Post by
Oldfart74 on Jan 23, 2017 1:29pm
September 26 initial order
The company filed for CCAA on Sep 26. The court approved a SISP process to sell the assets. At the end of the day the secured creditors were the highest bid and the sale of the assets to the secured note holders in exchange for their notes was approved by the judge. When the unsecured note holders rejected the July proposal, they, in effect, rolled the dice and hoped to win the court case. They lost the Opression case and so ended up with nothing. If the unsecured were going to share in the new company with secured, why go to court?
Here is court decision
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2016/2016abqb665/2016abqb665.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHTXVkcmljawAAAAAB&resultIndex=1
here is the link to court of appeal
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2016/2016abca401/2016abca401.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAHTXVkcmljawAAAAAB&resultIndex=2
Comment by
afficheholderon on Jan 23, 2017 1:32pm
And what is the conclusion for all the shareholders?
Comment by
reefsandals4eva on Jan 23, 2017 1:53pm
The unsecured are no long part of the company. They are dissenting shareholders. Their vote would not stop the restructuring of the company because they are a minority shareholder. The do not have to take part in the new company , they just take their offer per share and leave.
Comment by
reefsandals4eva on Jan 23, 2017 1:57pm
There is no rolling the dice. Banks do not take risks. The unsecured would not have gambled their chance at getting paid for their share in the company, the idea of that happening is nonsense.
Comment by
Oldfart74 on Jan 23, 2017 2:22pm
The unsecured note holders were not banks but hedge funds - Mudrick Capital and Front Four Capital. The banks got fully paid - the dispute was between the secured note holders and unsecured note holders.