Wael Mostafa Kamel Ahmed Rostom

This motion concerned an application by BBB Canada Ltd. for an extension of the Stay Period under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The court addressed a key issue regarding the transfer of approximately $6.1 million from BBB Canada to a U.S. concentration account, which contravened the Amended and Restated Initial Order requiring a minimum balance.

Despite the breach, which was attributed to miscommunication and lack of oversight, the court found no intention to contravene the order and that no creditor would be prejudiced due to a reimbursement agreement.

The court granted the extension of the Stay Period until May 22, 2024, emphasizing the applicant's good faith and due diligence, but also highlighting the importance of adherence to court orders and timely disclosure of breaches.

The applicant, BBB Canada Ltd., sought court approval under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for an Omnibus Assignment and Assumption of Leases, FF&E and Trade Fixtures Agreement with DKB Capital.

The motion also requested orders for the assignment of certain leases under section 11.3 of the CCAA and a temporary sealing order for the unredacted agreement.

The court found the marketing process comprehensive, the consideration fair and reasonable, and the agreement beneficial to stakeholders.

The assignments were unopposed.

The court applied the Sherman Estate test for the sealing order and found it appropriate given its limited scope and time.

The motion was granted in its entirety.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The applicant sought to appoint a receiver over the respondents and approve a stalking horse sale process for their jointly owned properties.

A third party, NASG, opposed the vesting orders, claiming a constructive trust over the properties due to alleged scrap metal theft.

The court found NASG's contingent claim did not prevent a vesting order, as monetary damages would be adequate and the receiver would hold net sale proceeds.

However, the court refused to approve the stalking horse agreement because the proposed $500,000 break fee and $150,000 overbid fee were excessive and unjustified.

The court appointed the receiver but required the applicant to revise the sale process.