RE: IF9 Oct 2021 15:59
Below is an extract from a Canadian Newspaper and sums it up in simple terms.
I’m not sure it is as straightforward as some think especially with ‘ ordinary course “ during a pandemic which is unprecedented in Canadian Courts.
The case will hinge on Cineworld arguing it had the right to terminate the agreement without payment because Cineplex strayed from “ordinary course,” when it deferred its accounts payable by at least 60 days, reduced spending to the “bare minimum” and stopped paying landlords, movie studios, film distributors and suppliers at the pandemic’s start.
Cineworld alleged the changes were meant “to present a more favourable long term debt position in its financial statements than was actually the case” and “cannot be excused by the outbreak of the novel coronavirus.”
Cineplex’s statement of claim shows it will argue it fulfilled all of its obligations and that it continued with an “ordinary course” for the industry.
Cineplex will also claim Cineworld did not have grounds to terminate the deal because there was a clause exempting outbreaks of illness or changes affecting the motion picture theatre industry from being considered “material adverse effects.”
Both companies declined to comment because the matter is before the court, which will decide what contract obligations are in play if an act of god or illness occurs and what constitutes “ordinary course” during a pandemic.
There’s a lot at stake for both sides.