Ontario civil | Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Arrangements
Application for extension of stay under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Can.) was granted
Applicant, debtor company, applied for extension of stay of proceedings under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Can.). Application granted. Debtor established that circumstances existed that made order appropriate and that it acted and was acting in good faith and with due diligence. Request for extension of stay was supported by chief restructuring officer, monitor and principled stakeholders except for U Corp., who sought shorter extension. Debtor was entitled to longer stay it requested based on its estimation that sales and investment process that was underway would require more time than what U Corp. proposed to complete negotiations with successful bidder and satisfy any conditions. Longer extension furthered prospect of successful, going-concern restructuring. If that was not feasible then longer stay would be required to implement other arrangements to satisfy claims of creditors. Evidence was not sufficient to require shorter extension. It was not appropriate to impose conditions requiring delivery of information by debtor.
U.S. Steel Canada Inc., Re (May. 10, 2016, Ont. S.C.J., H. Wilton-Siegel J., CV-14-10695-00CL) 266 A.C.W.S. (3d) 295.
Application for extension of stay under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Can.) was granted
Applicant, debtor company, applied for extension of stay of proceedings under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Can.). Application granted. Debtor established that circumstances existed that made order appropriate and that it acted and was acting in good faith and with due diligence. Request for extension of stay was supported by chief restructuring officer, monitor and principled stakeholders except for U Corp., who sought shorter extension. Debtor was entitled to longer stay it requested based on its estimation that sales and investment process that was underway would require more time than what U Corp. proposed to complete negotiations with successful bidder and satisfy any conditions. Longer extension furthered prospect of successful, going-concern restructuring. If that was not feasible then longer stay would be required to implement other arrangements to satisfy claims of creditors. Evidence was not sufficient to require shorter extension. It was not appropriate to impose conditions requiring delivery of information by debtor.
U.S. Steel Canada Inc., Re (May. 10, 2016, Ont. S.C.J., H. Wilton-Siegel J., CV-14-10695-00CL) 266 A.C.W.S. (3d) 295.
