Stuart Brotman

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

This decision concerns motions brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and related applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for interim relief in their restructuring proceedings.

The court addresses requests for approval of interim distributions, payment of direct costs, application of deferred payments for working capital, and approval of certain activities of the Monitor.

The court grants the requested relief, finding it necessary to maintain liquidity and continue the wind-down process, and holds that the proposed mechanisms are equitable and consistent with the CCAA’s remedial objectives.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the applicants sought a Funding Order to compel Securitization Parties and other secured lenders to fund a $40 million wind-down of the remaining entities.

The court dismissed the motion for the Funding Order, finding that section 11.01(b) of the CCAA expressly prohibits orders requiring the further advance of money or credit.

Consequently, the court also declined to approve a Key Employee Retention Plan, as it was dependent on the unavailable funding.

The court did, however, grant a temporary sealing order for the KERP details and extended the stay of proceedings to November 29, 2024.

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and its affiliates (the Applicants) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a going concern transaction for Pride Group Logistics (PGL), a distinct business line.

The proposed purchasers included principals of the Applicants, leading the Court-appointed Monitor to undertake negotiations and carriage of the motion.

The Monitor, supported by the Applicants, their directors, employees, and some financiers (Daimler, Mitsubishi, Finloc, National Bank), recommended approval, arguing it offered a higher recovery than liquidation, preserved approximately 500 jobs, and avoided significant wind-down costs for the broader Pride Entities.

The transaction was opposed by certain secured lenders, including The Bank of Nova Scotia, The Lending Syndicate, TD Equipment Finance Canada, and RBC entities, who preferred a wind-down.

The court applied the factors under CCAA s. 36(3) and the Soundair Principles, finding the sale process reasonable, fair, and transparent.

The court concluded that the transaction was the only viable going concern option, superior to a wind-down, and consistent with the CCAA's purpose of avoiding social and economic losses from liquidation.

The PGL Going Concern Transaction was approved.

In the context of ongoing CCAA proceedings, the applicants and various equipment financiers reached an impasse regarding the wind-down plan and a proposed going-concern sale of the logistics business.

The applicants sought a monetization order, an increase in the administration charge, and lien regularization, which were unopposed and granted by the court to maintain operations.

Due to significant disputes over the sale and liquidation of assets, the court adjourned the contested motions, including several lift-stay motions brought by creditors, and ordered the parties to attend mandatory mediation before a former Commercial List judge.

In a CCAA proceeding, the Applicants sought three orders: approval of a factoring portfolio purchase agreement, approval for distribution of proceeds from a property sale, and permission for a creditor to sell certain vehicles.

The court approved the distribution of Chehalis property proceeds to Roynat.

For the Regions vehicles, the court granted the order allowing Regions to take possession, setting a 30-day retrieval period and approving storage costs of $35/day.

The motion for approval of the JD Factors Purchase Agreement was adjourned to a later date, as Mitsubishi HC Capital Canada Inc. objected, claiming ownership of the receivables and requiring more time to prepare its position.

In a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding, the applicants sought court approval for the sale of a real property, the Monitor's reports, a revised governance protocol, and a sale and investor solicitation process (SISP) for their logistics business.

The court approved the property sale, finding it met the Soundair Principles despite not being a court-supervised process.

The Monitor's reports and activities were also approved.

The proposed SISP was approved with a minor amendment requiring the Monitor to consult directly affected secured creditors.

The Revised Governance Protocol, which included default commission rates for vehicle sales and collections, was approved as an interim measure, balancing the need for cost recovery with creditor concerns, noting that financiers could negotiate alternative rates or withhold consent to sales.

This endorsement concerns a motion brought by Pride Group Holdings Inc. and other applicants under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The applicants sought court approval for three main items: a pre-filing agreement of purchase and sale for the Bolingbrook Property, approval of the Monitor's First and Second Reports, and an amendment to the Amended and Restated Initial Order to allow the sale of redundant, surplus, or non-material property up to certain financial thresholds without further court approval.

The court, applying the Soundair Principles, found the pre-filing sale to be in the best interests of stakeholders, noting the extensive negotiations and lack of opposition.

All requested relief was granted, with the court emphasizing the practical benefits of the proposed amendments for maximizing recovery and minimizing professional fees.

The applicants, Pride Group Holdings Inc. et al., sought an amended and restated initial order under the CCAA, including an extension of the stay period, approval of a debtor-in-possession (DIP) facility, elevation of charge priorities, confirmation against set-off, and approval of governance, real estate monetization, and intercompany/unsecured claims preservation protocols.

The court granted the requested stay extension to June 30, 2024, approved the $30 million DIP facility, and approved all proposed protocols.

The court declined to add an exception to the paramountcy provision as requested by certain securitization funders and approved a carve-out for Triumph Business Capital but limited it to CDN $3 million.

The applicants, senior secured lenders, sought the appointment of a receiver over the assets of "The One" mixed-use construction project due to financial and covenant defaults by the borrower.

The project, significantly delayed and over budget, had outstanding debt of approximately $1.235 billion.

The appointment of Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc. as receiver was unopposed by any key stakeholder.

The court granted the application, appointed the receiver, approved a super-priority receivership funding credit agreement of up to $315 million, and issued a stay of proceedings, finding it just and convenient to stabilize the situation and maximize recovery for all stakeholders.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation and its subsidiaries (the Applicants) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for approval of a Subscription Agreement, a reverse vesting order (ARVO), releases for various parties, a sealing order, and an extension of the stay of proceedings.

The proposed transaction involves First Generation Capital (FGC), the majority shareholder and secured creditor, acquiring the Applicants' business via a credit bid and share transaction, with excluded assets and liabilities vested out to Residual Cos.

The court analyzed the necessity and fairness of the ARVO structure, the sales process, the benefit to creditors compared to bankruptcy, and the appropriateness of the releases, ultimately granting all requested relief.

Voyager Digital Ltd. applied under Part IV of the CCAA for an Initial Recognition Order of its Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

The central issue was whether the US proceeding should be recognized as a 'foreign main proceeding' or a 'foreign non-main proceeding', which depended on determining the company's Centre of Main Interests (COMI).

Despite being incorporated in British Columbia and listed on the TSX, the court found that the company's COMI was in the US, where its operations, management, and principal assets were located.

The court recognized the US proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and granted the requested stay.

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings seeking the appointment of a Chief Redevelopment Officer, an increase in the fee cap for the Board of Governors' independent counsel, and approval of a claims process.

The court approved the appointment of the CRO and the fee increase.

Regarding the claims process, TD Bank proposed amendments to require consultation on claims over $5 million.

Balancing the need for efficiency with creditor involvement, the court modified the claims process to establish an 'Inspector Group' to authorize the compromise of material claims, drawing on principles from the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant, acting as the foreign representative for the syncreon Group, sought an Initial Recognition Order under Part IV of the CCAA to recognize scheme of arrangement proceedings commenced in the United Kingdom.

The court found that the UK proceedings under Part 26 of the Companies Act constituted 'foreign non-main proceedings' under the CCAA.

The court granted the recognition order, recognized the UK Convening Order, appointed an Information Officer, and dispensed with the statutory publication requirement, finding that a formal cross-border protocol was unnecessary in this case.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court decision dated October 5, 2016.

The Receiver sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the issues were complex and significant to insolvency practice and the mining industry, and that the appellant's allegations of improper conduct warranted such an award.

The Court of Appeal agreed the issues were complex and significant but declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity scale given the history of the proceeding.

The Receiver was ultimately successful on the appeal and was awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

This appeal concerns whether a court has jurisdiction to extinguish a third party's gross overriding royalty (GOR) interest in land through a vesting order in a receivership proceeding.

The Court of Appeal held that while the court has jurisdiction under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to grant vesting orders, the motion judge erred in exercising that jurisdiction to extinguish the appellant's GORs, which constituted interests in land akin to ownership interests rather than fixed monetary claims.

However, the appellant failed to appeal within the prescribed 10-day period under the BIA Rules, and the justice of the case did not warrant an extension of time.

The appeal was dismissed, though the appellant retained the $250,000 payment it had received.

Following a successful motion by the receiver to approve the sale of the respondent's assets to the applicant, and the dismissal of a cross-motion by a third party claiming royalty rights, the court determined the costs payable by the third party.

The court rejected the applicant's request for substantial indemnity costs, awarding partial indemnity costs instead.

The court found the applicant's claimed fees reasonable given the importance and complexity of the issues, and ordered the third party to pay $29,705 to the applicant and $3,996.81 to the Monitor.

The Receiver moved for an order approving the sale of the debtor's mining assets to the applicant.

A third party opposed the sale, arguing its gross overriding royalty (GOR) rights constituted an interest in land that could not be extinguished by a vesting order.

The court applied the Dynex test and found the GORs were merely contractual rights to share in revenues, not an interest in land.

The court granted the vesting order, extinguishing the GORs upon payment of their fair appraised value.

The third party's cross-motion for a storage lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act was dismissed.