dav said:
The proposal (to transfer YSL to Concord) was also approved for anyone interested due to it being accepted by the majority of creditors. (source: https://www.ksvadvisory.com/docs/de...returnable-june-23-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=dc7b59d5_2)

"THIS COURT ORDERS that the Proposal be and is hereby approved."
Click to expand...

The wording you're referring to is in a draft order - it's the order that the party is asking the Court to approve/sign. There's no indication on the insolvency proceeding's site that the order has been approved and signed by the Court yet.
 
Star Fox said:
The wording you're referring to is in a draft order - it's the order that the party is asking the Court to approve/sign. There's no indication on the insolvency proceeding's site that the order has been approved and signed by the Court yet.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. It seems that the document I was referring to is indeed a draft order.
 
It's sad to see Koop's put this project on hold again on the Toronto's skyscraperpage illustration page bummer! If it's not in construction or built it won't show up on the page unless you do it yourself. And it was nice to see three towers that are surpassing the BMO tower on the page!
 
I had to. There looked to be some movement a few weeks ago, but there has been nothing since then. Give it time...
 
Koops65 said:
I had to. There looked to be some movement a few weeks ago, but there has been nothing since then. Give it time...
Click to expand...
We understand! And thanks again for your up to date illustrations on Toronto's skyscraperpage. And as well as those mid size cities around the golden horseshoe too !
 
YG Limited partnership YSL court file # CV-21-00661386-00CL Any info about YSL /Concord court decision today?
 
Last edited:
Bulloch said:
Thank you Concord lost approval in first round, one side court through a book on concord but kept their proposal still alive. it goes back to court July 09 read KSV advisory website
Click to expand...

While correct............you're omitting all the juicy stuff.

First the disposition, verbatim:

1625266135164.png


Second, if you think paragraph 84 is harsh.............read the decision text..........

I think its fair to say the judge was 'not impressed'.
 
Northern Light said:
While correct............you're omitting all the juicy stuff.

First the disposition, verbatim:

View attachment 332105

Second, if you think paragraph 84 is harsh.............read the decision text..........

I think its fair to say the judge was 'not impressed'.
Click to expand...

If you cold kindly translate what this means it would be greatly appreciated....lol. Sounds to me like the whole thing is closed to being squashed, but is some kind of cat and mouse game that is usually played?
 
C-mac said:
If you cold kindly translate what this means it would be greatly appreciated....lol. Sounds to me like the whole thing is closed to being squashed, but is some kind of cat and mouse game that is usually played?
Click to expand...

With the appropriate caveat that I am not a lawyer, and this is merely a lay person's interpretation.........

The judge is asserting that he will not approve the takeover of the project by Concord, under the terms and conditions proposed.

The judge, in the text of the decision outlines some of the principle reasoning for that; the high-level gist of which is that he's not convinced the proposal, as formulated is sufficiently fair
to everyone who is owed money, for a variety of reasons.

Concord and Cresford now have a few days to consider whether to reformulate their proposal in such as a way as to address the concerns of the judge.

Should they manage that, it may be approved.

Should they stick by what they have, the project will likely go through the trusteeship process. The result of which, we can't know, in terms of what would go ahead and on what terms; but we can safely assume it would delay restart of construction in any form by many months, at the very least.

****

There is a good deal more to it than that. But I would steer clear of trying to characterize the judge's remarks in any greater detail.

I think, even if you're not a lawyer or contractor, you can probably get the gist by reading the text of the judge's decision.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top