Inside Ruby Liu’s turbulent effort to turn Hudson's Bay stores into a new department store chain
The letters to the judge were declared “inappropriate,” with the court emphasizing that they must follow the procedural rules under law and that they are not to communicate directly again with the judge in such a manner. The court also warned that “any further correspondence will be considered harassing communications.”
Furthermore, the court has decided to add both letters, along with the accompanying documents — originally intended to be confidential — to the publicly accessible service list on the court-appointed monitor’s website, where they were released yesterday. Certain sections of the documents and letters were redacted.
“For my dreams, I fought with all of my strength”
Who is Ruby Liu, a now-prominent figure at the heart of the ongoing saga surrounding the downfall of Canada’s largest and longest-standing retailer?
In the first letter, dated July 9, Liu made a highly personal and emotional appeal to the judge. Rather than addressing the legal merits of her case, Liu focused on the character of the judge himself, expressing admiration for his perceived integrity while contrasting it with what she essentially described as widespread corruption in the legal profession.
“At this most critical moment, I feel compelled to write to you. On June 23, in the courtroom, the very first moment I saw you, I felt an unshakable belief that you were a person of justice and strength. Yet what I still cannot understand is this: among so many lawyers who would do anything for money, how do you remain so steadfast, so confident, so noble? You refuse to join their ranks, and yet you carry an optimism that seems untouched by their corruption,” wrote Liu.
“How is it possible — to fully understand them and their schemes, to witness their performances day after day, and yet not lose your grace, your dignity, your quiet but commanding presence? Is this what I have read of in books — true nobility? Or is it the lifelong defence of your own integrity and kindness? Or perhaps, is there also a silent sorrow in your heart at the compromises this world demands?”
Later in the letter, Liu shifted focus from her reflections on the court to a deeply personal account of her upbringing in China.
She recounted her early struggles growing up in poverty, her first experiences in business alongside her mother, and the challenges she faced as an entrepreneur navigating what she alleged as systemic corruption and persecution.
Through this narrative, Liu sought to portray herself as a resilient and self-made businesswoman who had overcome extraordinary adversity — ultimately framing her journey as one rooted in perseverance and legitimacy.
“At 16, I stood beside my mother as we started a small wholesale business, selling general goods and clothing. Together, we earned my first fortune — an astounding 300,000 RMB yuan at that time, enough to buy a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto. Driven by a yearning for a better life, we left behind our home in the slums, a crumbling house barely five meters wide and pressed against the railway tracks,” reads Liu’s letter.
Her family moved to the rapidly growing hub city of Shenzhen, where they eventually found their fortune. This was where she began her real estate business, including the development of Central Walk mall, which she ultimately sold prior to immigrating to Canada.
Her decision to dispose of her assets in China and immigrate to Canada, making her a cash billionaire, was driven by the Chinese government’s widely reported crackdown since the early 2010s — not only on corruption within government, policing, and the military, but also on perceived excess wealth, as part of a broader strategy to redistribute wealth and rein in private enterprise. But Liu contends there was far more beneath the surface.
“I have always been strong and hardworking, refusing to bow to hardship. For my dreams, I fought with all my strength. God, in His infinite grace, seemed to watch over me — guiding and protecting me through countless trials: natural disasters, personal tragedies, and unimaginable adversities. Again and again, I survived. I overcame. I am blessed. I am lucky,” Liu wrote to the judge.
“But in 2010, everything began to change. Across China, officials of every rank started systematically targeting entrepreneurs — seizing their wealth under the guise of investigations, fabricating troubles, and laying traps to bring down those who had worked hard to build their businesses. I was not spared. All the horrors one sees and doesn’t see in films and television — I lived them.”
But Liu asserts she refused to accept injustice, especially when it affected her family. “I could not, and would not, allow injustice to befall me or my loved ones,” reads Liu’s letter. In response, she began fighting back — “against the underworld, against corrupt police, against unfair courts, government oppression, and media” — to defend her legal rights, protect her property, and ensure her family’s safety.
Years of relentless pressure eventually took a toll on her health, reads the letter by Liu. After multiple hospital stays, she came to what she called a “painful realization”: that in order to receive proper medical care in China, “even to see a doctor, one had to bribe.” She described it as an era in which systemic corruption extended into everyday life, recalling that “even to enroll my young daughter in primary school, we had to give gifts to the teacher.”
HBC’s attempts to assist Liu across the finish line
In a second letter to the judge, sent just one day later on July 10, Liu raised a complaint about Oberfeld Snowcap — the commercial real estate firm assisting the court-appointed monitor with the sale of HBC’s leases and other assets. She alleged that a lawyer she had retained — based on Oberfeld Snowcap’s recommendation — had taken action without her consent. Liu further stated that following a disagreement, the lawyer terminated their engagement, leaving her without legal representation for approximately three weeks.
At around the same time, there were also media reports that Liu had arrived in court without a lawyer, instead representing herself, forcing the judge to adjourn a hearing on the lease deals early.
In her communications with the judge, Liu alleged that critical procedural delays and behind-the-scenes maneuvering undermined her ability to secure the leases. She claimed that even basic steps — such as sending landlord consent letters — were mishandled by an unspecified party that was redacted.
Liu also took issue with the role of third-party advisors involved in the court-supervised process. She recounted a June 11 breakfast meeting — her second with a key figure in the proceedings — during which, she said, the entire hour-and-a-half was spent promoting the services of Hilco, an expensive external firm, as well as encouraging her to hire a former HBC executive to act as a “performer” consultant.
On July 6, Liu received a letter from HBC stating that the purchase price would be reduced by $3 million, and that $1.5 million from her deposit would be redirected to cover the costs of engaging former HBC CEO Liz Rodbell and KPMG as external advisors. Liu said she was never informed in advance of this arrangement or the purpose of their work, and she argued that these deductions ultimately harmed creditors’ interests.
She further alleged that landlords, aware of the value of the leases, banded together to block the sale in an effort to regain control of the properties without paying market value. “No matter how perfect our business plan was, the landlords would still refuse our purchase of the leases,” Liu wrote, asserting that she was entitled to acquire the original lease terms as approved by the court, and that future negotiations or amendments would follow the proper legal channels.
Prepared $350 million in cash
Despite the mounting opposition, Liu maintained confidence in her financial backing and operational readiness, stating that her team had prepared $350 million in cash and completed extensive groundwork for store openings.
But Stikeman Elliott LLP, the law firm representing HBC in the current proceedings, strongly disputes Liu’s characterization of her preparedness and commitment to the deal — accusing her team of failing to meet basic obligations under the agreement.
In a July 5 letter to Liu’s law firm, Stikeman Elliott alleged that Liu’s team had repeatedly failed to take “the most basic and necessary steps” to advance the transaction toward court approval, including securing required landlord waivers.
Stikeman Elliott stated that the purchaser was in breach of the agreement and that HBC had the right to terminate the deal and retain Liu’s deposit as liquidated damages. The letter also criticized Liu’s refusal to invest in professional support to develop a viable business plan, describing it as “surprisingly” given the scale of the proposed lease acquisition and the intent to create a new modern department store chain.
Without such a plan, Stikeman Elliott argued, Liu’s bid had little chance of succeeding in a contested motion to assign the leases.
According to Liu’s July 10 email, HBC, through its law firm, has repeatedly threatened to terminate their agreement with her and seize her deposit, which amounts to 10 per cent of the purchase price.
“Throughout the Landlord consultation process, the Purchaser has continuously failed to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain the Landlord Waivers. We have had numerous discussions with you and/or your legal counsel regarding what is required to advance the Agreement for Court approval. We will not detail these discussions in this letter; however, the Purchaser has failed and/or refused to take the most basic and necessary steps to advance its bid.”
“The Purchaser is in breach of the Agreement and pursuant to Section 9.1(9) of the Agreement, the Vendor has the right to terminate the Agreement and if the Vendor exercises such right the Deposit will become the property of and shall be transferred to the Vendor as liquidated damages pursuant to Section 9.2(2)(a) of the Agreement.”
“As we have discussed with you and/or Miller Thomson LLP on numerous occasions, in order to have any chance of success at a contested assignment motion, the Purchaser must put forward a viable business plan. To date, the Purchaser has failed to do so and more surprisingly (given the size of the financial commitment contemplated in its bid) has refused to expend appropriate funds to engage the necessary expertise to create a credible business plan.”
These newly released documents and emails attached to the letters also revealed the locations of all 25 HBC store leases in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario that Liu is seeking to acquire — information that had not previously been disclosed in any of the court motions or the service list. They also include correspondence between the law firms representing various landlords, outlining in great detail the reasons for their opposition to Liu’s proposed lease takeover.
- You might also like:
- The complete list of 25 Hudson's Bay store locations in Ruby Liu's retail bid
- Ruby Liu to take over Hudson’s Bay store leases at her three B.C. malls
- 23 landlords oppose Ruby Liu's takeover of former Hudson's Bay store leases
- RioCan sees $209 million valuation loss in Hudson's Bay joint venture
- Canadian Tire to buy iconic Hudson's Bay brands, logos, stripes for $30 million