In a comeback motion under the CCAA, the second lien agent challenged the appointment of the proposed monitor on the basis that its affiliate had acted for the debtor for more than two years, directed the pre-filing SISP, and participated in negotiations concerning the restructuring that would eliminate second lien recoveries.
The court held that a monitor must be independent and be seen to be independent, and found the proposed monitor could not impartially advise the court on the central issue of the reliability of the pre-filing sales process.
The court replaced the proposed monitor with another insolvency firm.
The court also ordered that, pending further order, the debtor could not pay interest or other expenses to the first lien lenders unless the same payments owing to the second lien lenders were made.