Judge rejects Hudson’s Bay restructuring proposal intended to save remaining stores

A judge of Ontario has rejected a proposed renovation agreement of the Hudson’s Bay Company who would have given the retailer more track to save the six unseen stores, even if his creditors are turning closer.

In his decision, judge Peter Osborne of the Superior Court of Justice writes that the proposal is neither necessary nor appropriate.

The agreement would not have only given the department store of a department store to save its remaining stores, but imposed a budget that should have regularly referred to Lenders Bank of America, Restore Capital and Pathlight Capital.

Osborne said he was reluctant to approve the agreement in part because the budget was not presented to the court or other parties interested in reviewing.

He said that the monitor appointed by the Court to help guide Hudson’s Bay through his creditors’ protection procedures is sufficient to balance the rights of the lenders with those of other parties concerned rather than the proposed agreement.

The financiers who discussed in favor of the agreement saw him as a way to retain them from the presentation for reception, a process in which a company in the absence of activities seized its activities so that they can be sold to reimburse creditors.