Hudson’s Bay Company’s landlords have won a rare CA$2.4 million costs award in Ontario court, as reported by Retail Insider, capping a multi year fight over an ambitious, but ultimately rejected, lease transfer plan to B.C. billionaire Ruby Liu. Landlords had collectively pushed back against a proposal they viewed as too uncertain, and the ruling now stands as an unprecedented warning on litigation strategy in complex retail restructurings.
How Hudson’s Bay Got Here
The dispute traces back to Hudson’s Bay Company’s insolvency and the closure of all remaining stores, which left a portfolio of prime but vacant department store boxes across Canada. To raise funds for creditors, the company pursued a deal to transfer 25 leases for former Hudson’s Bay and Saks OFF 5TH locations to investor Ruby Liu for CA$69.1 million.
Liu’s vision was to convert these shells into a new department store concept that blended retail with entertainment…
and dining, betting that multi use experiences could revive big box footprints.
She had already secured leases for two additional former Hudson’s Bay and OFF 5TH sites in malls she owns, aiming to create a small network of reimagined destinations rather than isolated one off experiments. However, after months of scrutiny, the court concluded that Liu’s business plan did not offer enough certainty around the long term viability of the properties and blocked the lease transfer.
That decision left the leases in limbo, the creditor pool still competing over limited value, and landlords frustrated by the time and cost required to fight a deal they argued should never have advanced. Landlords’ Pushback and the Missed Settlement Window A coalition of major Canadian landlords, including Cadillac Fairview, Oxford Properties, Ivanhoé Cambridge, Primaris Management, QuadReal Property Group, Morguard Investments, and KingSett Capital, mounted a coordinated challenge to the Liu transaction.
They devoted months to preparing extensive court materials, engaging experts, and participating in multiple hearings to demonstrate why the proposal posed unacceptable risks to their centres and co…
Discussion
0 Comments
No comments yet
Start the conversation
Share your take on this story and help shape the discussion.
Sign in to join the discussion.