to the released claims; and
(g) the balance of convenience favours extending the stay to the third party.
[16] Having considered these factors, I am satisfied that granting the requested stay of proceedings to the other defendants will allow JTIM to attempt to arrive at a collective solution with respect to the Quebec Class Action and the HCCR actions. If these actions continue to proceed against the other defendants but not JTIM there could be significant economic harm for all of JTIM’s stakeholders.
[17] Accordingly, I have concluded that the balance of convenience favours exercising my discretion under the CCAA to grant a stay of proceedings to the other defendants.
Should the Proposed Monitor be appointed as the Monitor?
[18] I am satisfied that Deloitte Restructuring Inc. (“Deloitte”) should be appointed the Monitor in these proceedings pursuant to s. 11.7 of the CCAA. Deloitte regularly acts as the Monitor in CCAA proceedings and it is not subject to any of the restrictions set out in s. 11.7(2) of the CCAA.
Should the requested charges be granted?
Administrative Charge
[19] JTIM requests that I grant an administrative charge in favour of JTIM’s counsel, the CRO, the Monitor and its legal counsel in the amount of $3 million.
[20] The Court has jurisdiction to grant an administrative charge pursuant to s. 11.52 of the CCAA. In Canwest Global Publishing Inc., 2012 ONSC 633, Pepall J. set out the following list of factors the Court should consider when granting an administrative charge:
(a) the size and the complexity of the business being restructured;
(b) the proposed role of the beneficiaries of the charge;
(c) whether there is an unwarranted duplication of roles
(d) whether the quantum of the proposed charge appears to be fair and reasonable;
(e) the position of the secured creditors likely to be affected by the charge; and
(f) the position of the monitor.
[21] Having considered these factors, I am satisfied that the requested administration charge should be granted for the following reasons:
(a) JTIM’s restructuring will require extensive involvement by the professional advisors who are subject to the administrative charge;
(b) the professionals subject to the administration charge have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the restructuring of JTIM;
(c) there is no unwarranted duplication of roles so that the professional fees associated with these proceedings will be minimized;
(d) the administrative charge will rank in priority to the directors’ charge and the tax charge. The only secured creditors that will be affected by the administrative charge are JTIM’s parent companies and certain other secured related party suppliers, each of which support the granting of the administrative charge; and
(e) the Proposed Monitor believes that the amount of the administration charge is reasonable
Directors’ Charge
[22] I am satisfied that the directors’ charge should be approved to ensure the ongoing stability of JTIM’s business during the CCAA proceedings. The directors and officers have a great deal of institutional knowledge and experience and JTIM requires their continued management of its business. To ensure that the officers and directors remain with JTIM during the CCAA proceedings they require the protection of the directors’ charge. The proposed charge of $4.1 million will only be available to the extent that the directors’ and officers’ insurance is not available if a claim is made against them. The Proposed Monitor is of the view that the directors’ charge is reasonable and appropriate.
Tax Charge
[23] JTIM is also seeking a third-ranking super-priority charge in the amount of $127 million in favour of the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial authorities that are entitled to receive payments and collect money from JTIM with respect to sales taxes and excise taxes and duties. I am satisfied that this tax charge should be granted so that JTIM’s directors and officers do not become personally liable for these taxes. Further, the Proposed Monitor is of the view that the tax charge is reasonable and appropriate.
Is it appropriate to allow the payment of certain pre-filing and post-filing amounts?
[24] In Cinram International Inc., Re, 2012 ONSC 3767 Morawetz J. (as he then was) concluded at Para. 68 that the court should consider the following factors in deciding whether to authorize the payment of pre-filing obligations:
(a) whether the goods and services were integral to the business of the applicants;
(b) the debtors’ need for the uninterrupted supply of the goods or services;
(c) the Monitor’s support and willingness to work with the applicants to ensure that payments to suppliers in respect of pre-filing liabilities were appropriate; and
(d) the effect on the debtors’ ongoing operations and ability to restructure if they were unable to make pre-filing payments to their critical suppliers.
[25] JTIM’s business is expected to remain cash-flow positive during these CCAA proceedings so that it will have sufficient cash to meet its pre-filing and post-filing obligations. JTIM’s operations depend on timely and continuous supply from its suppliers. Maintaining its operations as a going concern is in the best interests of all of JTIM’s stakeholders. The Proposed Monitor supports JTIM’s intentions to pay its employees, trade creditors, royalty payments, interest, payments, previous obligations and other disbursements in the ordinary course of its business. I agree and adopt the Proposed Monitor’s reasons for supporting these pre-filing and post-filing payments as set out at paras. 65-72 of the Report of the Proposed Monitor dated March 8, 2019.
Should Blue Tree Advisors be appointed as CRO?
[26] According to JTIM, it requires the proposed Chief Restructuring Officer, William Aziz, to successfully complete its contemplated restructuring plan. Mr. Aziz has the experience and necessary skills to oversee and assist JTIM with its complex negotiations during the CCAA proceedings. With the assistance of the CRO, JTIM’s management can focus on the company’s operations which should maximize value for its stakeholders.
[27] I am satisfied that Mr. Aziz should be appointed as CRO pursuant to the terms of the CRO Engagement Letter which the Monitor supports.
[28] JTIM requests an order sealing the unredacted copy of the CRO Engagement Letter. Section 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act gives the Court jurisdiction to order that a document filed in a civil proceeding be treated as confidential, sealed and not form part of the public record.
[29] The CRO Engagement Letter sets out the commercial terms of the CRO’s engagement. This is commercially sensitive information. In my view JTIM’s request for a sealing order meets the test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41 because it will protect a commercial interest and the salutary effects of sealing the CRO’s Engagement Letter outweighs any deleterious effects since this is the type of information that a private company outside of a CCAA proceeding would treat as confidential.
Should JTIM be authorized to continue its appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada?
[30] At para. 75 of its Factum, JTIM submits as follows:
- In this case, the Applicant is cash flow positive and has successful business operations. Its insolvency is primarily due to the QCA Judgment. The Applicant wishes to exercise its right to appeal the QCA Judgment, while staying enforcement thereof and while considering its options for a viable solution for the benefit of all of its stakeholders.
[31] In my view, based on this submission it is reasonable to permit JTIM to continue its leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Conclusion
[32] For the reasons set out above the Application is granted.