Designation of Legally-trained Office Employee
A Riveting Tussle Over Legal Representation in Hudson's Bay's Creditor Protection Case
In a rollercoaster ride of power plays and legal battles, an Ontario judge picked Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP as the legal eagles defending more than 9,000 employees and 3,000 retirees of the struggling Hudson's Bay department store. This verdict halts a heated legal squabble that ignited during the retailer's last hearing among law firms vying to represent the employees.
Justice Peter Osborne's court filing designates Ursel as the trusted advocates. The decision brought an end to the bitter spat between law firms, a clash that started when Hudson's Bay sought out several legal powerhouses, but ultimately preferred Ursel due to its previous involvement in insolvency cases for the defunct retailers Sears Canada and Nordstrom Canada.
Koskie Minsky LP, a firm showing interest in representing Bay's staff and retained by 420 workers, protested the decision. They termed the company's choice of Ursel without a bidding war as a "serious procedural problem." They argued that the selection of the employees' representative is generally the court's prerogative.
Koskie Minsky urged for the appointment of former Ontario associate chief justice, Douglas Cunningham, to decide who should represent the workers. The judge agreed that the selection process needed scrutiny; however, instead of Cunningham, he chose retired judge Herman Wilton-Siegel to eliminate any potential bias.
Wilton-Siegel penned a report for the court evaluating proposals from five firms, all renowned for their commercial and insolvency expertise. He admitted the choice was excruciating. Each proposal was assessed based on five parameters: independence, required experience, communication with employees, cost issues, and demonstrated interest in teaming up with the appointed monitor to guide Hudson's Bay through its creditor protection process.
Wilton-Siegel noted that several firms had conflicts of interest. For instance, Koskie Minsky was embroiled in a class action against Hudson's Bay. Although past links could be rectified, the judge preferred law firms representing employees to be perceived as conflict-free and unrelated to Bay and the monitor.
Besides its clean slate, Wilton-Siegel underscored Ursel's "deep understanding" of the predicament faced by Hudson's Bay employees and its ability to connect seamlessly with large employee groups in insolvency cases. Consequently, Ursel was awarded the coveted position.
The precise cost estimations were not publicly disclosed, but the emphasis was on hiring a team whose expertise would secure the best possible outcomes for workers and retirees. The details reveal a nail-biting, multistEP saga that concluded with a hotly contested but fair court decision.
- Despite Koskie Minsky LP's protest over the choice, Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP was selected to represent more than 9,000 employees and 3,000 retirees of Hudson's Bay, a decision based on Ursel's previous involvement in insolvency cases for Sears Canada and Nordstrom Canada.
- In the legal tussle involving Hudson's Bay's creditor protection case, Justice Peter Osborne ultimately appointed retired judge Herman Wilton-Siegel to evaluate proposals from five law firms in the finance and business industry, with a emphasis on commercial and insolvency expertise.
- The retired judge, Wilton-Siegel, chose Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP over the others due to its "deep understanding" of Hudson's Bay employees' predicament and its ability to seamlessly connect with large employee groups in insolvency cases.
- According to Wilton-Siegel's report, law firms representing Hudson's Bay employees should be perceived as conflict-free and unrelated to Bay and the monitor, which could have potentially influenced the selection process.
