logo
Hudson's Bay landlords don't want Liu to move in, but retailer still has a shot

Hudson's Bay landlords don't want Liu to move in, but retailer still has a shot

Hamilton Spectator10 hours ago

TORONTO - A group of Hudson's Bay's landlords don't want to transfer more than two dozen leases to British Columbia billionaire Ruby Liu, but the department store still has a chance to get its way.
The Bay, which filed for creditor protection in March, ran a process over the last several months to find buyers for leases belonging to it and Saks Canada. It agreed to sell up to 28 spaces to Liu.
Three leases were transferred to her without any hiccups because they're in B.C. malls she owns, but another 25 are at properties held by a who's who of Canadian commercial real estate firms.
Landlords for 23 of those sites oppose the transfer. Several have said in court they've been 'very troubled' with their interactions with Liu and have had 'no productive discussions, no meaningful disclosure.' Liu insists if the court hands her the leases, landlords will warm to her and her plan to open a new department store in their properties.
While the disagreement could serve as a roadblock to the Bay closing on its agreement with Liu, lawyers not involved in the case say the retailer has another route it can take to get a deal done.
That route lies in changes to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act — Canada's main insolvency law — made in 2009, said Jeff Lee, a Saskatoon-based partner at MLT Aikins LLP.
The changes laid out three criteria courts must consider when asked to assign leases to a new tenant.
The first is whether or not the sale has the support of the monitor, a court-appointed, independent third party which helps guide businesses through creditor protection.
In the Bay's case, the monitor is Alvarez & Marsal. It has yet to reveal whether it supports the Liu deal and did not respond to requests for comment.
'Before any court application is brought forward, typically the company will test that out with them,' Lee said. 'They're not going to just sort of fly in blind and hope for the best.'
The second aspect for the court to mull is whether the proposed new tenant is suitable. Lee said that's determined by looking at whether they can perform the duties of the tenant and pay rent.
Liu, who made her money in Chinese real estate, appears to have deep pockets but her experience comes from being a landlord rather than a tenant.
The final aspect the court will consider is whether a transfer of a lease to Liu is 'appropriate.'
Lee said people should think of it as asking this question: 'Is what's proposed for this post-assignment lease relationship what people signed up for, or are they seeking to rewrite the lease or change the playing field so radically that it's not appropriate?'
That's where much of the tension could lie in the Bay case.
'You can't go into CCAA as a tenant and then force your landlords to renegotiate their leases as a result,' said Peter Tolensky, a Vancouver-based partner at Lawson Lundell LLP.
The Canadian Press obtained a document last week that Liu's lawyer sent landlords outlining her plans. It says she will take on the leases on an 'as is, where is' basis but doesn't mention the dining, entertainment, children's and fitness experiences she's told media she'd like to include in her department stores.
It's unclear whether the leases allow for uses other than a Bay-like department store.
A court faced with a request to reassign leases will weigh this context and think about whether 'the landlord's world is being turned upside down by having this new tenant,' said Geoffrey Dabbs, a B.C.-based founding partner at Gehlen Dabbs Cash.
'The more it's a minor inconvenience for the landlord, the more likely the judge will order it,' he said.
While the Bay hasn't said whether it will seek an assignment, it's likely because any company in creditor protection has a duty to show the court it's doing its best to pay back companies and people it owes money to, Dabbs said. The Bay has a 26-page list of creditors, with some lenders owed more than $100 million each.
Liquidation sales and a deal to sell the Bay trademarks to Canadian Tire for $30 million have put a dent in what's owed but selling leases to Liu would also help.
Anyone who made an offer for leases had to make a deposit of 10 per cent of their estimated purchase price. Court documents show Liu made a deposit of $9.4 million, in addition to $6 million for the three approved leases, which would equate to a purchase price of $100 million for 28 leases.
When a deal like this is reached, Dabbs said a company typically seeks landlord consent because commercial leases tend to have provisions stopping anyone from transferring a lease without a property owner agreeing.
It's not uncommon for landlords to object because any leases that can't be sold and aren't assigned get turned back over to property owners who can choose how to fill them and under what terms.
'Remember, these are anchor leases, so they're probably very favourable to the Bay or to the tenant in a lot of respects,' said Tolensky, alluding to the fact that anchor tenants are often given attractive rents or terms.
Thus, it's more advantageous for landlords to get their properties back, said Monica Beffa, founder of an Oakville, Ont., law firm. If they do, they can then charge higher rents, develop them for entirely new uses such as residential units or break them up into smaller parcels that can be rented by a wide array of tenants.
If they don't and a court assigns the leases to Liu, landlords will likely be watching her closely to ensure she doesn't violate any terms of the agreement.
'The landlord may be cranky, if the tenant breaches, but put it this way, they don't want to rely on that,' Dabbs said.
'If they don't want this lease being assigned, they will fight it right up front.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate ekes out late-night win on Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Senate ekes out late-night win on Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Senate ekes out late-night win on Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

Senate Republicans voted 51-49 late Saturday to move forward with President Trump's " big, beautiful bill" — clearing a significant hurdle and setting up a lengthy weekend to pass the legislation. Why it matters: After days of heated debate and complaints, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is barreling forward to get Trump's priorities on taxes, the debt ceiling, border security and military funding passed by July 4. All Republicans but Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) ultimately voted yes, making the final tally 51-49. But GOP holdouts — notably Sens. Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rick Scott (Fla.) and Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.) — forced the vote to remain open for more than three hours while they negotiated with party leaders, including Vice President JD Vance. Johnson told reporters on Saturday that holdouts were promised a vote on an amendment that would reduce the federal matching share for some new Medicaid enrollees. Scott has been pushing the approach. What to watch: Democrats are forcing the entire 940-page bill to be read on the floor, a process that could take well over 10 hours. Hours of debate, followed by a series of unlimited amendment votes, known as a vote-a-rama, will happen before final passage can take place. Zoom in: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) plans to offer an amendment to strike a temporary pause on states passing AI regulations. It is likely to be adopted, given that other Republicans, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), also are unhappy with the measure. Lee, as the vote was ongoing, announced he would withdraw his plan to sell off public lands to private housing developers. Several other GOP senators, including Sens. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), opposed Lee's provision. Between the lines: Trump ramped up pressure on Republicans on Saturday morning, circulating a statement of administration policy urging the bill's passage. "President Trump is committed to keeping his promises, and failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal," the statement read. Senators have been receiving phone calls, lunching and golfing with the president this weekend. The big picture: The new text would delay implementation of a reduced Medicaid provider tax in expansion states. It includes a compromise with the House to raise the cap on the state and local tax deduction to $40,000 for five years before reverting to the current $10,000 cap. It would create a $25 billion rural hospital fund, bumped up from $15 billion, an attempt to assuage concerns from some Republicans that bill's Medicaid cuts would devastate rural health providers.

Megabill in limbo with GOP senators locked in last-minute talks
Megabill in limbo with GOP senators locked in last-minute talks

Politico

time3 hours ago

  • Politico

Megabill in limbo with GOP senators locked in last-minute talks

A Senate vote on advancing Republicans' party-line domestic-policy bill has been held open for more than two hours as GOP leaders scramble for the final votes. Vice President JD Vance arrived at the Capitol shortly after 8 p.m. to break a possible tie. Three Republican senators — Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — have already voted "no." A fourth GOP opponent would at least temporarily sink the megabill and likely foil plans to get it to President Donald Trump's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Majority Whip John Barrasso, Finance Chair Mike Crapo and Budget Chair Lindsey Graham are meeting off the floor with Vance, Johnson and the three Republican holdouts — Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida. The three are believed to be voting as a bloc; Lee and Scott have raised concerns about the level of spending cuts in the bill. 'We need more deficit reduction,' Lee said before the vote. Notably, he announced Saturday night he was dropping a provision to sell some public lands from the megabill amid intraparty opposition. Thune was tight-lipped heading into the meeting saying only, "It's a long vote." Earlier in the evening, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska made her fellow Republicans sweat, withholding her vote for nearly an hour while a gaggle of key leaders surrounded her on the Senate floor. Murkowski, who had already secured major concessions for her home state, spent more than a half-hour in deep and sometimes animated conversations with Crapo, Graham, Barrasso and Thune, also talking separately to Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Curtis of Utah. At one point she held Vance's hand while she talked with him one-on-one in the back of the chamber. Graham could be heard loudly saying that to 'start the process' would be 'best.' Eventually she voted to move forward with the bill, with a big smile, but only after she retreated into the cloakroom for additional conversations with leaders and committee chairs. Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.

Senate removes provision that would sell off public lands from megabill
Senate removes provision that would sell off public lands from megabill

The Hill

time4 hours ago

  • The Hill

Senate removes provision that would sell off public lands from megabill

The Senate has removed a controversial provision from its megabill that would have sold off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) who was leading the push on the measure, announced late Saturday that the measure would be stripped from the bill. 'Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families – not to China, not to Blackrock and not to any foreign interests,' Lee said in a post on X. 'For that reason, I've decided to withdraw the federal land sales provision from the bill.' While the measure had some GOP support, it also received pushback from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Opponents included a group of five House Republicans who said they would vote no if the final bill contained the measure. This story is developing and will be updated.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store