Supreme Court of Canada Approves Litigation Funding in CCAA Proceeding
In a decision released last week, in addition to providing useful guidance regarding the objectives of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) approved a litigation funding agreement in an insolvency proceeding. The case could have significant implications for the use of litigation funding in future cases.
Background
The case involves an ongoing proceeding under the CCAA by the debtor companies, Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc. and Bluberi Group Inc. (collectively, “Bluberi”). In the CCAA proceeding, Bluberi liquidated substantially all of its assets, such that its only remaining asset was a claim against one of its largest creditors, Callidus Capital.
To pursue its claim against Callidus, Bluberi attempted to secure litigation funding from a publicly traded litigation funder, IMF Bentham Limited, or its Canadian subsidiary, Bentham IMF Capital Limited (collectively, “Bentham”). As part of the litigation funding agreement, Bluberi applied for court approval of a $20 million super-priority charge in favour of Bentham over Bluberi’s assets, which would rank ahead of the claims of Bluberi’s creditors. Callidus and certain other creditors opposed approval of Bluberi’s litigation funding agreement, arguing it constituted a plan of arrangement requiring applicable creditor approval because it purported to compromise creditors’ claims.
The CCAA supervising judge approved Bluberi’s application and declined to submit the litigation funding agreement to a creditors’ vote. The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed the CCAA supervising judge’s decision, holding Bluberi was required to obtain creditor approval of the litigation funding agreement.
The SCC’s Decision
The SCC overturned the Quebec Court of Appeal’s findings and reinstated the CCAA supervising judge’s order.
The SCC emphasized that supervising judges in CCAA proceedings have considerable discretion, including to decide whether to approve interim financing provided for under the CCAA, noting that “whether proposed interim financing should be approved is a question that the supervising judge is best-placed to answer.” With respect to the litigation funding, the SCC concluded that “third party litigation funding agreements may be approved as interim financing in CCAA proceedings when the supervising judge determines that doing so would be fair and appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances and the objectives of the [CCAA]”.
The SCC found there was no reason to overturn the CCAA supervising judge’s exercise of discretion in approving the litigation funding as interim financing without requiring a creditor vote. That finding was largely tied to the specific circumstances of this case, including that the only remaining major asset of Bluberi was its claim against Callidus. The SCC noted that “where there is a single litigation asset that could be monetized for the benefit of creditors, the objective of maximizing creditor recovery has taken centre stage. In those circumstances, litigation funding furthers the basic purpose of interim financing: allowing the debtor to realize on the value of its assets.” Accordingly, the SCC found no reason to interfere with the CCAA supervising judge’s decision to approve the litigation financing.
In addition, the SCC found the litigation funding was not a plan of arrangement “because it does not propose any compromise of the creditors’ rights.” When making that finding, the SCC stated that plans of arrangement “determine how to distribute the pot [of assets]”, but they “do not generally determine what a debtor company should do to fill it.” The SCC also noted that the super-priority charge over Bluberi’s assets in favour of Bentham did not automatically convert the litigation funding plan into a plan of arrangement. While the effect of the charge is to place creditors like Callidus behind the prior rank of Bentham, the SCC concluded that such a result is expressly contemplated by the CCAA’s interim financing provisions. Again, there was no reason to disturb the CCAA supervising judge’s findings on this point.
Potential Implications
This case could have significant implications for the future of litigation financing in CCAA proceedings. The SCC expressly stated that, in appropriate circumstances, litigation funding can be approved as interim financing in CCAA proceedings, which could lead to an expansion of litigation funding in future cases. However, many issues remain unresolved, as the SCC largely left the decision of whether to approve litigation funding in the supervising judge’s hands in each proceeding, granting supervising judges considerable discretion to decide whether litigation funding is consistent with the CCAA’s objectives based on the particular facts of the case.
Authors
Insights
-
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
International Comparative Legal Guide - Enforcement of Foreign Judgments 2025 10th Edition – Canada Chapter
Peter Kolla and Sarah Stothart co-authored the Canada Chapter of International Comparative Legal Guide - Enforcement of Foreign Judgements 2025 10th Edition. The Canada Chapter covers common… -
Crisis Management and Urgent Proceedings
Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2025 - Canada Chapter
Mark Dunn and Sarah Stothart co-authored the Canada Chapter of Panoramic Next: Crisis Management 2025. Crisis Management explores the key factors that businesses… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Court Declines to Rule Out Duty of Care Owed by Social Media Platforms to School Boards
In Toronto District School Board v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al. (2025 ONSC 1499), Ontario Superior Court Justice Leiper dismissed a motion to strike a lawsuit commenced by the Toronto District School… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Changes to Trademark Proceedings Coming into Effect April 1, 2025
Amendments to the Trademarks Regulations will take effect on April 1, 2025. These changes are part of broader updates to the Trademarks Act, introduced through the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No… -
Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Is Your Trademark at Risk? Understanding the TMOB’s New Pilot Project
In January 2025, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) is launching a pilot project in which the Registrar of Trademarks will issue 50–100 section 45 notices per month for randomly selected trademark… -
Capital Markets
Canada Initiates Consultations and Proposes New Measures to Strengthen Anti-Modern Slavery Efforts
The Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the “Act”) came into force on January 1, 2024, implementing enhanced reporting requirements for certain entities to combat…
Featured Work
-
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex acquires CanPrev
Goodmans LLP acted for Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of CanPrev, a leading Canadian provider of vitamins, supplements, and other natural health products… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Apotex acquires Searchlight Pharma Inc.
Goodmans LLP advised Apotex Inc. in connection with its acquisition of Searchlight Pharma Inc… -
Shareholder Activism
Browning West achieves landmark victory in Gildan Activewear proxy campaign
Goodmans LLP acted for Browning West, LP in the successful reconstitution of Gildan Activewear’s entire board, culminating in the reinstatement of CEO Glenn Chamandy… -
Restructuring
LoyaltyOne cross-border restructuring
Goodmans LLP is counsel to KSV Restructuring Inc. in its capacity as court-appointed monitor of LoyaltyOne, Co. in its restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act before… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Neighbourly announces successful closing of take-private transaction with Persistence Capital Partners
Goodmans LLP advised Brookfield Asset Management Ltd., through its Special Investments program, in connection with its structured equity investment of $320 million to partially fund the take-private… -
Mergers and Acquisitions
Forum Energy Technologies acquires Variperm Energy Services
Goodmans LLP advised Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. in the acquisition of Variperm Energy Services…
News & Events
-
Aging and Health Care
The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2025 Once Again Recognizes Goodmans
We are proud to announce Goodmans LLP continues to be recognized in the 2025 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory.Congratulations to the 96 Goodmans lawyers recognized as leaders across… -
- 04:00 PM Litigation and Dispute Resolution
Peter Ruby at The Advocates' Society: Litigating Contract Disputes
Join Goodmans partner Peter Ruby at The Advocates' Society Litigating Contract Disputes webinar on Tuesday, April 8, 2025.Learn practical tips as litigators and judges share the… -
- 04:00 PM Arbitration - Domestic and International
Peter Ruby at The Advocates' Society: Arbitration Advocacy
Join Goodmans partner Peter Ruby at The Advocates' Society Arbitration Advocacy webinar on Tuesday, March…