what’s more, they argued, ashcroft had not put forward a cogent restructuring plan, leading to a “mounting loss of confidence” in the company’s management team.
“ultimately, the secured creditors regard the applicants (ashcroft) as having sought ccaa protection in order to buy time to continue their hitherto ineffective attempt to raise meaningful amounts of new funding,” ontario superior court justice graeme mew said in recounting their argument.
mew ultimately sided with the creditors’ group, saying the evidence and arguments put forward by ashcroft had “a distinctly aspirational quality.”
“their message is one of hope, despite the failures of the past 18 months,” mew said.
during that time, the judge said, ashcroft engaged in “an ongoing juggling act” with their secured creditors, sometimes using the same assets as collateral for more than one loan. in the meantime, he said, unpaid taxes mounted, unsecured creditors went unpaid and occupancy rates remained sub-optimal.
mew said he believed a receivership offered the best path forward.
“to some extent, the applicants have, by the manner in which they have, sometimes chaotically, played insolvent projects and their secured creditors off against each other and eroded the confidence of the creditors, been the authors of their own misfortune,” the judge said, adding: “it could, potentially, have been otherwise.”