Tag: Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CANADIAN BUSINESS: WHAT WILL BE THE ULTIMATE BUSINESS IN ONTARIO RECOVERY PROGRAM?

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Canadian business introduction

In April 2020, a survey of entrepreneurs who own what could be called a small Canadian business across the GTA was conducted. It found that almost two-thirds of them might have to shut down for good as they struggle to stay on top of rent and other bills throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I look at entrepreneurs in Canadian business, both small and large, and talk about the one essential ingredient that will determine Canadian business success or failure. This one necessary item may turn out to be the only Canadian business recovery program that will ultimately work.

Canadian business opening-up again

Many are progressively opening up under local, provincial and federal government guidance. They need to navigate a host of constraints, including restrictions on the number of customers at any one time. I have read that many say the restrictions with their added layer of costs may stop them from being profitable. Even though COVID-19 cases appear to be under control in Ontario, companies have actually reopened to dramatically smaller sized groups, imperilling their survival.

To save local Canadian businesses, and the millions they employ, the federal government developed Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan. The federal assistance programs for Canadian business include:

I have already written about most of these support programs. I have attached relevant links above so that you can read up on the various support programs for Canadian business.

Provincial governments have also stepped up. For example, in Ontario, the Doug Ford Conservative government has implemented:

  1. Interest/penalty relief – Canadian business in Ontario will get five months of interest and fine relief to make payments for taxes administered by the Province. From April 1, 2020 – August 31, 2020, Ontario will not apply any penalty interest on any late-filed returns or incomplete or late tax obligation payments under the Employer Health Tax, Tobacco Tax and Gas Tax obligations. This enhances relief from the federal government on interest and other charges from not remitting the amount owing for corporate income tax.
  2. WSIB payment deferments – Employers can delay WSIB payments for 6 months.
  3. Rent support for local Canadian business – Ontario has partnered with the Government of Canada on the Ontario-Canada emergency commercial rent assistance for small businesses and landlords experiencing financial problems throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

But there are still Canadian business problems

Despite all these support programs, the Canadian business world still has to figure out how to pay the balance of their rent, utility, insurance as well as a host of various other recurring expenses. While some have had the ability to delay these expenses, they can’t do so for life. Companies will become required to take care of their unmet commitments. They will also have to figure out how they are going to go back to paying all their expenses in full once the support programs end and business has not yet come back to the pre-coronavirus pandemic level.

Some companies may have enough cash savings to ride out the pandemic or can access fresh cash resources from owners. That is both good and bad. Entrepreneurs will take from their retirement savings, and in some cases deplete them, in the hopes of keeping their business alive long enough to survive and once again be profitable. It is highly doubtful that Canadian business will be able to borrow from the Banks as a source of fresh capital under these circumstances.

For a lot of others, the crush of past-due costs will certainly limit and maybe even end their business.

What happens when the government support programs end?

That is a big question that I get asked always. The answer is somewhat obvious: Everyone will have to stand on their own two feet just like they had to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Right now all the Canadian business support programs are all scheduled to end August 31. What will happen then?

My personal belief is that the federal and provincial governments will not be able to end the economic response support programs that soon. Rather, I think they will have to extend all the programs again. They may tweak them to begin the process of weaning Canadian business off of government support. Nevertheless, I feel they will have to be extended.

I think the extension will come with stark warnings. I believe the government would not want to extend for more than 90 days, but Christmas will still come in December. Pandemic or no pandemic. Nobody will want to shut off the tap before Christmas. So, that means an extension until the end of the calendar year 2020. With it, the governments will have to warn everyone to get their houses in order now because for certain there will be no more support programs after December 31.

I don’t have any inside information. I am just guessing. But to me, that seems the most realistic to still help Canadian business because entrepreneurs and workers are still all scared. At the same time, the governments’ exit strategy time clock begins ticking. Everyone will have a fair warning.

There is one precious commodity Canadian business will need when the support programs stop

Please humour me. Let us just say you find my prediction to be a reasonable one. On January 1, 2021, Canadian business is not all of a sudden flush with cash. They have survived. Entrepreneurs will still be scared. They certainly will not hire everyone back with an uncertain economic climate. All of the creditors of the businesses will start demanding payment in full. They have been patient and understanding. But now, all business debts will be demanded.

What is the one commodity Canadian business will desperately need? Cash is an obvious one but, no more is coming. Not from the government, the Banks or investors. Entrepreneurs are already tapped out having used personal savings to keep their businesses afloat. The most precious commodity Canadian business will need is TIME. Time to gear up again. Time to get back on their feet and bring in some cash. The Courts will have reopened. Creditors will begin to sue. There will be no more “time-outs” built into our Canadian economic system.

How will businesses get the time they need?

Bankruptcy protection will very likely be the answer

Breathing time that briefly ices up the need to pay off old debt while letting Canadian business function and have the time to find a strategy to keep going. In most cases, that will only be able to happen with a bankruptcy protection insolvency filing.

While bankruptcy is only thought of with going out of business, there are two Canadian federal statutes that allow viable businesses to develop a restructuring plan to lead them back to success. The trouble is that bankruptcy laws don’t give sufficient time to do this while there is still a pandemic. Ongoing COVID-19 health problems will likely suppress the Canadian economy in 2021.

Some out-of-the-box thinking and creativity are going to have to go into bankruptcy restructuring. It will be incumbent on licensed insolvency trustees (formerly called bankruptcy trustees), insolvency lawyers and the courts to recognize viable businesses that deserve to survive. This will be the case even if the processes being recommended are a bit unorthodox. These times are unorthodox and the solutions will have to fit the realities of our time.

I have previously written many blogs on how the two Canadian insolvency statutes can be used to allow Canadian business to restructure. The two statutes are:

For the purpose of this blog, I won’t repeat what I have previously written about corporate restructuring under either the BIA or CCAA. For this blog, what you need to know is that CCAA proceedings are for companies with $5 million or more of debt. BIA proceedings are for those companies with $4,999,999 of debt or less. Both statutes allow for bankruptcy protection filing. They are the Canadian equivalent to Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States.

How will bankruptcy protections help Canadian business?

For numerous companies battling the consequences of COVID-19, the main issue will not be a massive backlog of debt. It will be the inability to pay off the debt fast due to an absence of immediate profits. Cash will be needed to carry on business and make commitments on a go-forward basis. Given enough time, Canadian business will be able to repay its debts which accrued during the coronavirus shutdown. Unfortunately, the time Canadian business will need will be much longer than how much longer creditors will be willing to wait.

This is where bankruptcy protection filing, under either the BIA or CCAA comes in. First, under a bankruptcy protection filing, there is an automatic stay of proceedings. Creditors will not be able to start or continue collection efforts. This includes repossession by secured creditors or beginning or continuing legal proceedings.

Other benefits of a bankruptcy protection filing for Canadian business will be:

  1. Buying some time to come up with a restructuring plan to keep viable businesses in operation.
  2. Saving jobs through restructuring rather than liquidating the assets of many companies.
  3. Allowing for the sale of entire business units to be integrated into other healthier companies in order for businesses to survive, albeit in a different legal format.
  4. To allow for the sale of redundant assets to raise much-needed cash.
  5. Get out of onerous equipment, IP or premises leases/contracts that need to be jettisoned or else a restructuring is not possible.
  6. Stopping secured lenders from calling a default on loan facilities due to either cash or non-cash impairment charges leading to going concern worries.
  7. Obtain operating capital by way of a new debtor-in-possession loan credit facility for restructuring. Most companies outside of a formal restructuring will be unable to borrow any more money as I have already mentioned. However, in a BIA or CCAA Canadian business restructuring, the court can approve emergency funding and raise that operating loan to the top of the pile by giving it a priority secured loan position.
  8. Stopping Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from starting or continuing garnishee tactics, general collection efforts and especially placing liens on business property for unpaid taxes.
  9. To allow companies to restructure their debt and clean up their balance sheets in a post lockdown economy.

The biggest resource Canadian business will need is also going to be its largest enemy

So as you can see, I believe that the most important resource that Canadian business will need to survive will not be cash. It will be time. Creditors will no longer want to give businesses more time to repay. Companies will need more time to get back on their feet when the COVID-19 Economic Response Plan support programs end.

The only way I can see that truly happening while allowing for proper restructuring of viable businesses will be under bankruptcy protection filings. Those businesses that are not viable, by definition, will fall by the wayside causing more harm to many good people.

So this why I say formal bankruptcy protection proceedings to allow viable businesses to restructure will be the ultimate business recovery program in a post-lockdown Canada.

Canadian business summary

I hope you have found this Canadian business Brandon’s Blog interesting and helpful. The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID-19, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

canadian business
canadian business
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY PROCESS: RIDICULOUS BUT TRUE BANKRUPTCY CHAPTER 11 CASE AND ONTARIO RESTITUTION LAW DEBT

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Bankruptcy process introduction

This week two totally unrelated items caught my attention when thinking about the bankruptcy process. The first is about Hertz Global Holdings Inc. (Hertz) bankruptcy Chapter 11 case in the United States. An update to my recent blog about Hertz titled HOW HERTZ TEACHES US MODERN AND RISKY RULES OF BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY IN CANADA AND THE USA.

The second item that caught my eye is a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The decision really didn’t have anything to do with bankruptcy. However, the Court of Appeal did reference the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) in its decision. It really is about restitution law and the resultant debt.

The zany twist to the Hertz bankruptcy Chapter 11 case

In my June 8 blog about the bankruptcy process used by Hertz, I wrote about the irrational behaviour of investors in trading Hertz stock. Legendary investor Carl Icahn sold his entire Hertz holdings at $0.72 per share. The stock had touched a low of $0.40. For some reason, investors bid the stock up to $5.53. The stock at the time of writing this blog is just under $2.

This made no sense at all. The only thing I can attribute it to is that investors saw an opportunity to buy in during upward momentum, sell-off with a profit, and leave someone else holding the bag. Hertz debentures are selling for pennies on the dollar. The assumption being that those creditors will largely get wiped out as part of the bankruptcy chapter 11 case. If creditors get next to nothing, then for sure shareholders are going to get wiped out. That is what happens in these bankruptcy process cases.

This activity did not escape Hertz’s attention. Now the restructuring team got an idea. What if we could sell more stock, given the interest in our shares. If we sold $1 billion worth, while telling everyone it was worthless, then we would have the necessary cash to fund our restructuring. Better yet, Hertz would not have to borrow money with high rate debtor-in-possession financing. All they needed was to convince the court to approve it. It sounds like a Mel Brooks comedy script!

The Hertz bankruptcy process application for share sale approval motion

June 19, 2020 UPDATE: Late yesterday, Hertz announced that it has determined to end a questionable stock sale of as much as $500 million since the Securities and Exchange Commission questioned and put a hold on the insolvent company’s plans. Hertz is currently in talks for a debtor-in-possession bankruptcy loan of up to $1 billion to fund its business reorg.

On June 11, 2020, Hertz filed its motion for court approval to issue more of its common stock. Since the common shares are being actively traded, Hertz filed its emergency motion to seek emergency relief from the court to allow the Debtor to try to capture value for the unissued Hertz shares for the benefit of the bankruptcy process Estate.

The approval sought from the court was approval to participate in a sale arrangement with Jefferies LLC (Jefferies), to act as the sales representative. Under the sale contract, Hertz might offer and sell common shares of Hertz having an aggregate offering value not to surpass $1 billion. Hertz has 246,775,008 unissued common stock shares. Jefferies will use its best efforts to market, as the sales representative the unissued shares of common stock.

In support of their motion, Hertz advised the court that:

  1. The recent market prices of the trading quantities in Hertz’s ordinary shares creates a special possibility for Hertz to raise funding on terms that are much superior to any kind of debtor-in-possession funding.
  2. If successful, Hertz might possibly offer up to and an aggregate of $1.0 billion of ordinary shares.
  3. Unlike regular debtor-in-possession funding, the issuance of the ordinary shares would certainly not enforce restrictions on Hertz or its bankruptcy process restructuring efforts and would certainly not hinder any of the creditors.
  4. Additionally, the stock issuance would bring no repayment obligations to Hertz.
  5. Other than the Jeffries fee, there would be no other significant costs to obtain the funding through the sale of shares.
  6. Hertz would include disclosure in any prospectus for the sale of the unissued common shares highlighting that a financial investment in these Hertz’s shares involves substantial dangers. This includes the danger that the common stock can inevitably be worthless (emphasis added).

What the court said

After deliberating on the issue, on June 12, 2020, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted Hertz’s motion. She ordered that:

  1. Hertz is allowed, but not required, to enter into the Sale Arrangement with Jeffries and perform all obligations called for in the agreement.
  2. Hertz may, but again is not required to, market the unissued common shares.
  3. Jeffries may earn its fee in accordance with the Sale Agreement.

This is truly novel, yet whacky. Anyone who would buy these shares must be gambling on the fact that market activity will remain hot and that they will be able to sell the shares for a profit.

As I mentioned above, creditors are going to be given a haircut. So how can shareholders expect a return on their investment? Any savvy creditor being asked to agree to a bankruptcy process restructuring plan certainly will insist that creditors must receive payments on account of what they are agreeing to give up, should funds become available, before shareholders see one penny.

Lots of people are going to be left without a chair when the music stops. It will be fascinating to see how this all works out.

Restitution law

This matter is totally unrelated to the Hertz bankruptcy process. It is in Ontario and I found the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision very interesting. Especially so because it really didn’t have anything to do with insolvency or bankruptcy either.

On June 11, 2020, the appellate court issued its decision in a matter dealing with restitution law. The case involved a 32-year-old man with high school education. In between September 30 and November 6, 2018, he went on a drug-fuelled rampage, that included the robbery of 10 businesses. He was sentenced to 4.5 years in jail and subject to a restitution order in the amount of $15,000. It was the restitution payment that was appealed.

His lawyer argued that the sentencing judge erred by not taking into consideration whether he had the ability to make restitution before imposing the restitution. They also argued that it will likely hinder his possibilities of rehabilitation. They said that the restitution order ought to be vacated.

The appeal court agreed. In allowing the appeal, the appeal court stated that the purpose of a restitution order is not intended to undermine the culprit’s chance for rehabilitation. The appeal court then went on to equate the rehabilitative aspects of restitution law with the rehabilitation intention of Canadian bankruptcies laws in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). The Court of Appeal for Ontario also correctly stated that a restitution order made by a sentencing judge will survive through any type of bankruptcy of the criminal. This suggests it is there for life and restitution is not meant to be a life sentence.

That is what caught my attention. I never would have equated restitution with bankruptcy or rehabilitation.

Summary

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

I hope you have found this bankruptcy process Brandon’s Blog interesting. I will eagerly watch what happens in the Hertz common share sale and the subsequent trading in the shares. I also never thought of criminal restitution as part of rehabilitation. I also for sure never thought of it in the area of bankruptcy and insolvency.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

bankruptcy process
bankruptcy process
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

HOW TO USE QUADRIGA CX SCANDAL TO IMPROVE FINANCIAL LITERACY

quadriga cx
quadriga cx

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Introduction

Quadriga CX (Quadriga, QuadrigaCX or Quadriga CX) was a subsidiary of Quadriga Fintech Solutions Corp. (Fintech). Fintech operated an online cryptocurrency exchange system where parties interested in acquiring, offering or trading numerous cryptocurrencies were able to complete such purchases on the QCX System.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I explain how the QuadrigaCX financial scandal can be used as an important lesson to aid in our financial literacy.

The Quadriga CX demise

Quadriga was experiencing a liquidity crisis as well as having been incapable to honour withdrawal requests from individuals. Furthermore, Quadriga had not been able to find a substantial amount of cryptocurrency upon the death of QuadrigaCX founder and CEO, Gerald William Cotten.

As a result of the liquidity situation combined with missing cash and cryptocurrency, Fintech and related companies made a decision to call a time out by filing for bankruptcy protection and hope for business restructuring on February 5, 2019, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act( Canada) (CCAA).

By April 11, 2019, it was obvious that there was no possibility of restructuring. On that date, the Court made a Termination and Bankruptcy Assignment Order was made by the court confirming the process through which the Quadriga CX CCAA procedure would terminate and shift to a corporate bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

QuadrigaCX 2020 update

The demise of the cryptocurrency trading system QuadrigaCX arises from a fraudulent scam by Gerald Cotten. Clients delegated their assets to Quadriga, which supplied fraudulent guarantees that those properties would be protected. In truth, Mr. Cotten invested, traded and made use of those properties as he pleased. Running with no proper system of oversight or interior controls, he had the ability to misuse those assets, uncontrolled and undiscovered, eventually bringing down the entire trading exchange.

On January 14, 2019, Quadriga CX announced that Mr. Cotten had passed away in India the previous month. With the Quadriga CX CEO death, he could not continue to manipulate the Quadriga CX platform and hide his fraud. The entire business operation imploded as described above.

It turns out that over 76,000 Quadriga CX customers were owed a combined $215 million. About 40 percent of the clients were from the province of Ontario. The bankruptcy trustee recovered $46 million in assets for distribution to unsecured creditors. The people that relied on QuadrigaCX collectively lost at least $169 million.

The Ontario Securities Commission investigation into the Quadriga CX demise

The staff of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) carried out an evaluation of the QuadrigaCX business operations to establish how the system was run, what created its collapse, and where the money went. Over a period of approximately ten months, a multi-disciplinary team of OSC Enforcement Branch staff analyzed trading and blockchain information, interviewed key witnesses and worked together with many regulatory bodies.

Most of the $169 million shortfall arose from Mr. Cotten’s fraudulent conduct. It has been widely guessed that the bulk of the losses arose from crypto properties ending up being lost or hard to reach as a result of Mr. Cotten’s death. The OSC found that most of the $169 million shortage arises from Mr. Cotten’s deceitful conduct.

The OSC report states that the bulk of the loss– about $115 million– occurred from Mr. Cotten’s illegal trading on the QuadrigaCX platform. He opened up Quadriga CX accounts under pen names and attributed himself with phony Quadriga cryptocurrency balances which he traded without knowledge by unwary Quadriga CX customers. He incurred losses when the price of the cryptocurrency would change, thus producing a deficiency in the assets needed to satisfy customer withdrawals. Mr. Cotten covered this deficiency with other customers’ deposits. This indicated that Quadriga CX, a state of the art new technology operated an old-time Ponzi scheme.

It is reported that Mr. Cotten lost an additional $28 million while trading customer deposits on three external cryptocurrency trading systems without permission from, or disclosure to, clients. He also misappropriated millions to fund his and his wife’s, Jennifer Robertson, way of living. In its final months, Quadriga CX had virtually no balances left and was running like a revolving door– brand-new customer deposits were quickly re-routed to money needed for Quadrigacx withdrawals.

In summary form, the OSC described the losses as:

  1. $115 million trading losses sustained by Mr. Cotten on the Quadriga CX platform.
  2. $46 million assets recovered or identified by the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee).
  3. $28 million trading losses sustained on external platforms.
  4. $23 million which could not be accounted for because of the poor state of the Quadriga CX books and records.
  5. $2 million of client funds misappropriated for living and travel expenses.
  6. $1 million estimated operating loss.

What the Quadriga CX scandal can teach us for improving our financial literacy

  1. In Canada, lots of crypto property trading systems are not registered. They have taken the view that they do not need to sign up with regulatory authorities. This is an essential message to users and possible users of these platforms. So we need to keep in mind that there may be no regulatory oversight at all on these cryptocurrency trading platforms.
  2. Cryptocurrency trading and the trading platforms are risky. Trading in crypto assets carries threats. Many platforms preserve safekeeping and control of their clients’ crypto assets. Clients just have ordinary unsecured claims against the platform for their assets. Clients are relying upon the solvency and stability of the system operators. Crypto asset trading systems might not operate transparently. Clients might have restricted or no details regarding how the platform is protecting and managing their assets.
  3. Cryptocurrency system clients ought to perform due diligence and look out for signs of fraud. Anyone considering delegating their assets to a crypto asset trading platform should take action to learn more about the platform’s operations and approach to control the risk of monitoring. I recognize that this may not be feasible with the present degree of disclosure supplied by some systems. Cryptocurrency trading platforms are a bit of a black box that ordinary people do not really understand.
  4. If cryptocurrency trading platforms were required to sign up with the provincial regulatory authority, perhaps there would be some oversight and protection for consumers.
  5. Platforms need to make sure that they have systems as well as controls in a position to take care of risks. Having an internal control system to take care of risks, including those pertaining to business protection, vital employees and compliance with regulations is an important step for consumer confidence. The trading platforms should be able to describe the systems used to protect client assets. That way the public at least has a chance of being able to properly evaluate between different systems.
  6. Systems should reveal key details to customers. Supplying clients with exact details regarding crucial aspects of their operations – such as asset wardship and storage techniques, charges, reported volumes, system protection actions and internal controls will help with educated decisions by investors and also advertise capitalist confidence in the platform.

Summary

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

I hope you have found this Quadriga CX scandal Brandon’s Blog helpful. Cryptocurrency trading is still in the realm of the Wild West. Further work must be done before crypt currency can be widely used as a cash replacement. There are many financial literacy lessons we can garner from the Quadriga CX story. Even if Mr. Cotten had lived, the Ponzi scheme could only have been kept afloat for a finite time period before it would implode.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

HOW TO USE DEBT RELIEF CANADA COVID TO ACHIEVE THE BENEFIT OF MORE TIME

debt relief canada covidThe Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Stay healthy, well balanced and safe and secure everyone.

If you wish to listen to the audio version of this debt relief Canada COVID Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click play on the podcast

Debt relief Canada COVID introduction

I have written before many blogs about debt relief in Canada and debt relief Canada COVID. I have written about:

Personal insolvency –

Corporate insolvency

  • Bankruptcy protection restructuring, both under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada)
  • Receivership
  • Liquidation
  • Bankruptcy

Debt relief Canada COVID specific:

Now the federal government has drafted legislation to guarantee that Canadians, as well as Canadian companies, have the ability to meet governing time frames and target dates found in federal statutes. Some key target dates for debt relief Canada COVID found in the BIA and other statutes, such as the Canada Labour Code, given the COVID-19 pandemic and the courts essentially being shut down and only hearing emergency matters.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the proposed Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19). The purpose of this proposed statute will aid debt relief Canada COVID.

Canadian Department of Justice concerns

On May 19, 2020, the Canadian Department of Justice unveiled draft legislation. The government has posted it online and is allowing 10 days for any comments to be submitted on the proposed Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19). The federal government is concerned about debt relief Canada COVID and all other issues federal legislation deals with.

As I previously wrote, the OSB, went to court in each province to get certain deadlines suspended so that debt relief in Canada would not suffer. The OSB ensured that the system would work for debt relief Canada COVID. The federal government believes that so many Canadians, as well as Canadian companies, could be impacted in other federal statutes not designed for financial restructuring or debt settlement. The government is concerned that they may encounter possible legal jeopardy if, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they fall short to meet target dates.

Consequently, the Government of Canada published draft legislation, which outlines prospective remedies that the Federal government might apply to deal with these essential problems. The draft legislative proposal for dealing with debt relief Canada COVID is online for 10 days. Interested stakeholders are invited to share their comments by May 29.

What the draft legislation is designed to do

The draft legal proposal is designed to suspend specific time frames as well as enable government ministers to prolong or put on hold other time limits consisted of in government regulations to:

  • Ensure that Canadians, as well as Canadian companies, are able to satisfy governing time frames and deadlines found in federal statutes, such as some key due dates found in the BIA for debt relief Canada COVID and under the Canada Labour Code during the coronavirus pandemic.
  • Protect Canadians’ rights and access to justice in the context of civil proceedings before the courts, by making sure that people and companies are protected to assert their rights and not miss a time limit or deadline during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The draft legislation includes stipulations to make certain that short-term extensions or suspensions cannot be made after September 30, 2020, and could be retroactive to March 13, 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic officially began.

What the draft legislation says

As already mentioned, the draft relief is designed to protect Canadians under federal statutes designed for debt relief Canada COVID and other federal laws. So here are the highlights of what the draft Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19) currently proposes.

Section 3 defines a time frame. It says such time periods that are either suspended or prolonged under this Act, then, during the period that the suspension or extension holds, every mention in any Act of Parliament to that time restriction or duration is to be read as referring to the time limit or period as it is suspended or expanded.

Section 4 states that the Act does not refer to any time frame or any other duration related to the investigation of an offence or a proceeding arising from an offence.

Sections 6 and 7 deal with time limits related to proceedings. The proposed legislation purports to:

  • Put on hold, as of March 13, 2020 as well as until September 13, 2020, or an earlier day set by the Governor in Council, certain time frame certain proceedings, aside from proceedings from offences, before the courts.
  • Allow courts to adjust the suspension within particular limits and take measures regarding the results of a failure to satisfy a put on a hold time limit.
  • Allow the Governor in Council to waive such suspensions in particular scenarios.
  • Permit ministers, in respect of defined regulations, to put on hold or prolong time limits and also prolong other durations for no greater than six months, as well as to offer such suspensions or extensions retroactive to March 13, 2020.
  • A time frame might be put on hold or extended and also a time duration might be expanded for a total maximum period of 6 months.
  • permit ministers in the case defined in the previous point to give specified persons, bodies or tribunals some adaptability in applying these suspensions or expansions.
  • Prevent these powers from being exercised after September 30, 2020.

This draft Act would certainly permit the Governor in Council to restrict or enforce conditions on the powers provided to ministers. Having a federally mandated “time out” will certainly aid debt relief Canada COVID.

Summary

It appears that the federal government realizes that there are many federal laws where time periods must be met. During the coronavirus emergency shutdown of the courts, it may not be possible to meet all the deadlines. So, this omnibus proposed legislation aims to suspend or expand time frames to September 13, 2020. The hope is that it will allow for more orderly conduct for debt relief Canada COVID under the BIA and for other purposes different federal legislation allows.

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

Stay healthy, well balanced and safe and secure everyone.

You may also be interested in:

PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY CANADA FAQ: VIDEO – PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY FAQ CANADADEBT REDUCTION PROGRAM: MY TOP 10 STEPS ANYONE CAN START IMMEDIATELY TO STOP BEING IN DEBT VIDEODEBT REDUCTION PROGRAM: MY TOP 10 STEPS ANYONE CAN START IMMEDIATELY TO STOP BEING IN DEBT VIDEODEBT REDUCTION PROGRAM: MY TOP 10 STEPS ANYONE CAN START IMMEDIATELY TO STOP BEING IN DEBT VIDEO

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT BANKRUPTCY CANADA – COVID-19 AND “THROWBACK THURSDAY”

office superintendent bankruptcy canadaThe Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

If you would rather listen to an audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Introduction

As issues about COVID-19 in Canada grows, insolvency practitioners are doing their part by having determined it is needed to take steps to reduce in-person contact. The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has helped Licensed Insolvency Trustees (formerly called bankruptcy trustees) (Trustee) in these initiatives while keeping all aspects of Canada’s insolvency system running.

In my April 29 Brandon’s Blog, CONSUMER PROPOSALS IN ONTARIO TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19, I described how the Superintendent of Bankruptcy went to Court in Ontario. They made a motion to have the Court direct how certain procedures would change during the state of emergency lockdown. Part of that will be how the government wants to have Trustees resurrect an old methodology in personal debt settlement plans and corporate restructuring plans not really been used in the last 25 years.

Since then the government has come out with additional information and clarifications on how they see the bankruptcy Canada process continuing to work during the coronavirus shutdown. In Brandon’s Blog, I talk about these issues.

Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada approves social distancing

There are many ways that the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has approved social distancing for Trustees.

Initial free strategy session – Most if not all Trustees will provide a no-cost consultation for a personal or corporate insolvency discussion. In the pre-coronavirus era, most of these were done in a face to face meeting. Trustees can and do use methods aside from in-person assessments. These methods were always reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Boy, are we in one now!

So, the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has reminded Trustees that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a phenomenal circumstance and Trustees can conduct assessments making use of approaches other than face to face. Where video-conferencing is not viable, assessments may be done using a mix of telephone conversations and e-mail.

Credit counselling in personal debt settlement or bankruptcy cases – Trustees can offer counselling through telephone conversations or videoconference. The government is updating its software to allow for Trustees to file confirmation of credit counselling done this way as before it was not available. I am finding that our “customers” like this way of being able to deal with credit counselling. They don’t need to travel to our office and appreciate that we are still checking in with them.

Meetings of Creditors – The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada is encouraging Trustees as the Chair of the creditors’ meeting to hold the meetings on time using either telephone conference call or video methods. Trustees can rely on the oral representation from everyone on the call as proof of attendance. The notice and legal ad calling the meeting of creditors looks a bit different than we are normally used to seeing because of this change. At the top of this Brandon’s Blog is an image of the legal notice I ran in a local newspaper.

Signatures/Oaths – I am now circulating papers that call for signature by means of e-mail. I then supply debtors the necessary support to explain the papers via videoconference. I then ask the debtor over the Zoom meeting if they swear or affirm that what is in the document is true. When they respond affirmatively, I then ask them to sign in the space provided. I then commission the document on my end, ask them to email me a copy of the signed document and put the original signed paper in the mail to me. So far it has been working smoothly.

Closure of non-essential businesses

The provinces have ordered the closure of non-essential businesses. So far, the businesses of lawyers and accountants have been deemed essential. The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has confirmed to Trustees that it wants the Canadian insolvency system to continue operating smoothly. So, the Trustee business is considered to fall under these same categories as being essential.

As you are aware, creditors right now seem to be choosing to either explicitly or implicitly forbear on amounts owing to them. They are trying to be supportive of people by recognizing that with reduced or no income, they need some breathing room. Although there are media reports to the contrary, as of now, debtors seem to be getting a break. Trustees are also encouraged to do the same if someone is having trouble making a surplus income payment in their bankruptcy right now. In fact, Trustees will probably be held to a very high standard when their conduct is reviewed by the Court.

In my April 29 Brandon’s Blog, I spoke about the whole issue of a debtor in a consumer proposal who misses three payments. If that happens, the consumer proposal is considered annulled. In this case, the Order the Ontario Court issued essentially gives debtors up to the end of 2020, and in some cases, beyond that date, to make up the missed payments.

COVID-19 insolvency frequently asked questions

There are some frequently asked questions that are coming up. So, I want to give the questions and answers to help people better understand what is going on right now in the Canadian insolvency system.

Q: Do consumer proposal debtors need to make up all missed payments by December 2020?

Response: This was not previously well explained. The answer is No. As much as an extra three monthly payments can be missed between March 13, 2020, and December 31, 2020, before a consumer proposal is considered annulled. Missed payments will need to be made up by the end of the proposal or a modified proposal will certainly need to be authorized by creditors. I am advising debtors to carefully think about whether it is necessary to miss making payments. There is no guarantee that later on, debtors will be able to make up the missed payments. So I am telling debtors that if they can still afford to make the payments, they should. Don’t choose to miss payments you otherwise can afford to. What if you can’t catch up? Do you really want your consumer proposal to be annulled later on after potentially you have paid everything except a few payments? That would be terrible..

Q: If a proposal was deemed annulled before April 27, 2020, when does it need to be revitalized to be covered by the order?

Response: A proposal that is revived by the steps taken under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) on or prior to June 30, 2020, will certainly be covered by the order.

Q: If three payments were missed on or before April 27, 2020, but the Trustee did not send notices of deemed annulment, does anything require to be done to be covered by the order?

Response: Yes. When three payments prior to April 27, 2020, are missed out on the BIA states that a consumer proposal is regarded annulled despite administrative actions that may or might not have been taken. Thus, where the equivalent of three or even more payments has been missed out on, the consumer proposal will certainly need to be revived according to the BIA on or before June 30, 2020, in order to be active under the order.

Q: Is the duration under which a consumer proposal can be automatically revived likewise extended?

Response: No. The order allows the equivalent of as much as three extra payment defaults or an added three months time during the March 13 to December 31, 2020 timeline, prior to a deemed annulment of a consumer proposal. After this happens, a notice of revival has to still be filed within 30 days of the deemed annulment.

Q: Will the five-year restriction on consumer proposals be lengthened in order to offer debtors the time required to make up the missed out on payments?

Response: The BIA says that a consumer proposal needs to say that it will be completed within 5 years. Consequently, all payments, including missed repayments, have to be made during this same timeline. The only thing that will change that is if an amended proposal is filed and approved. After saying that, the BIA does not offer instant repercussions for defaults that lead to non-performance during this 5 year time period. If a consumer proposal has exceeded the five-year period but has actually not been annulled, it remains in force and therefore, in my view, can be completed.

This assumes no interested party goes to Court to ask for a court-ordered annulment. The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has formally stated that where hold-up in completion is due to COVID-19 reasons, they will not be seeking an annulment.

Everything old is new again or “Throwback Thursday”

There is one area that has not yet been covered off by the Order obtained by the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada. When a person who does not fit under the $250,000 debt limit of consumer proposals, and for all companies, debt settlement restructuring plans under the BIA are done under Part III Division I Proposal section.

If a restructuring proposal cannot be filed straight away, the BIA allows for the filing of a Notice of Intention To Make A Proposal (NOI). The BIA statute says that unless extended by the Court, a Proposal needs to be filed within 30 days after the filing of the NOI. The Court can extend the timeline for a period not exceeding 45 days for any individual extension. In total, extensions cannot be more than 5 months. So in total, a debtor who has filed an NOI can be operating under the NOI for a maximum of 5 months and 30 days.

The Court has to order the extension prior to the expiry of the earlier time period trying to be extended. But the Courts are currently closed. They are only hearing emergency applications via telephone conference call or videoconference. Are a bunch of businesspeople fighting over money with the debtor asking for more time to file a Proposal an emergency? I can’t answer that right now. So if they can’t get into Court, what is the answer?

The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has recommended an old method. In the “old days”, before 1992, there was no NOI provision. So what did a person or company who needed more time to formulate and file a Part III Division I Proposal debt settlement plan, but needed to hold off creditors right now, do? They filed what was called a “holding proposal”. A holding proposal is no more than a proposal that says I promise to file a debt settlement plan that will clearly say how I plan to settle my debts either by a certain date or when a specific set of events happen.

The benefit was that the debtor got help from the immediate stay of proceedings. If the debtor could, he, she or it filed an amended proposal at the meeting of creditors which really said how the debts would be settled and then paid. If not, the creditors could consider the issues holding up the filing of the real proposal. If they felt it was in their best interests, they voted in favour to give the debtor the necessary time. If not, they voted it down and the debtor was immediately deemed to have filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

Where the creditors gave the debtor more time under the holding proposal, the Court approved them as long as the requirements the Court had to review were met. It was ultimately the creation of the NOI that was made to make it easier for debtors who were not ready to file a definitive proposal but needed relief from creditors to get it.

So now, the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada is recommending for those cases where you just can’t get into Court, file a holding proposal. I am glad that Ira has kept a copy of a holding proposal in our document template file!!

Summary

I hope you found this case review helpful. It should be of particular interest to contractors, developers and builders in Ontario.

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT: CAN YOU TRUST AN INSOLVENCY PROCEEDING?

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

Introduction

Matters involving the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30 ( formerly known as the Construction Lien Act) is very complex. In this Brandon’s Blog, I will use the term that laypeople are most familiar with, being the former name of the provincial legislation.

Construction law is a specialty unto itself. It gets even more complex when a company involved in construction enters insolvency proceedings. There is normally a conflict in these kinds of files between:

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe a recent 5 member panel decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario who had to decide whether a trust created under section 9(1) of the provincial Construction Lien Act survives a sale by the Monitor in an insolvency proceeding under the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The case is Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 197 (Urbancorp). The matter was heard on October 3, 2019. The unanimous decision was recently released on March 11, 2020.

Some background matters

Before getting into the actual case, there are two background matters that I should first explain. When I thought of these concepts and then the decision this way, it made it easier for me to understand.

The first issue is the types of insolvency proceedings. There are essentially four types of insolvency proceedings. Some are not mutually exclusive. Each one of them can be used for the assets of the insolvent debtor to be sold. I break down the insolvency proceedings list in this way:

  1. Using the restructuring provisions of either the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) or CCAA.
  2. A bankruptcy administration under the BIA.
  3. A secured creditor taking enforcement proceedings on the assets subject to its security through the security itself by privately appointing a Receiver or Receiver and Manager.
  4. A secured creditor making an application to the Court that it is just or convenient for the Court to appoint a Receiver to act on behalf of all creditors in stabilizing an insolvent debtor situation and to come back to Court with recommendations on how to proceed, including the sale of assets.

The second issue has to do with trust claims under the Construction Lien Act. There are several sections in the legislation dealing with trust claims. As I stated above, it is a very complex topic. So, I am going to only focus on the one that is the subject matter of this case. That is section 9(1) of the Act. That section deals with a trust claim against the vendor of the construction assets. It states:

“9 (1) Where the owner’s interest in a premises is sold by the owner, an amount equal to,

(a) the value of the consideration received by the owner as a result of the sale,

less,

(b) the reasonable expenses arising from the sale and the amount, if any, paid by the vendor to discharge any existing mortgage indebtedness on the premises,

constitutes a trust fund for the benefit of the contractor. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 9 (1); 2017, c. 24, s. 9, 70.

Obligations as trustee

(2) The former owner is the trustee of the trust created by subsection (1), and shall not appropriate or convert any part of the trust property to the former owner’s own use or to any use inconsistent with the trust until the contractor is paid all amounts owed to the contractor that relate to the improvement. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, s. 9 (2).”

The distinction here that I want you to keep in mind is the words in the very first line “Where the owner’s interest in a premises is sold by the owner…”(emphasis added).

Now for the case.

The Urbancorp Construction Lien Act case

This case deals with Urbancorp and related companies that developed and was building a residential condominium project. Urbancorp was insolvent and filed first a Notice of Intention to Make A Proposal under the BIA. The proceedings were later converted by the Court into proceedings under the CCAA. The insolvency proceeding was in both cases under a Federal restructuring statue. The Court appointed a Monitor to oversee the insolvency administration. Through various Court applications and court orders, the Monitor was given the authority to market and sell the condominium assets. The Monitor did so.

Now the cash the Monitor received from the sale stood in place of the original condominium assets. Subcontractors brought an application before the lower Court claiming they had a valid trust claim under the Construction Lien Act. The lower court judge carefully reviewed the evidence and prior decided cases and came to the conclusion that the subcontractors did not have a valid trust claim against the assets. The subcontractors appealed the lower court’s decision.

In addition to appealing the lower court’s decision, they also raised with the Court of Appeal a constitutional question that comes up many times. The constitutional question is, does federal law always take priority, or trump (with a small “t”!!) provincial law. This is otherwise known as the concept of paramountcy. Stated slightly differently, the issue can be stated as does section 9 of the Construction Lien Act remain to have application after a bankruptcy or initial order under the CCAA? The Attorney General of Ontario also stepped in on that part of the case.

The Court of Appeal accepted this constitutional question to be decided so there were now two issues before the Court of Appeal; the issue of paramountcy and the trust claim issue.

The constitutional question

The Court of Appeal went through a very thoughtful and careful analysis. It confined the constitutional question to the facts of this case. The court concluded in this case:

  1. The trust created under section 9(1) of the Construction Lien Act is a valid trust under provincial law.
  2. The BIA excludes from property available to the creditors any property held in trust.
  3. Therefore, this provincial trust can be effective when there is an insolvency proceeding under the BIA.
  4. Similarly, with the CCAA legislation, it follows that a section 9(1) provincially created trust might be effective when the insolvency administration is subject to the CCAA.

Now for the actual appeal

The Appeal Court now turned to the lower court judge’s decision that a section 9(1) of the Construction Lien Act trust did not apply in this matter. The five-member panel again went through a careful analysis of the statute and the case law. They spent a lot of time reviewing an earlier Court of Appeal for Ontario decision which the lower court judge relied upon in his decision.

The Court of Appeal highlighted that in that decision the lower court relied upon, the owner, being the insolvent debtor, had no interest in the asset that the subcontractors were claiming a trust claim against. The reasons were:

  1. The asset was part of a package of assets sold.
  2. There was a secured creditor who had security over all of the assets of the developer.
  3. The proceeds less the expenses to produce the sale were less than what was owed to the secured creditor.
  4. The court allowed the cash from the sale to stand in place of the assets.

Using this framework, the Court of Appeal stated that a s.9( 1) trust only arises if the value of the consideration received by the owner from the sale of assets, which have actually been enhanced by the work or materials of the contractor, surpasses the amount of the mortgage debt. A trust will not occur if the value is zero, or if the mortgage debt is equal to or above any kind of sale proceeds.

Therefore, the decision that the lower court relied upon in disallowing the trust claim does not stand for the suggestion that control by a CCAA Monitor of a sales process, or the receipt by the Monitor of the proceeds of the sale by itself, avoids a s.9( 1) trust against the proceeds of the sale of the enhancement are shown to have a positive worth that surpasses the mortgage debt on the asset. That fact pattern was absent from the case relied upon.

The decision

Now, you remember at the beginning of this blog I went through the essentially four types of insolvency proceedings. The Court of Appeal also considered the various types. The court drew a distinction in them as it relates to section 9(1) of the Construction Lien Act. Also remember that from my quotation above of this section, it starts with “Where the owner’s interest in a premises is sold by the owner…”(emphasis added).

In a receivership or bankruptcy, the owner loses control of the assets. The vendor in a sale is either the receiver/receiver and manager or the trustee in bankruptcy, respectively. In those examples, it is not the owner selling its own assets. It is the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) selling its right, title and interest, if any, in the assets of the debtor. So the vendor is the licensed insolvency trustee in its specific capacity.

The Urbancorp matter started out as a restructuring under the Proposal provisions of the BIA and was then converted by the Court and continued under a different restructuring statute, the CCAA. In an insolvency administration under the restructuring provisions/statue, the owner does not lose control of its assets. True that the Monitor is given court authority to make decisions, market and then sell the assets. However, one of the cornerstones of the appointment of a Monitor is that the owner does not lose control of the assets and the Monitor does not become the owner of the assets.

Rather, the Monitor gets its powers from the court. The Monitor is actually selling the insolvent company’s assets as the company’s representative or agent. So even though it is the Monitor doing the selling, it is doing so on behalf of the owner. This is very different than a sale by a receiver/receiver and manager or trustee in bankruptcy.

In the Urbancorp situation, the value of the consideration received by the owner from the sale of assets, which have actually been enhanced by the work or materials of the contractor, surpasses the amount of the mortgage debt.

Highlighting these distinctions, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned the lower court decision and upheld the subcontractors’ trust claim. It substituted the lower court decision with an order that a s.9( 1) trust under the Construction Lien Act applies for the sum of $3,864,429 held in the accounts of the Monitor on account of the Urbancorp companies, for the benefit of the subcontractors, pro-rata in accordance with the amount owing to each of them.

Summary

I hope you found this case review helpful. It should be of particular interest to contractors, developers and builders in Ontario.

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. This is especially true these days.

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.construction lien act

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSUMER PROPOSALS IN ONTARIO UNFORTUNATELY TEST POSITIVE SADLY FOR COVID-19

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

<h2

Consumer proposal in Ontario: Introduction

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB) went to Court in Toronto on April 24, 2020, to see if consumer proposals in Ontario tested positive for the coronavirus. The Honourable Chief Justice Morawetz issued his decision on Monday, April 27. He put it to the test and it came out testing positive. The OSB is making similar applications in all the different provinces to obtain the same relief. In this Brandon’s Blog, I explain everything.

Consumer proposals in Ontario: The issue

In Ontario, an emergency was proclaimed on March 17, 2020, and the Courts were closed, except for proven emergency situations. This emergency status was extended from April 14 until May 12, 2020, subject to further review. The clock on any provincial limitation period for any proceeding in Ontario was stopped, retroactive to March 16, 2020 (Suspension Period). Ontario is not unique in this. All other provinces have taken similar action.

The closure of the Courts was to assist in slowing the spread of COVID-19. Emergency applications are being held only by conference calls either by telephone or online video. This unprecedented action has created delays in every Court hearing that is not an emergency. This included most insolvency or bankruptcy court cases.

All licensed insolvency trustees (formerly called bankruptcy trustees) (Trustee) started to review all of their cases to see which files were affected. It was not just what cases were scheduled for a court hearing. It actually had more to do with stipulated timelines in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). Various sections of the BIA layout time frames by which certain actions need to be taken.

The emergency situation created by COVID-19 and its containment procedures is impeding the ability of insolvency specialists, borrowers, financial institutions and other stakeholders to meet the timelines of the BIA. This is especially true of all the people in Ontario who chose to avoid bankruptcy by filing consumer proposals in Ontario.

The most important thing that allows someone to perform a successful personal debt restructuring plan is the fact that they are employed. They put their best foot forward and file for personal bankruptcy protection by making a personal debt settlement offer to their creditors. The creditors accept it and the person is making his or her monthly payments on time. Now because of COVID-19 they are laid off and don’t have their salary or wages they have been relying upon both to live and to fund their consumer proposal.

Although there are many timelines in the BIA, such as when a meeting of creditors needs to be held after bankruptcy or debt restructuring filing. However, the OSB helped alleviate certain of the impediments caused by the coronavirus pandemic by allowing Trustees to hold meetings by either telephone or online video meetings.

One timeline that could not be fixed by a telephone call or video chat is an insolvent debtor, either a person or company, making the debt restructuring payments on time. With no job, no income or not much corporate revenue for a business that had to shut down, those debtors were at serious risk of defaulting on its debt restructuring plan caused by these never before experienced issues facing all of us.

Trustees across Canada, both individually and through the two professional organizations, brought the issues forward to the OSB to seek clarification and a solution. That led to the OSB’s Court application. Of particular concern is the section of the BIA that states that a consumer proposal goes into default once three payments are missed.

consumer proposals in ontario
consumer proposals in ontario

Although the Court was asked to consider various issues, I am focussing on the necessity to keep up the monthly payments under a consumer proposal (or a Division I proposal).

Effect of COVID-19 on consumer proposals in Ontario

The OSB’s position was that COVID-19 associated interruptions have both increased economic pressures on consumer debtors and made adhering to legal demands for creditor protection more difficult. When consumer debtors fail to pay in accordance with their consumer proposal, it can be considered annulled under the BIA.

In that case, the consumer debtor then loses the bankruptcy protection from his or her creditors. Upon default and annullment, the legal rights of creditors get revived. While the Courts are closed, this may only result in harassing phone calls from collection agencies. However, when the Courts inevitably reopen, then the lawsuits can either continue or start flying. Remember, the Suspension Period halted the time clock, so, no one loses their rights because of the passage of time.

More importantly, because of the default, the consumer debtor is banned from filing another consumer proposal without court approval. If the person is bankrupt and is trying their best to annul their bankruptcy through a BIA debt settlement proposal, the default causing the debt restructuring plan to be eliminated as if it never happened, keeps the person in bankruptcy.

The OSB also submitted evidence to the Court that lots of people who filed consumer proposals in Ontario were already in arrears in their payments before COVID-19. It further stated that it expects that the defaults in payments are set to rise significantly because of this unique situation..

Consumer proposals in Ontario: The Court’s analysis and decision

Mr. Justice Morawetz went through a very detailed analysis of both the submissions and the law. He noted that what he was being asked to approve was “extraordinary”. He agreed with the OSB that these are unusual times.

The Court first defined two specific terms:

  1. The “Period of the Emergency” starts on March 13, 2020, and ends on June 30, 2020.
  2. The “Suspension Period” begins on the date of the Court’s Order, being April 27, 2020, and ends on June 30, 2020.

The Court then went on to say that its Order applies to:

  1. All active Division I Proposals are those filed with the OSB up to the end of the Period of the Emergency.
  2. All active consumer proposals in Ontario (Division II proposals) are the ones filed with the OSB or revived by the BIA up to the end of the Period of the Emergency. They exclude all those that were already deemed annulled, annulled or that were completely performed on or prior to April 27, 2020.
  3. All active bankruptcies are defined as all bankruptcies filed with the OSB up to the end of the Period of the Emergency. For further clarification, all bankruptcies where the bankrupt received his or her discharge before April 27, 2020, are not included. This makes sense because a discharged bankrupt is no longer subject to laws for undischarged bankrupts. The only party left to abide by timelines is the Trustee.

The Court then ordered the following concerning Commercial Proposals, consumer proposals and bankruptcies:

  • Division I or Commercial Proposals – the time for holding the meeting of creditors that is to take place during the Period of the Emergency, is expanded by the time of the Suspension Duration.
  • Consumer proposals in Ontario –
    • the time for holding the meeting of creditors that needs to be held during the Period of the Emergency is extended by the time of the Suspension Period.
    • an active consumer proposal will not be regarded as annulled unless the consumer debtor remains in default of:
      • When payments are to be made on a regular monthly basis or faster, the day on which the consumer debtor is equal to more than the amount of three payments and an extra amount equal to up to another three payments for defaults that occurred during the period of March 13, 2020, to December 31, 2020.
      • For payments are to be earned less often than on a regular monthly basis, the day that is 3 months after the day on which the consumer debtor is in default in regard of any type of payment except for those due between March 13, 2020, to December 31, 2020, will be the day that is 6 months after the day on which the consumer debtor defaulted.
  • Active bankruptcy matters –
    • The Trustee’s commitment to applying for a court hearing in the Period of the Emergency is to be extended by the time of the Suspension Period.
    • The time for the holding of the meeting of creditors scheduled to take place during the Period of the Emergency is expanded by the time of the Suspension Period.
    • The period fo time for setting up a mediation appointment that needs to happen during the Period of the Emergency is lengthened by the time of the Suspension Period.

      consumer proposals in ontario
      consumer proposals in ontario

Consumer proposals in Ontario: What about the major creditors in an insolvency filing?

In most personal insolvency filings, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is a creditor. In fact, it is quite normal for CRA to be the majority creditor. In order for consumer proposals in Ontario to be successful, the first step is to get the support of your major creditor.

Debtors have suffered a loss of employment or a reduction of earnings as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. People are scared that they will default on their proposals. So the CRA is taking an approach consistent with the position of the OSB. It wishes to make sure that all Canadians are supported if they are experiencing economic challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

So where the CRA is the majority creditor and the debtor is suffering financial hardship, CRA has advised that:

  • For Commercial Proposals, the CRA is providing a waiver of the default and providing a deferment of payments to September 1, 2020. The waiver and extension also apply to amounts owing to unremitted source deductions.
  • For consumer proposals in Ontario, the CRA supports the approval of an amended proposal that requires a deferment of settlements up to September 1, 2020.

Ideally, this will offer debtors the time to concentrate on other facets of their lives and wellbeing without having to go bankrupt. The September 1, 2020 date ties into other COVID-19 programs the government is running to help Canadian taxpayers during this crisis. For example, HST and income tax payments which would otherwise come due between March and July 2020 also have an extended payment program to this same September date.

Consumer proposals in Ontario: Summary

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We all must help each other to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly used clean, safe and secure ways in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses.

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

consumer proposals in ontario
consumer proposals in ontario

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

REDWATER ALBERTA NEWS: $1.7B TO CLEAN UP ORPHANED WELLS DUE TO COVID-19

redwater albertaThe Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom of this page and click on the podcast

Introduction

When it went insolvent in 2015, Redwater Energy Corp. (Redwater Alberta or Redwater) might have been a small business, with only 19 generating wells and 90 dormant wells. However, a relatively small oil producer was responsible for a huge Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision.

Basically, the SCC decided in the Redwater Acase, that if a business goes belly up, its environmental obligation needs to be paid before secured creditors. I have written before on the Alberta Courts’ decisions and the SCC decision. As a result of COVID-19, the Canadian government just announced a $1.7 billion fund to create jobs in the Canadian oil patch.

Redwater Alberta history of cases

In my previous blogs, I described the Alberta court decisions. The Alberta Courts concurred with the receiver and held that the regulator’s enforcement activities to force Redwater’s adherence to its previously agreed requirements to clean up and permanently cap its oil site, in bankruptcy was not enforceable.

The Courts stated that given the bankruptcy of the company (in addition to a receivership), the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) took paramountcy over the provincial law. The provincial Courts said that the BIA took paramountcy because:

  1. Allowed the receiver protection from the promises of Redwater Alberta as the licensee in connection with the Redwater properties disclaimed by the receiver/trustee, according to s. 14.06(4) of the BIA.
  2. The priority for the distribution of a bankrupt’s assets is regulated under the BIA, not provincial legislation. If the provable claim of the Regulator, an unsecured creditor, was paid in advance of the claims of Redwater’s secured creditors, that would not be the regime laid out in the BIA.

The SCC decision

In the SCC 5 to 2 judgment in the Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. case, the SCC ruled that financially troubled companies like Redwater can no longer disclaim or merely bow out of properties they don’t want. In this situation, non-producing oil wells, when abandoned or orphaned, leave the resulting ecological cleaning to Alberta’s Orphan Well Association. It is a non-profit operating for the Alberta Energy Regulator.

What the SCC decision in the case of the Redwater Alberta receivership means is that the costs of properly and permanently sealing an oil well that is to be abandoned is a first ranking charge against the producer’s assets. In the Redwater case, the receiver had to turn over the proceeds (about $600,000) from the asset sales to the Alberta regulator. There was absolutely nothing left for any other creditor, either secured or unsecured.

This case was obviously difficult and contentious, given that it was a 5-2 decision and not unanimous. The majority decision stated that:

  • The regulator’s use of its provincial powers is not in conflict with the BIA to trigger the doctrine of federal paramountcy.
  • Section 14.06(4) of the BIA deals with the personal liability of receivers and trustees and does not let a trustee ignore the environmental liabilities of the estate.
  • The regulator is not asserting any claims provable in the bankruptcy.
  • There is no attempt by the regulator to upset the scheme of priorities stipulated by the BIA.
  • There is not a conflict by the regulator tagging the Redwater receiver as a licensee under Alberta legislation.

The Supreme Court decision goes on to say that the rules cannot be ignored just because there is a bankruptcy. Insolvency professionals must abide by valid provincial laws in administering corporate bankruptcy. It also found that receivers and trustees must:

  • conform with non-financial requirements the insolvent company must still adhere to that do not create a provable claim in the insolvency administration; and
  • Adhere to the parts of the provincial legislation that does not go against the BIA, notwithstanding that it might prove harmful to the position of one or more groups of creditors.

COVID-19 and orphaned wells

Near the end of March 2020, Finance Minister Bill Morneau said that help for the oil and gas industry would be announced. This industry has been hit by two different factors:

  1. Reduced demand due to people self-quarantining because of COVID-19 and therefore there is less demand for oil and gas.
  2. The price battle between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Oil on the world market is at an all-time low. At one point, a barrel of Canadian oil was selling for less than $5. The industry cannot operate with oil prices that low.

As a result, there have been massive job losses in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta oil patches. As well, the regulators do not have the money to reclaim and permanently seal off the abandoned orphaned wells. It is currently estimated that the total cost could be in the $8 billion range.

On Friday, April 17, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the federal government will invest at least $1.7 billion to the orphaned well cleanup. The money is to be used to create oil patch jobs to allow for the environmental cleanup.

So COVID-19 or coronavirus, has forced the Canadian government to create this support for the Canadian oil and gas industry. It will create jobs badly needed and allow for the cleanup of some orphaned oil wells.

Details of the support package have not been released. Presumably, the legislation will have to be drafted and passed in the House of Commons. No doubt, more information will come out in the coming days or weeks.

Summary

The Ira Smith Team family hopes that you and your family members are remaining secure, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person that has been affected either via misfortune or inconvenience.

We are all citizens of Canada and we need to coordinate our initiatives to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Families are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when life can return to something near to typical and we can all be together once again.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has constantly use clean, safe and secure routines in our professional firm and we continue to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses.

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE TORONTO NEWFANGLED COVID-19 BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING PLAN

The Ira Smith Team is totally operational and both Ira and Brandon Smith are here for a telephone consultation, conference calls and virtual meetings.

Keep healthy and safe everybody.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended our world. Everyone is scared, has many questions and there is a lot of misinformation out there. So many businesses have shut down and do not know if they will ever be able to start up. As a licensed insolvency trustee Toronto, I fully understand the fear and panic that has set in.

First, I hope you and your family are safe and healthy. The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to show a newfangled business restructuring approach that recently occurred in the United States. As far as I can tell, there is no reason why this kind of restructuring plan could not work in Canada also.

Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. et al Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings

On March 12, 2020, U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of New Jersey Judge Victor Papalia issued the Order approving the Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection application of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and related companies (Modell’s) filed on March 11.

Modell’s is America’s oldest, family-owned ran store of sporting products, athletic footwear, active clothing and fan gear. It was founded in 1889 by Morris A. Model. The initial Modell’s store was located on Cortlandt Road in lower Manhattan, New York City. Four generations of the Modell household have run and grown the family company into a chain of over 150 stores throughout the Northeast.

Mitchell Modell, the company’s CEO and President said the company’s poor financial performance resulting in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection filing was because of many reasons, including:

  • unseasonably warm winter season;
  • six fewer days in the shopping season this year between Thanksgiving and Christmas;
  • competition from Amazon;
  • the futility of NYC’s sports franchises business like the Knicks, Jets and Giants has not helped either; and
  • the coronavirus pandemic

I personally doubt the losing records of the local sports franchises was a reason for Modell’s failure. How many years were the Toronto Maple Leafs awful but you always saw lots of Leaf fans with jerseys, caps and flags?

The novel court Order

On March 27, 2020, the Honourable Justice Papalia granted Modell’s court application making an order providing for both a bankruptcy suspension and an operational suspension. The bankruptcy suspension froze the bankruptcy protection proceedings until April 30, 2020 (the Suspension Period). The operational suspension, allows Modell’s to shut down all stores and not operate. The judge also gave Modell’s the right to apply on short notice to the court to extend the Suspension Period. The order went on to state the stay of proceedings is in effect during the suspension.

Novel times call for novel solutions. As part of their application, Modell’s filed a modified budget to indicate what sources of cash it would have and what expenditures it would pay during the Suspension Period. It also indicated what expenditures were being incurred, but not paid. Commercial rent on all of its stores was one of the items being accrued, but not paid.

The reason Modell did not include any commercial rent payments in its modified budget was simple. They had to close down all of their stores as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Stores closed means no sales. They were not going to pay rent on stores that were not generating cash.

The court order approved the modified budget. It also confirmed that the only payments that Modell’s would make were those indicated as essential. The company deemed payments to all of its landlords as non-essential. The court order did indicate that the accrued but unpaid expenditures were not and were not deemed to be waived or not payable at some time.

Pier 1 Imports took a page from the Modell playbook

In February 2020, Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (Pier 1) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as part of looking for a buyer of its operations. It then closed all of its stores in Canada and many in the United States.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, following the Modell’s precedent, sent a request to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to temporarily stop paying commercial rent on its retail locations along with certain payments to suppliers, shippers, and distributors.” Pier 1 has now had to shutter all of its shops as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Judge Kevin Huennekens throughout the hearing provided approval of these activities while allowing for it to be reassessed each month. Judge Huennekens additionally provided authorization to hold off on any motions anyone other than Pier 1 may wish to file up until at the very least 45 days after Pier 1 returns to normal operations and payments.

Could this happen in Canada?

So the question is, could an insolvency trustee Toronto help a company get this newfangled Modell’s/Pier 1 precedent happen in a Canadian bankruptcy protection restructuring? Right now landlords are reeling from their commercial tenants telling them that rent for April is not going to be paid due to the business closures. No doubt this will be the same story for every month that the closures continue.

Most landlords should be willing to work with their tenants. The reason behind the non-payment is from forces outside of everyone’s control. But what if a commercial landlord plays hardball. Can a Canadian company file for bankruptcy protection in Canada and obtain a Court order approving the non-payment of rent?

The two corporate restructuring statutes in Canada are the Part III Division I section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

There are no express provisions in either statute to invoke a bankruptcy or operational suspension. In fact, the opposite is true. In either a restructuring or liquidation, rent is calculated on a per diem basis for as long as the company in a restructuring or the insolvency trustee Toronto in a corporate bankruptcy, is using the premises. Fairness is part of the Canadian insolvency landscape. There are years of cases on this issue and they all end up the same. If you are in occupation, the rent must be calculated and ultimately paid.

However, there are two similar sections in each of the BIA and CCAA. Section 183(1) of the BIA reads as follows:

“183 (1) The following courts are invested with such jurisdiction at law and in equity, as will enable them to exercise original, auxiliary and ancillary jurisdiction in bankruptcy and in other proceedings authorized by this Act…”.

The words “auxiliary and ancillary” has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the bankruptcy court in each province has the jurisdiction to sanction and authorize all acts required to be done for the proper administration of the Canadian insolvency system. This holds whether it is a bankruptcy protection filing or outright bankruptcy.

The CCAA offers more flexibility in a bankruptcy protection corporate restructuring than the BIA does. In general, the Court will reach its decisions in a CCAA restructuring on the basis of fairness and reasonableness. The court needs to be concerned that what is being proposed is not illegal and there are cogent reasons as to why what is being proposed serves to benefit all or the majority of creditors affected by the restructuring.

The CCAA, therefore, offers more judicial discretion than the BIA. Courts err on the side of giving the CCAA statue a large and liberal interpretation. The court supervising a CCAA restructuring will exercise its equitable jurisdiction. The application of equitable jurisdiction can be interpreted to mean equity considers done what ought to be done.

The judge in a CCAA bankruptcy protection case overseeing the CCAA proceeding is in a unique position. He or she is in the best position to determine whether or not an agreement should be suspended in the face of overly aggressive creditors who if allowed to act, would upend the entire CCAA process. Finally, Section 11 of the CCAA allows a judge to “…make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances.”.

So, to answer the question as to whether a Modell’s or Pier 1 type order could be made under a BIA or CCAA corporate restructuring in Canada, my answer would have to be yes. It is possible. I don’t believe it could be gotten on a regular basis, but, in this COVID-19 pandemic world, I can see it being obtained in the face of an aggressive and uncooperative commercial landlord. It would, of course, be uncommon, but these are unique times.

So the answer for a large Canadian retailer facing an unreasonable and aggressive landlord when the commercial rent is not being paid may be to file for bankruptcy protection under either the BIA or CCAA, as appropriate.

Insolvency trustee Toronto summary

The Ira Smith Team family hopes you and your family are staying safe, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person who has been affected either through inconvenience or personal family tragedy.

We are all citizens of Canada and we have to coordinate our efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Family members are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when things can return to something close to normal and we can all be together again physically.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has always employed clean and safe habits in our professional practice and continues to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. Should you take advantage of the CEBA? I say a resounding YES!. I just wanted to highlight all of the issues that you should consider.

If anyone needs our assistance, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

The Ira Smith Team is totally operational and both Ira and Brandon Smith are here for a telephone consultation, conference calls and virtual meetings.

Keep healthy and safe everybody.

insolvency trustee toronto

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

HST REMITTANCE REVIEW: UNPAID HST & THE DIRECTOR’S JOINT BANK ACCOUNT

Introduction

I have previously written about joint bank accounts and joint credit cards. I recently read a decision of the Tax Court of Canada that will be of interest to every entrepreneur whose company may be behind in their HST remittance and who has a joint bank account with their spouse.

Joint bank account considerations

Opening a joint bank account is a relatively easy procedure. People who share a joint savings or chequing account can each make deposits and withdrawals from the account without the signature of the person they share the account with. As a matter of fact, any person listed on the joint account can close it using proper identification. Data held by a bank on the owners of the joint account, similar to any other account, consists of personal identifiers of the holders of the account, which enables anyone legally authorized to get that information.

I have written before on the dangers of a joint bank account. The dangers have nothing to do with the bank per se. They are more non-bank related. Examples of problems include:

  • Sometimes moms and dads will share an account with a small child. The reason is to begin providing the youngster with financial literacy education. However, if you share a bank account with your minor child and your spouse, you are taking a chance that your partner can access that joint bank account that you share with your child without your authorization.
  • There is a threat with a joint account between partners when you have a saver as well as a spender who each has access to the account without the other’s signature. It can trigger family, relationships or business problems.

I wanted to give this brief background information, but it is not what is of most interest to entrepreneurs. The following Tax Court of Canada decision which I will now describe is.

Tammy White and Her Majesty The Queen facts

This judgement was rendered on February 4, 2020, in the Tax Court of Canada in Vancouver, BC. Ms. White appealed an assessment by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) against her under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)) (Income Tax Act) and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15) (Excise Tax Act). You will recall that last week, I spoke about the danger of receiving transfers of property from someone who owes money to CRA in my blog, DO YOU INHERIT DEBT IN CANADA: CRA SAYS YES TO PROPERTY TRANSFERS. That blog dealt with debt in death and the deceased Estate. This week, nobody died. You are probably wondering what this has to do with entrepreneurs and joint bank accounts. I will now tie it all together. I promise!

The appeal deals with the concern of whether the deposit of funds by a person into a joint account held with the entrepreneur’s partner comprises a transfer of property under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act.

The facts of the case are as follows:

  • On March 1, 2016, Mrs. White was assessed $49,962.45 under section 160 of the Income Tax Act and $90,886.35 under section 325 of the Excise Tax Act. She appealed both assessments to the Court. The assessments are a result of amounts that her husband, former business owner Andy White, apparently moved to his wife between March 15, 2013, and October 30, 2015.
  • On March 26, 2014, Andy filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA).
  • Department of Justice counsel on behalf of CRA at the hearing backed off part of the claim by agreeing that any kind of purported transfers made after the date of the consumer proposal is beyond the range of the assessments in concern in this appeal.
  • Tammy and Andy were married in 1984 and always held the same joint bank account.
  • For the last 35 years, Andy and Tammy have made use of the joint bank account to pay their personal expenditures and the costs of running their family household.
  • Andy was a part-owner of White & Davidson Logging Limited, a company he started working for from a very young age.
  • The company began to experience financial troubles in 2004 as a result of weak demand in the British Columbia forestry industry and also a government-mandated decrease in cutting rights. These troubles resulted in the business selling its assets in 2006 and discontinuing business. At the time the business stopped operating, it had not remitted all amounts it had held back as payroll source deductions. It also did not make the required payment of the amounts it owed as HST tax obligations. Accordingly, it was not current in its tax obligations and did not make its final payroll or HST remittance.
  • Andy was a Director of the defunct company and therefore was assessed by CRA personally for the company’s unremitted payroll source deductions and unpaid HST.
  • After a while, and after being assessed by CRA, Andy eventually found full-time employment and deposited his pay into the joint bank account he shared with Tammy.
  • Andy owed CRA almost $91,000 for the company’s unremitted HST.
  • Tammy was also employed in a retail store. In the late 1990s, she opened up a bank account only in her name. Her pay was deposited into that new account.
  • Tammy was the sole owner of the family’s home. She admitted under oath that she made payments out of the joint account to pay the mortgage, utilities, property taxes and any other costs of running the home.
  • Certain amounts were also transferred from the joint account into Tammy’s personal account.

The issues

The issues are fairly narrow. In last week’s blog, I went through the criteria a court must look at to determine if there was a transfer of property at a time when the transferor owed an amount to CRA. You can refresh yourself on the criteria by clicking here.

CRA’s position was that a transfer of property from Andy to Tammy took place the moment his pay was deposited into the joint bank account. They also stated that Tammy gave no consideration for this.

Tammy’s position was that no transfer could have taken place by merely depositing the funds into the joint bank account. Andy maintained full control of the money. CRA, or the Sheriff, acting on a valid judgement, could garnishee Andy’s share of the funds in the joint bank account.

At the time in question, Andy’s pay that was deposited into the joint bank account totalled $89,806.72.

The Court’s decision

The court did not agree with CRA. The Judge found that:

  • Just depositing the funds in a joint account does not comprise a transfer. Mr. White did not unload himself of the funds when they were deposited into the joint account. He continued to have complete access to the funds in the account. As a matter of fact, the evidence was that Andy, as he had done since 1984, used some of the funds to pay his personal expenses and specific costs of his household.
  • Andy did not defeat or whatsoever prevent the Minister of Revenue from collecting any tax he owed by placing his compensation in the joint account. CRA could have taken collection activity relative to funds in the joint account. In fact, part of the evidence before the court was that the joint bank account was garnished by a third party to repay one of Andy’s debts.
  • As soon as the funds were put in the joint bank account, Tammy had the ability to impact a transfer. Nonetheless, such transfer did not happen until the funds were removed from the joint account and placed into the account only in Tammy’s name.
  • The Judge was very critical of CRA. They did not properly identify funds taken out of the joint account and put into Tammy’s account. There was limited evidence before the court. So, the Judge had to “guesstimate” as best as possible from the scant evidence how much was transferred from the time Tammy opened up her sole account and the date of Andy filing a consumer proposal.
  • The Judge determined that the amount of property Andy transferred to Tammy during the relevant period for no consideration was the amount of $34,052.
  • Accordingly, the Judge allowed the appeal and vacated the assessment. He referred it back to the Minister of Revenue to reconsider a reassessment of Tammy in the amount of $34,052.

HST remittance and the entrepreneur

So what does this mean for the entrepreneur? It tells me that if you are:

  1. Director of an insolvent company that owes unremitted source deductions or unpaid HST;
  2. the company goes either into receivership or bankruptcy or otherwise has to shutdown;
  3. you are assessed personally by CRA because you were the Director; and
  4. you get another job and deposit your pay into a joint bank account you hold with a spouse or child.

Your spouse or child will not be liable under the property transfer laws of the Income Tax Act and/or the Excise Tax Act by the mere depositing of your money into the joint bank account. What it also tells me is, if you are in this situation and do not have a joint bank account, maybe you should! If so, go back to the “Joint bank account considerations” section of this blog to see if it is the right thing for you to do in your situation.

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this blog on HST remittance and joint bank accounts. The Ira Smith Team is available to help you at any time. We offer sound advice and a solid plan for Starting Over Starting Now so that you’ll be well on your way to a debt-free life in no time.

Do you or your company have too much debt? If yes, then you need immediate help. The Ira Smith Team comprehends just how to do a debt restructuring. Much more notably, we know the demands of the business owner or the person who has too much debt. Due to the fact that you are managing these stressful financial problems, you are anxious.

It is not your fault you cannot fix this issue on your own. You have just been shown the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we take a look at your whole condition and layout a strategy that is as unique as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as a part of the debt negotiation approach we will create just for you.

We understand that individuals facing financial troubles require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you as well as end the pain you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will certainly get you or your business back on the road to a well balanced and healthy life and end the pain factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

hst remittance

Call a Trustee Now!