TORONTO — Ruby Liu, a billionaire from British Columbia, has lost her bid to take over former Hudson's Bay properties, according to a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court. Judge Peter Osborne decided on Friday that the landlords of the defunct retailer are not obligated to accept Liu as a tenant. In his 48-page judgment, Osborne expressed "significant concerns" regarding Liu's ability to fulfill the lease terms she sought. Major landlords, including Cadillac Fairview, Oxford Properties, and Ivanhoé Cambridge, opposed Liu's attempt to acquire 25 leases for $69.1 million. They characterized her as an inexperienced retail entrepreneur and deemed her plan to open at least 20 stores within 180 days unrealistic. Liu argued that her ownership of three malls demonstrated her capability to launch a new department store. She claimed that the landlords were resisting her bid because she is an "outsider" and not their preferred tenant. The decision followed months of deliberation, during which Osborne reviewed 25,600 pages of arguments from various commercial landlords and investors. Hudson's Bay filed for creditor protection in March, burdened with $1.1 billion in debt. After failing to find a buyer, the company liquidated its 80 stores and 16 additional locations from Saks, focusing on its leases, intellectual property, and art. A bidding process for the leases attracted numerous offers. YM Inc., which owns brands like Bluenotes, secured five leases for $5.03 million, while another landlord acquired one for $20,000. Liu's bid was the largest, as she aimed to establish a department store chain named after herself. In May, Hudson's Bay indicated it was willing to sell her up to 28 leases. Three leases were approved by the court because they were located in malls Liu already owned: Woodgrove Centre, Mayfair Shopping Centre, and Tsawwassen Mills. However, the remaining 25 leases became a contentious issue during Hudson's Bay's wind-down process. Landlords quickly raised objections after the announcement of Liu's bid. They claimed she was unprepared, lacking a solid business plan, and had assembled a team of executives with limited retail experience. Liu's initial business plan suggested she could renovate at least 20 stores and have them operational within 180 days. Landlords dismissed this timeline as unfeasible and questioned her $400 million budget, citing her malls' $19 million debt over the past two years. Despite her claims of capability, Liu faced skepticism from landlords and the court. Hudson's Bay and its primary lender, Pathlight Capital, suggested that landlords were motivated by a desire to regain control of the properties. If successful, landlords could lease the prime spaces to preferred tenants at higher rates than those stipulated in Hudson's Bay's long-term leases. To persuade landlords, Hudson's Bay set deadlines for Liu to hire former CEO Liz Rodbell as a consultant and KPMG as a financial adviser. The company offered to reduce the lease price by $3 million if Liu complied but warned that failure to do so could result in the termination of the deal and forfeiture of her $9.4 million deposit. Liu attempted to enhance her business plan and engaged a new legal team but did not secure KPMG or Rodbell's services. She also held hiring fairs and, against her lawyers' advice, contacted Judge Osborne directly, which led to a court reprimand. By July, ReStore, another lender to Hudson's Bay, expressed frustration over the stalled deal, as ongoing expenses were depleting its resources. It requested that Osborne terminate Liu's agreement and impose stricter oversight on Hudson's Bay's spending. In his ruling, Osborne considered Section 11.3 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, which allows the court to assign leases to a potential tenant despite landlord objections. The court-appointed monitor, Alvarez & Marsal, indicated that while Liu could meet her financial obligations, there was a "very real risk" she would struggle with the significant challenges ahead due to her inexperience and lack of preparation. This ruling marks a significant setback for Liu, who had ambitious plans for her retail venture.