Superior Court of Justice – Ontario (Commercial List)

Court File No.: CV-19-627656-00CL

Date: February 17, 2026

In the Matter of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended

And in the Matter of Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., Rhodes Associates L.P., Paul Land Inc., Rhodes Technologies, Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., UDF LP, SVC Pharma Inc., Button Land L.P., SVC Pharma LP, Quidnick Land L.P., Seven Seas Hill Corp., Ophir Green Corp., Purdue Pharma of Puerto Rico, Avrio Health L.P., Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P., Aldon Therapeutics L.P., Imbrium Therapeutics L.P., Greenfield BioVentures L.P., Nayatt Cove Lifescience Inc., Purdue Neuroscience Company, Purdue Pharmaceuticals Products L.P.

Application of Purdue Pharma L.P., under Section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended

Before: Conway J.

Counsel:

Lee Nicholson, Lesley Mercer and Chloé Duggal, for the Foreign Representative

Cindy Clarke, Barry Glaspell and Alex MacFarlane, for Purdue Canada

Sandra A. Forbes and Natalie Renner, for McKesson Canada Corporation

Mary Paterson, for Sanis Health Inc., Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., and Loblaw Companies Limited

Grant B. Moffat, Reidar Mogerman, Derek Harland, and Katie Duke, for His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia

David Bish and Adam Slavens, for Ernst & Young Inc.

Nadia Campion, for the Sackler Families

Caitlin McIntyre and Anna Welch, for Janssen Inc.

Heard: February 9, 2026

Reasons for Decision (RECOGNITION OF CONFIRMATION ORDER)

[1] Purdue Pharma L.P. (the " Foreign Representative ") brings this motion for an order (the " Recognition Order ") recognizing the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming the Eighteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma L.P. and its Affiliated Debtors granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the " Bankruptcy Court ").

[2] The Foreign Representative further seeks an order terminating these recognition proceedings under Part IV of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the " CCAA ") upon the filing of a certificate by Ernst & Young Inc. (the " Information Officer "), and ancillary relief.

[3] The Foreign Representative's motion for the Recognition Order is unopposed.

[4] McKesson Canada Corporation, Sanis Health Inc., Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., and Loblaw Companies Limited (the " Co-Defendants ") seek a bar order as a term of the Recognition Order (the " Bar Order "). His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia (" HMTK ") opposes the imposition of the Bar Order.

[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, I granted the Recognition Order and reserved my decision on the Bar Order. I have decided not to include the Bar Order. These are my reasons with respect to both orders.

Background

[6] The following facts are set out in the affidavit of Keith Darragh, Executive Vice-President of Purdue Pharma L.P., sworn December 18, 2025, and are undisputed unless otherwise noted. All defined terms used in this Endorsement shall, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings ascribed to them in the Factum of the Foreign Representative dated January 12, 2026.

[7] The Chapter 11 Debtors [^1] operate pharmaceutical companies that manufacture, among other things, opioid pain medications, including OxyContin® Extended-Release Tablets. On September 15, 2019, those companies filed for protection under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the " Bankruptcy Code ").

[8] The Foreign Representative brought recognition proceedings in this court pursuant to ss. 47 and 48 of the CCAA and obtained a recognition order on September 19, 2019. That order recognized the Chapter 11 Proceeding as a foreign main proceeding.

[9] Prior to the filing, certain Chapter 11 Debtors faced over 2,600 civil actions in the United States and 13 actions in Canada relating to the sale, distribution, and marketing of OxyContin and other opioid pain medications. [^2]

[10] In October 2019, the Bankruptcy Court granted a preliminary injunction temporarily staying certain claims against third parties associated with the Chapter 11 Debtors, including owners, directors, officers, employees, and associated entities and members of the Sackler family (the " Sacklers ").

[11] On December 30, 2019, this court recognized the preliminary injunction. In addition, it granted a stay of opioid-related proceedings against the related parties, including Purdue Pharma, Purdue Pharma Inc. and/or Purdue Frederick Inc. (" Purdue Canada ") and other Canadian-associated entities.

[12] Purdue Canada is not a Chapter 11 Debtor. It is related to the Chapter 11 Debtors through common shareholder ownership by the Sacklers.

The First Plan

[13] The first Chapter 11 plan (the " First Plan ") was filed in March 2021 and included a contribution by the Sacklers of at least USD$3.5 billion. Following numerous rounds of mediation, the amount of the shareholder contribution was increased to USD$4.275 billion. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the First Plan on September 20, 2021.

[14] The First Plan contemplated third-party releases for the Sacklers in exchange for their contribution to the Chapter 11 Debtors' estates. The 2021 confirmation order was appealed, primarily on the basis of the third-party releases in the First Plan. The United States Supreme Court ultimately held that non-consensual third-party releases in the First Plan were impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code: Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 US 204 (2024) (the " Harrington Decision ").

The New Plan

[15] After the Harrington Decision, a new plan was developed (the " New Plan ") that, among other things, eliminated the non-consensual third-party releases. Under the New Plan, the third-party releases only bind creditors who affirmatively elect to grant them.

[16] On the effective date, the majority of Purdue Pharma's current value will be transferred to nine trusts for the benefit of creditors of the Chapter 11 Debtors. The operating business will be transferred to a new privately held company called Knoa Pharma LLC, which will be wholly owned by an independent not-for-profit foundation. Purdue Pharma will cease to exist.

[17] The New Plan provides for the creation of a public document repository that will contain the most significant documents relating to Purdue, the Sacklers, and the opioid crisis. It will include more than 13 million documents produced throughout the course of the Chapter 11 cases. [^3]

[18] The settlements with the Sacklers are set out in a global settlement agreement and include: (i) a settlement of the Chapter 11 Debtors' claims against the Sacklers (the " Estate Claims Settlement ") and (ii) settlements between creditors and the Sacklers pursuant to which they will make payments that will be received solely by creditors who elect to participate in such settlements and release their direct claims against the Sacklers (" Direct Claims Settlements ").

[19] The settlement requires the Sacklers to pay up to USD$7 billion over 15 years. Creditors who elect to participate in a Direct Claims Settlement and provide Third-Party Releases will be eligible for distributions from both settlements. Creditors who do not provide Third-Party Releases will receive their pro-rata distributions only from the Estate Claims Settlement and will retain their rights to pursue litigation against the Sacklers.

[20] The New Plan and shareholder settlements also require the Sacklers to use their commercially reasonable best efforts to sell their international pharmaceutical companies, excluding Purdue Canada, on the terms set out in the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement. The exclusion of Purdue Canada was the result of a resolution reached between the Sacklers and creditors of the Chapter 11 Debtors.

Voting and Confirmation

[21] The Chapter 11 Debtors' vote solicitation efforts were administered by Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC. It received approximately 81,878 timely and properly completed ballots voting on the New Plan. Over 99% of the votes, by number of ballots cast and total dollar amount, were in favour of the New Plan. Within each of the classes entitled to vote, support ranged from 85.51% to 100%.

[22] The confirmation hearing started on November 12, 2025 and concluded on November 14, 2025. Three objections were filed by represented parties, which were resolved before or during the hearing. [^4] The only timely objections that remained unresolved were asserted by nineteen pro se objectors. The Bankruptcy Court overruled those objections. None of the objections were by Canadian stakeholders or involved issues of direct relevance to Canadian parties.

[23] On conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court advised it would enter the order confirming the New Plan (the " Confirmation Order "). The Bankruptcy Court orally rendered its decision on November 18, 2025 and issued a written modified bench ruling on November 20, 2025.

[24] The deadline for filing appeals in connection with the New Plan expired at midnight on December 2, 2025. As of that date, eight pro se claimants had filed notices of appeal. The statutory stay of the Confirmation Order expired on December 2, 2025. Although motions to stay have been filed, there is presently no stay of the Confirmation Order in effect.

Issues to be Decided

[25] There are three issues to be decided on this motion:

a. Should the Confirmation Order be recognized?

b. Should the recognition proceedings be terminated and the ancillary relief granted?

c. Should the Bar Order be granted?

Recognition of the Confirmation Order

[26] This court has recognized the Chapter 11 Cases as "foreign main proceedings" under ss. 47 and 48 of the CCAA. When a foreign main proceeding has been recognized under Part IV of the CCAA, s. 49(1) provides that the court may make "any order that it considers appropriate" with respect to such foreign proceedings if it is satisfied that such order is necessary for the protection of the debtor company's property or the interests of its creditors. Section 50 provides that an order made under Part IV, including pursuant to s. 49, "may be made on any terms and conditions that the court considers appropriate in the circumstances."

[27] The purpose of Part IV of the CCAA is to effect cross-border insolvencies and create a system under which foreign insolvency proceedings can be recognized in Canada: Zochem Inc. (Re), 2016 ONSC 958, at para. 15. This corresponds to the stated purpose of Part IV, as set out in s. 44. Underlying this purpose is the principle of comity and cooperation with courts in foreign proceedings: see s. 52 of the CCAA.

[28] When considering recognition of a foreign order, the factors to be considered include, among other things, (a) the principles of comity and the need to encourage cooperation between courts of various jurisdictions; (b) the need to respect foreign bankruptcy and insolvency legislation; (c) the equitable treatment of stakeholders and, to the extent reasonably possible, the equal treatment of stakeholders regardless of the jurisdiction in which they reside; and (d) that the appropriate level of court involvement depends to a significant degree upon the court's nexus to the enterprise: YRC Freight Canada Company (Re), 2023 ONSC 5513, at para. 13, citing Re Xerium Technologies Inc., 2010 ONSC 3974, at paras. 26-27; Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd., Re (2000), 5 B.L.R. (3d) 75 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 2.

[29] Typically, a Canadian court will only refuse to recognize an order of another court in situations where the public policy provisions of s. 61(2) of the CCAA are triggered. This exception to recognition is to be interpreted narrowly: YRC, at para. 12, citing Re Hartford Computer Hardware, Inc., 2012 ONSC 964, 94 C.B.R. (5th) 20, at paras. 17-18.

[30] Applying these principles, I am satisfied that the Confirmation Order should be recognized in Canada. The New Plan will provide a global resolution of claims against the Chapter 11 Debtors and a comprehensive, consensual resolution of claims against the Sacklers. These settlements are the product of years of investigations, mediations, and hard-fought negotiations, and will result in up to USD$7 billion contributed by the Sacklers to public and private creditor trusts. The New Plan has the support of every organized creditor group in the Chapter 11 Cases.

[31] With respect to the Third-Party Releases, the New Plan has now removed the non-consensual releases. The Third-Party Releases will only bind creditors who choose to grant them. The Bankruptcy Court held that these releases are consistent with the Harrington Decision.

[32] Canadian insolvency law permits the granting of non-consensual third-party releases. The treatment of releases in the New Plan is therefore less onerous than what might be permitted under Canadian law: Lydian International Limited (Re), 2020 ONSC 4006, 81 C.B.R. (6th) 218, at paras. 58-59; Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., (Re), 2008 ONCA 587, 92 O.R. (3d) 513, at para. 113, leave to appeal refused, [2008] S.C.C.A. No. 337. See also Paladin Labs Canadian Holding Inc., 2024 ONSC 2224, at paras. 20, 27-29.

[33] Further, the releases in the New Plan carve out and do not release claims against third-parties for any claims against any non-Chapter 11 Debtor person (including, Purdue Canada or other Sacklers) that (a) arise out of or relate to the conduct of any entities formed under the laws of Canada; and (b) are not based upon any conduct of the Chapter 11 Debtors.

[34] The Foreign Representative submits that the New Plan is the best available option for avoiding years of uncertain, time-consuming and value-destructive litigation. The Chapter 11 Debtors considered alternatives but determined that a sale of their assets or business, on the terms available, would not provide a value-maximizing outcome.

[35] The voting results confirm overwhelming support across all classes of voting creditors in favour of the New Plan.

[36] I am satisfied that there are no policy reasons to interfere with the Confirmation Order pursuant to s. 61(2) of the CCAA.

[37] The pending appeals of the Confirmation Order are not a basis to deny recognition: see Re Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, Ont Sup Ct J [Commercial List] CV-22-00685631-00CL, endorsement dated April 22, 2022, at para. 16. As noted, there are presently no stays of the Confirmation Order in effect. The appellants have not opposed the recognition of the Confirmation Order, and their appeals do not relate to any issues in Canada.

Termination of the Recognition Proceedings and Ancillary Relief

[38] The Foreign Representative seeks an order terminating these recognition proceedings once the Information Officer has filed a termination certificate. I agree that there is no reason to continue these recognition proceedings once that certificate has been filed.

[39] The draft order includes a release in favour of the Information Officer and its counsel. The Information Officer and its legal counsel have been an important component of these proceedings, have contributed to keeping the court and Canadian stakeholders informed, and have facilitated discussions between the Chapter 11 Debtors and Canadian stakeholders. I grant the release.

[40] Once the New Plan becomes effective, there is no need for the stays of proceedings granted by this court to remain in place. Canadian claimants are entitled to continue with any claims not released by the New Plan. I authorize the termination of the stays of proceedings previously granted by this court.

[41] The fees and disbursements of the Information Officer and its counsel, as set out in the fee affidavits for the period from September 16, 2019 to January 26, 2026 are approved. The fees of the Information Officer are CAD$292,032.50 and disbursements of CAD$22,892.02. The fees of its counsel are CAD$714,602.50, disbursements in the amount of CAD$856.06, and HST of CAD$93,009.67. I am satisfied that these fees and disbursements are reasonable considering the extent of the work involved, its complexity, and the experience of the Information Officer and its counsel.

[42] The eight reports of the Information Officer and the activities described therein are approved. All activities were undertaken in good faith pursuant to the Information Officer's duties and powers and in the best interests of the Foreign Representative, the Chapter 11 Debtors, and their stakeholders.

The Bar Order

[43] The Co-Defendants seek the Bar Order as a term of the Recognition Order. [^5] HMTK opposes the Bar Order. The Foreign Representative and the Information Officer take no position.

[44] As noted, there were pending actions in Canada against the Chapter 11 Debtors at the time of the Chapter 11 filing. One of those actions was a proposed class action by HMTK on behalf of all federal, province and territorial governments and agencies (the " Canadian Governments ") commenced on August 29, 2018 (the " BC Recoupment Action "). The Canadian Governments seek to recover the healthcare, pharmaceutical, and treatment costs related to the use and abuse of opioids. The action is against numerous defendants including the Foreign Representative, Purdue Canada, and certain of the Co-Defendants. The Canadian Governments seek to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable for healthcare costs and other damages.

[45] When the First Plan was proposed, the Canadian Governments and other plaintiffs in the Canadian actions were concerned with the breadth of the releases in the plan. The issue was that those releases would include Purdue Canada, its former directors and officers, and the Sacklers, and potentially compromise the plaintiffs' rights in the Canadian actions.

[46] Ten Canadian provinces (the " Canadian Governmental Claimants ") had filed claims in the Chapter 11 proceedings based on their claims in the BC Recoupment Action. [^6] On July 28, 2021, the Chapter 11 Debtors and the Sacklers reached an agreement with the Canadian Governmental Claimants on a " Stipulation ".

[47] The Stipulation narrowed the releases by preserving the " Continuing Claims " of the Canadian Governments against parties other than the Chapter 11 Debtors that (i) relate to conduct of Canadian entities related to the Chapter 11 Debtors; and (ii) are not based on any conduct of the Chapter 11 Debtors. In exchange, the Canadian Government Claimants withdrew their proofs of claim and released the Chapter 11 Debtors and related parties from all but the Continuing Claims.

[48] On August 9, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Stipulation. On August 12, 2021, the Chapter 11 Debtors filed a revised First Plan that provided a carveout of claims based on the conduct of Canadian entities (the " Canadian Carveout "). The Canadian Carveout preserves the claim of all creditors of Chapter 11 Debtors to pursue Purdue Canada and the Sacklers with respect to their Canadian conduct.

[49] After the Stipulation was approved, the Canadian Governments settled the BC Recoupment Action against Purdue Canada for CAD$150 million and released Purdue Canada and the Sacklers. The settlement required the Canadian Governments to obtain a bar order precluding claims for contribution and indemnity against the released parties. It provides that the Canadian Governments will not seek to recover the settling parties' proportionate share of liability from the Co-Defendants.

[50] The common issues trial in the BC Recoupment Action is scheduled to begin against the remaining defendants on February 22, 2028.

[51] The Co-Defendants submit that they require Pierringer-type protection in the form of the Bar Order. They submit that the Stipulation was a settlement – the Canadian Government Claimants gave up their right to pursue recovery against the Chapter 11 Debtors in exchange for the Canadian Carveout. They submit that under Canadian law, where there is a settlement in multi-defendant litigation, the non-settling defendants are protected from the settling defendant's proportionate share of liability found at trial: British Columbia Ferry Corp. v. T & N, 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 115, at paras. 13-15. In a Pierringer arrangement, the plaintiff settles its claim with the defendant, the non-settling defendant's claim for contribution and indemnity against the settling defendant is extinguished, and the plaintiff agrees that the non-settling defendant will be responsible only for its several share of liability: Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp., 2013 SCC 37, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 623, at paras. 21-26.

[52] In an insolvency context, there are additional considerations at play.

[53] It is well-established law in Canada that the insolvency of one defendant in multi-defendant litigation is a risk borne by the other defendants, not by the plaintiff: Endean v. St. Joseph's General Hospital, 2019 ONCA 181, 54 C.C.L.T. (4th) 183, at para. 49, Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2025 ONCA 405, at para. 31. If a defendant is found jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's damages and cannot recover on its claim for contribution and indemnity from the insolvent defendant, that does not impact the plaintiff's recovery from the first defendant. The plaintiff may file a proof of claim against the insolvent defendant, but that does not have the effect of severing joint liability as against the other defendants. [^7]

[54] In the Stipulation, the Canadian Government Claimants withdrew their proofs of claim against the Chapter 11 Debtors in exchange for the Canadian Carveout. Given the nature of this agreement, should this court impose a Pierringer-type bar order to protect the Co-Defendants from the Chapter 11 Debtors' proportionate share of liability? In my view, it should not.

[55] First, the withdrawal of those claims and the Canadian Carveout enabled the Canadian Governments to settle with Purdue Canada for CAD$150 million. The Co-Defendants received a bar order in that settlement, limiting their liability for any proportionate share attributed to Purdue Canada, the defendant that entered into the settlement.

[56] Second, the Stipulation did not give the Canadian Government Claimants any advantage over other creditors of the Chapter 11 Debtors. The Canadian Carveout was extended to all creditors, including the Co-Defendants. As a result, all creditors, including the Co-Defendants and other Canadian plaintiffs, were able to pursue Purdue Canada and the Sacklers in relation to their Canadian conduct.

[57] Third, the Co-Defendants argue that they are precluded from claiming contribution and indemnity from the Chapter 11 Debtors because of the releases in the New Plan. However, that is the effect of the New Plan, not the Stipulation. [^8]

[58] Fourth, I do not accept that any deal made by a plaintiff that files a proof of claim in an insolvency gives rise to Pierringer protection and severs joint liability. That steep cost might well disincentivize any plaintiff from negotiating a resolution of its claim in the insolvency.

[59] The Co-Defendants rely on the case of Re CannTrust Holdings Inc., et al., 2021 ONSC 4408, 90 C.B.R. (6th) 64, to support their argument. In CannTrust, applicants in a CCAA restructuring were defendants in a securities class action. The applicants settled with the representative plaintiffs and contributed $50 million to a trust for the benefit of the class members (the Securities Claimants). The settlement extinguished the contribution and indemnity rights of the non-settling defendants in the litigation.

[60] The court held that the plan was unfair to the co-defendants. It held that since the Securities Claimants received $50 million from the applicants, they should not be entitled to pursue the co-defendants for 100% of their damages. The plan advantaged one group of creditors (the Securities Claimants) over another group of creditors (the co-defendants). Further, the co-defendants' rights to contribution and indemnity, which were extinguished by the plan, had value since the applicants were going to emerge from the CCAA proceedings. The court held that the judgment reduction clause in the plan was not sufficient and declined to approve the plan until those issues were addressed.

[61] CannTrust is readily distinguishable from the case at bar, for several reasons. It was a plenary CCAA proceeding, not a recognition proceeding. The court dismissed the sanction motion because it found the bar order to be unfair but it did not impose a bar order (as the Co-Defendants request in this case). The Securities Claimants received $50 million while claims for contribution and indemnity, which had value, were extinguished by the plan.

[62] Here, the Canadian Governmental Claimants did not receive any monetary compensation from the Chapter 11 Debtors. It did receive some consideration – the Canadian Carveout – but that carveout was also provided to other creditors. The Stipulation therefore did not advantage one group of creditors over another. Further, it was not the Stipulation that barred the Co-Defendants' claims for contribution and indemnity; rather, it was the New Plan that extinguished those claims. Unlike the applicants in CannTrust, the Chapter 11 Debtors will be ceasing to exist and not emerging from the New Plan. Finally, the Co-Defendants already received a bar order when the Canadian Governments recovered the $150 million from Purdue Canada.

[63] The Co-Defendants also rely on Paladin Labs in which the plan recognition order included a bar order. That case is also distinguishable and does not assist the Co-Defendants. The bar order was granted on consent of the Canadian provincial governments as they had received direct compensation from the debtors' estates, and the plan achieved a global resolution of their claims against the debtors.

[64] Given the nature of the Stipulation and the well-established legal principles that apply in the insolvency context as set out above, I see no basis for this court to impose the Bar Order as a term of the Recognition Order.

Decision

[65] The Recognition Order is granted. The request for the Bar Order is dismissed.

[66] If any party seeks costs, they shall arrange a scheduling appointment before me to address the process for costs submissions.

Conway J.

Date: February 17, 2026

[^1]: " Purdue " and " Chapter 11 Debtors " mean, collectively, Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., Purdue Transdermal Technologies L.P., Purdue Pharma Manufacturing L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., Imbrium Therapeutics L.P., Adlon Therapeutics L.P., Greenfield BioVentures L.P., Seven Seas Hill Corp., Ophir Green Corp., Purdue Pharma of Puerto Rico, Avrio Health L.P., Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P., Purdue Neuroscience Company, Nayatt Cove Lifescience Inc., Button Land L.P., Paul Land Inc., Quidnick Land L.P., Rhodes Associates L.P., Rhodes Pharmaceuticals L.P., Rhodes Technologies, UDF L.P., SVC Pharma L.P., and SVC Pharma Inc.

[^2]: In addition to the Canadian actions, there are other Canadian lawsuits against certain Canadian Related Parties, the Sacklers and related entities. Those actions do not name any of the Chapter 11 Debtors as defendants.

[^3]: An additional 30 million documents collected during other Purdue legal matters as well as certain other categories of documents currently subject to attorney-client privilege are eligible to be included in the registry.

[^4]: This included a settlement between the Chapter 11 Debtors and the Canadian Municipalities and First Nations (" CMFN ") as set out in a stipulation approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 8, 2025. The Stipulation preserved their right to be heard in the CCAA proceedings regarding non-consensual release and other issues. The CMFN did not oppose the Recognition Order or any relief sought at this recognition hearing.

[^5]: The Co-Defendants confirmed at the hearing that they were not opposing the Recognition Order whether or not the Bar Order is granted.

[^6]: The "Canadian Governmental Claimants", as defined in the Stipulation, means the 10 provincial governments who filed proofs of claims in the Chapter 11 Proceedings. The term "Canadian Governments", in the BC Recoupment Action, also includes the Government of Canada and the territorial governments.

[^7]: However, if the plaintiff recovers any amounts from the insolvent defendant, an accounting would be required to ensure that there is no double recovery by the plaintiff.

[^8]: I note that the Co-Defendants negotiated an amendment to the New Plan in which they will retain their "Co-Defendant Defensive Rights" (which may be asserted to reduce or defend against liability but may not be used to obtain any affirmative monetary recovery from any of the "Protected Parties" on account of any "Released Claim" or "Shareholder Released Claim") and their ability to recover from specified insurance policies.