Mayrand: a Sobeys subsidiary buys in, and $6.965 million is left for the rest

Mayrand was founded in Montréal in 1914, developed a wholesale business in 1968, moved its main store to Anjou in 2016 and took the name Mayrand Entrepôt d'Alimentation in 2018. Its stores were meant chiefly for hotel, restaurant and institutional buyers while open to the public, and an expansion begun in 2020 added three of them, in Brossard, Laval and Saint-Jérôme, per the Transition Application, Nov. 21, 2025, paras. 4–8. By the proposed monitor's count, 90% of the customers were consumers and 10% businesses — restaurants, dépanneurs, caterers — per the Proposed Monitor's Report, Nov. 24, 2025, para. 2.3.4.

At 18:46 on June 19, 2026, Raymond Chabot Inc., the monitor, issued the certificate that completed the company's sale to 17820721 Canada Inc., per the Monitor's Certificate, June 19, 2026. The monitor identifies the purchaser as a subsidiary of Sobeys Inc. and Empire Company Limited, and reports that the transaction keeps the four stores operating and all of Mayrand's employees employed, per the Monitor's Third Report, July 23, 2026, paras. 1.6.1, 3.5. On July 30, Justice Michel A. Pinsonnault of the Superior Court of Québec authorized the monitor to pay the two secured creditors, Dalemma inc. and Investissement Québec, and to hold the rest of the proceeds until the unsecured claims are determined, per the Distribution Order, July 30, 2026, paras. 7–8.

Four stores, and a sister company sold first

In Mayrand's own account, the 2020–2021 expansion needed heavy investment in fit-up, equipment, inventory and staff; the pandemic's restrictions on restaurants and food service cut the return on it; and the expansion costs, the pandemic's long effects and "certain operational decisions (keeping margins low, keeping staff in place)" [translation] strained cash that a year of restructuring efforts did not relieve, per the Transition Application, paras. 24–27.

Mayrand and its sister company Alimplus inc., a food distributor to restaurants, caterers and cafeterias, earned EBITDA of $11.4 million and $10.4 million in the fiscal years ended January 2019 and 2020. During the pandemic the group began a plan for nine additional stores, and the costs of expansion, with debt service on Alimplus's acquisitions, weighed on results "and, above all, on cash" [translation]. Shareholders put in $17.5 million over fiscal 2022 to 2024, $9.3 million of it from Daniel Le Rossignol, Mayrand's sole director, and the group still could not meet the terms of Desjardins, whose $52 million loan was secured on all its assets, or Investissement Québec, whose $7 million loan was secured the same way, per the Proposed Monitor's Report, paras. 2.4–2.16, 8.2.1.

In December 2023 the group retained Fasken and Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton & Cie S.E.N.C.R.L., an affiliate of the eventual monitor, for a turnaround plan, and in January 2024 it negotiated a forbearance agreement with Desjardins. When the plan fell short and no new capital came, the group and Desjardins agreed to sell Alimplus, per the Proposed Monitor's Report, paras. 2.17–2.23, 3.5. On June 3, 2025, Groupe Colabor inc. bought Alimplus's assets and its fresh-cut produce subsidiary, Tout-Prêt inc., for $49.75 million subject to adjustments, and the proceeds went to Desjardins, per the Transition Application, paras. 29–30. Desjardins assigned its unpaid balance of $6,533,141, with its universal hypothec over Mayrand's assets, to Mr. Le Rossignol, Mayrand's ultimate beneficial owner. Investissement Québec received nothing from the Colabor sale, per the Proposed Monitor's Report, paras. 2.24, 2.26, 4.7.8.

Mayrand was left with about $16.2 million of secured debt and, the proposed monitor wrote, could not find a financial institution to finance it given those term loans, IQ's in particular. As at October 18, 2025, the proposed monitor put the minimum needed to bring suppliers back to industry terms at $6.7 million, per the Proposed Monitor's Report, paras. 2.26–2.27, 4.7.7. It filed a notice of intention on October 28, 2025, with book assets of $34,390,000, claims it estimated at $31,711,315.07 — $16,796,321.57 secured and $14,914,993.50 unsecured — and 272 employees, per the Transition Application, paras. 1, 14–16.

A lease fight, a related bidder, seven letters

The proposed monitor gave two reasons for moving to the CCAA: the sale timetable put closing at April 17, 2026, and a closing after April 27 would have left Mayrand unable to meet the BIA's deadlines; and the CCAA offered a designated judge for a dispute over the Anjou lease, per the Proposed Monitor's Report, paras. 3.1–3.2. The landlord, Les Placements Super Sélect inc., had given notice terminating the lease over property taxes Mayrand said it had paid a few days late, in keeping with the parties' practice. Termination, Mayrand told the court, would bring "catastrophic consequences for the Business and very likely the closing of the Anjou store" [translation], per the Transition Application, paras. 64–66. On January 28, 2026, the landlord settled, giving up the termination, its claims and the defaults it had invoked, per the Monitor's First Report, Feb. 11, 2026, paras. 2.5–2.6.

Justice Pinsonnault's transition order of November 26, 2025 stayed proceedings to February 13, 2026 and granted a $250,000 administration charge and a $950,000 directors' and officers' charge, per the Transition Order, Nov. 26, 2025, paras. 17, 43, 46. A companion order approved a two-phase sale process and the engagement letter of Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton as its adviser. Binding offers could carry no break fee. Any shareholder, director or officer who meant to bid had to tell the monitor no later than fifteen days before the first-phase deadline; after that notice the bidder could not exercise the debtor's consultation rights and could talk to other bidders only with the monitor present, per the SISP Order, Nov. 26, 2025, para. 14 and Sched. A, paras. 26, 40.

Solicitation went to 94 potential buyers and investors around December 1, 2025, and 21 signed confidentiality agreements. Mr. Le Rossignol gave notice that he would bid, and the monitor and the adviser kept him away from the running of the process from then on, per the Monitor's First Report, paras. 3.3–3.5. Seven letters of intent arrived by the January 30 deadline, one of them his, and four bidders qualified for the second phase. With the binding-offer deadline moved from March 13 to March 20, two offers came in on time and a third late, and the fourth qualified bidder did not bid, per the Monitor's Second Report, Apr. 13, 2026, paras. 3.4.4–3.5.3. On March 27 the monitor told Empire Company Limited, acting for a company still to be incorporated, that its offer had been selected, per the RVO Application, Apr. 9, 2026, paras. 12–13. The subscription agreement is dated April 9. A retention plan for three key employees was secured by a charge that rose from $250,000 to $437,500 when the closing was pushed back, per the Monitor's Second Report, paras. 3.9, 8.1–8.4 and the Monitor's First Report, para. 5.2.

Why the shares moved and the assets stayed

Under the reverse vesting order Justice Pinsonnault granted on April 16, 2026, the purchaser subscribed for new shares, the existing shares were cancelled for no consideration, and the excluded assets, contracts and liabilities went to 9565-0909 Québec Inc., a residual company Mayrand incorporated with one common share at $1.00, per the Approval and Reverse Vesting Order, Apr. 16, 2026, paras. 13–14, 22.

The reason Mayrand gave for the structure was permits. Each store's permits from Québec's agriculture ministry, MAPAQ, were needed to sell cut and packaged dairy products, wholesale charcuterie and at retail; they were not transferable, and new ones would take an estimated two to six weeks. The alcohol permits from the Société des alcools du Québec and the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux were not transferable either, at four to eight weeks and two to six weeks to replace, according to a summary the purchaser prepared. The structure also preserved "certain tax attributes," which the purchaser took into account in evaluating the deal [translation], per the RVO Application, para. 26. The monitor gave the same reasons and saw no prejudice to any creditor from a reverse vesting rather than a sale of assets, per the Monitor's Second Report, paras. 4.9–4.10.