On December 7, Madam Justice Kent rendered a decision in which she has declined to extend the stay and thus ended the CCAA proceedings on the basis that continuing CCAA proceedings would not add value over and above what the properties would be worth through a foreclosure process. Kent did say that there should be payment for the professionals to date under the dip, the receiver's charge and the administration fee from the equity in the companies. It is likely that another receiver would be put in place to coordinate the various foreclosures and to deal with the properties against which there are not any conventional mortgages. We have asked the existing receiver what happens next and they have advised that they are reviewing the matter. In effect, the judge is saying that the properties should all be sold but it should not be under the umbrella of the CCAA because of the potential risk that secured creditors will lose some priority to the debtor in possession financing in place in CCAA proceedings.
It is important to note that the investors benefitted to a large extent from the investigation analysis and detailed report compiled by the Monitor. This kind of detailed report would not have been provided in a non-CCAA receivership.
One of the applicants from the last hearing, Investit, has sent a letter to the Court asking for clarification of certain points in the decision. The Court has set Monday, December 21 at 10:00 am to hear from them.
It is important to note that the investors benefitted to a large extent from the investigation analysis and detailed report compiled by the Monitor. This kind of detailed report would not have been provided in a non-CCAA receivership.
One of the applicants from the last hearing, Investit, has sent a letter to the Court asking for clarification of certain points in the decision. The Court has set Monday, December 21 at 10:00 am to hear from them.
