Federal Appeal

Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Receiver made sufficient effort to get best price

Applicant brought motion for approval of sales transaction contemplated by asset purchase agreement. Purchaser would purchase all or substantially all of mill assets of applicant. Monitor recommended that transaction be approved. Applicant sought authorization to take additional steps to execute additional documents as necessary to give effect to purchase agreement. Applicant sought vesting order, approval of fifth report of monitor, and declaration that subdivision control provisions in Planning Act (Ont.), did not apply to vesting of title to real property in purchaser. Applicant sought amendment to initial order extending stay of proceedings to specified date. Motion was allowed subject to adjustment with respect to Act declaration. Granting of vesting order was not for purposes of s. 50(3) of Act conveyance by way of deed or transfer. It was not necessary to issue declaration that subdivision control provisions contained in Act did not apply to vesting of title. Transaction was approved. Requested extension of stay was appropriate given it was established applicant was and continued to work in good faith and with due diligence. Transaction was approved. Monitor engaged in extensive marketing program. Consideration in transaction was not so unreasonably low so as to warrant court entering into sales process by considering competitive bids. Offer did not lead to inference that strategy employed by monitor was inadequate, unsuccessful or improvident or that price was unreasonable. Receiver made sufficient effort to get best price and did not act improvidently. Applicant and monitor considered interests of all parties. There was no unfairness in working of process.

Terrace Bay Pulp Inc. (Re) (July 27, 2012, Ont. S.C.J. (Comm. List), Morawetz J., File No. CV-12-9566-00CL) 218 A.C.W.S. (3d) 488 (12 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?