The Ontario judge rejected the Hudson Bay company, which increased the might of the lenders seek to push the company to the judicial custody.
In a written decision issued on Saturday, Judge Peter Osborne of the Supreme Court of Justice said he refused to agree to the agreement because “it is neither necessary nor appropriate at this time.”
The agreement will not have just granted the besieged store on the deadline to save its remaining stores, but it would have handed over the energy increase on the company’s protection process to the senior lenders guaranteed in the retail seller.
The agreement would have imposed a weekly budget on the work that Hudson Bay had to regularly report lenders – companies whose loans supported guarantee, allowing them to seize the assets of the retailer to cover unpaid debt.
If Bay Hudson’s Bay reaches a company deal with a new buyer, the agreement also requires the approval of the lenders.
In the face of more than a billion dollars of debt, Hudson Bay started the liquidation process. A court in Ontario gave the retail dealer for centuries to sell the remaining shares in almost all 96 stores. But as Liam Bretin mentioned, fishermen may need to wait to find the best deals.
Osborne said that he was “hesitant” in partially approval of the agreement because the budget was not submitted to the court or the other stakeholders for a review, and the lenders could have been granted rights and protection “to exclude other stakeholders.”
He also said that the monitoring by the court to help direct the Gulf of Hudson through the procedures for protecting its creditors is sufficient to balance the rights of lenders with the rights of other stakeholders.
The decision of Osborne, the last teacher, coincides with the procedures for protecting creditors that swept the oldest company in Canada since it admitted on March 7 that its financial difficulties were very large, as it was postponing payments to the owners and suppliers.
As part of these procedures, Hudson Bay started liquidating this week with the exception of six out of 80 Hudson Bay, and 13 Sachs off the fifth and three stores Sax Fifth Avenue. The six that has been rescued so far is divided between the Greater Toronto regions and the major regions of Montreal. The company also negotiated a room to add or remove more stores from the filter.
Gulf workers in Hudson speak after they learned that they will not receive any salaries to go out because the company confirms that it will pay $ 3 million as rewards for executives and managers who deal with the liquidation of most stores.
The restructuring agreement was risky because some saw that it was one of the only things that hinder Hudson’s bay lenders from the court’s demand for retail in the judicial guard.
Guarding is a process in which a third party is granted control of the company’s assets to pay creditors.
Lawyers who represent Hudson Bay and the senior lenders guaranteed had no comments on Usborn’s support on Saturday.
Many lenders argued in favor of the court in court last week.
“We don’t want to fight. We do not want to submit a judicial guard request,” said Link Rogers, a lawyer at Bay Lander Restore Capital on Thursday.
“We look at this court and say that there is a better way forward.”
However, real estate owners such as Ivanhoé Cambridge, Oxford Properties, Cushman & Wakefield, Morguard, Rioccan Real Estate Investment Trust and KeingSett Capital that the best path forward is not to agree to the agreement.
They preferred that the company rely on another operation that has already been operated, which will witness Hudson Bay’s entertainment bids from potential buyers for its entire work or assets.
David Bish, Cadillac Vervio’s lawyer, who owns 16 properties with Hudson’s administrative stores, felt that accepting the restructuring agreement will impede any way forward for retail stores by placing its future control in the hands of the lender.
“They are not a motivation for restructuring. They are motivated to liquidate,” Bish said in court on Thursday.
Rogers, who represents the recovery of the lender, did not agree.
“We ask for protection,” he said. “We are not asking for a reward.”
At one time, this was offered to amend the agreement to grant Hudson Bay a few additional weeks to avoid the liquidation of the six stores, saying that his client was “ready to take an additional danger” to publish this situation.
“We are not looking to choose the battles,” said Rogers. “We are looking to solve problems.”
For its part, Hudson’s Gulf argued in favor of the court to agree to the agreement, but her lawyer said that the type of arrangement allowed his client was not.
Ashley Taylor said that the agreement was lacking in time, and the number of stores and the mixture of Hudson latitudes was preferred.
“It was not a very satisfactory result,” he told the court on Wednesday.
After 355 years of date, the future of Hudson Bay Company is not sure. CBC Eli Glasner explains how we got here.