Tag: bankruptcy estate

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE ORDER: OBSESSED CREDITOR LOSES APPEAL OF THE DISCHARGE ORDER

bankruptcy dischargeWe hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

What does bankruptcy discharge mean in Canada?

A bankruptcy filing is a form of insolvency process under Canadian bankruptcy law available to individuals and businesses. Bankruptcy deals with a person’s or company’s debt load and assets. After performing a detailed initial assessment, the licensed insolvency trustee will be in a position to advise the debtor if they will be better serviced through a restructuring process as an alternative to bankruptcy (consumer proposal or Division I Proposal for individuals, Division I Proposal or Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act bankruptcy protection for companies) with creditors, or whether the debtor will be better served filing for bankruptcy.

The final piece of any bankruptcy process for an individual is the bankruptcy discharge. Individuals who go bankrupt are entitled to a discharge from bankruptcy. Companies are only entitled to one if every bankruptcy claim filed is paid in full, with interest. Because this never happens, companies do not receive a bankruptcy discharge. It is not impossible, but for this reason, it really does not happen.

If you are thinking about filing an assignment in bankruptcy, then you may be wondering about the bankruptcy discharge process and how it will affect you. Many people think their debts are eliminated at the moment of their bankruptcy filing.

This is incorrect. It is the bankruptcy discharge that will remove all (with certain limited exceptions) of your unsecured debts from your life and will result in letting you move forward with a clean slate. In this Brandon Blog, I discuss the bankruptcy discharge process and a recent decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing an appeal to the decision of the Master sitting as bankruptcy registrar on a bankrupt’s application for discharge.bankruptcy discharge

Bankruptcy discharge and its consequences for the bankrupt

When you are granted a bankruptcy discharge, this means that those debts caught by your bankruptcy are no longer your responsibility. This means that every action from creditors or the collection agencies they have retained stops trying to collect the debt obligations.

As I previously mentioned, most almost all debts are wiped off your slate when you receive your discharge from bankruptcy. The kinds of debts that remain even after a bankruptcy discharge are:

  • spousal or child support payments;
  • fines or penalties mandated by the court;
  • claims arising from fraud or fraudulent breach of trust;
  • student loan debt if less than 7 years have passed since the bankrupt stopped being a part-time or full-time student.
  • any kind of financial debts that are secured against your assets, such as a home mortgage or automobile financing, are not discharged as a result of your bankruptcy discharge.

These sorts of financial debts endure after bankruptcy as they are not released. The individual will be required to continue paying those financial obligations according to their terms. All various other financial obligations are discharged and do not have to be paid.

What are the types of bankruptcy discharge?

If there is no Trustee opposition or creditor opposition to a bankrupt’s application for discharge, and the bankrupt has fulfilled all of their duties of a bankrupt, in most situations, the licensed insolvency trustee can issue an automatic discharge which provides the bankrupt with an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

If there is an opposition or the bankrupt meets one of the criteria that does not allow for an automatic discharge (such as the bankruptcy process finding the bankrupt a high income tax debt situation), there must be a discharge hearing in court which is heard by a Master of the court sitting as the registrar in bankruptcy. There are 4 types of bankruptcy discharge and a 5th bankruptcy outcome is also possible. They are:

  1. absolute – an absolute discharge means the bankrupt is entitled to an immediate discharge. This can be given by the licensed insolvency trustee in the bankruptcy estate handling the bankruptcy administration if the bankrupt has fulfilled all of their duties and there is no trustee or creditor opposition;
  2. conditional discharge – can get a discharge after meeting one or more conditions. The most common type of condition of discharge involves paying a sum of money to the licensed insolvency trustee;
  3. suspended – the bankrupt’s discharge will take place at a later date and may very well be combined with either an absolute bankruptcy discharge or conditional bankruptcy discharge;
  4. refused– the court refused to grant a bankruptcy discharge probably because the bankrupt has failed to provide full disclosure or perform other bankruptcy duties; or
  5. “no order”– the Trustee advises the court that regardless of the time period that has passed, the bankrupt has actually not satisfied every one of his or her obligations and the bankrupt has actually failed to reply to the Trustee’s demands for information. In this situation, when the “no order” order is provided, the licensed insolvency trustee is at liberty to seek its discharge. Once the bankrupt person has actually fulfilled the requirements set by the court, the bankrupt can re-apply for a discharge hearing by the court.bankruptcy discharge

For a first-time bankrupt with no surplus income who fulfills of their duties, including attending the 2 mandatory credit counselling sessions, they are entitled to their bankruptcy discharge after a bankruptcy period of 9 months from the date of bankruptcy.

If this is your second bankruptcy a discharge will not be available after 9 months. A 2nd bankruptcy lasts for a minimum of 24 months if you do not have any surplus income payments to make to the Trustee. If you have surplus income, a second-time bankrupt must make those monthly payments for 36 months before they are entitled to a bankruptcy discharge.

For a 3rd or subsequent bankruptcy, the timeline is the same as the 2nd time bankrupt. However, it is much more possible that there will certainly be resistance to the discharge by the Trustee or the creditors. The court can also impose whatever conditions it sees fit.

Creditor objects to the decision of the Master on bankrupt’s application for discharge

On July 9, 2021, the decision in Hanlon (Re), 2021 BCSC 1348 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia was released. This was an appeal from an order by the bankruptcy registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated April 28, 2021 in Hanlon (Re), 2021 BCSC 800, VA B190492. This is an appeal under s. 192(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (BIA), from an order of a master of that Court, sitting as a registrar in bankruptcy, granting the bankrupt, Mr. Hanlon, a bankruptcy discharge that was made conditional on his paying $7,500 to the Trustee.

The appellant, Ms. Johnson, is one of Mr. Hanlon’s creditors. She states that the registrar erred in approving the discharge on those terms. If the appeal is allowed, she looks for an order refusing Mr. Hanlon’s application for a discharge, with leave to apply again in two years, or alternatively, giving a discharge conditional on his paying $50,000. The appeal is opposed by both Mr. Hanlon the bankrupt, and the Trustee. The appeal was heard by Judge Milman, Canada’s bankruptcy legislation, the BIA states that a person dissatisfied with an order or decision of a registrar can appeal that decision to a judge of that court who in that capacity is sitting as a bankruptcy judge.

The alleged errors made by the registrar in the making of the order of conditional discharge

Ms. Johnson argued that the registrar made certain errors in granting the conditional bankruptcy discharge order. Ms. Johnson says that in granting the bankruptcy discharge on those terms, the registrar erred as follows:

  • in concluding that Mr. Hanlon had complied with the injunction resulting from Ms. Johnson’s original successful litigation against Mr. Hanlon when he had not;
  • in falling short to take into account Mr. Hanlon’s refusal to agree with the accuracy of the trial judge; and
  • in failing to consider Mr. Hanlon’s real income earning potential.bankruptcy discharge

The standard of review on such an appeal

There is a standard of review on such an appeal from an order of a bankruptcy discharge hearing. S. 192(1) of the BIA gives the bankruptcy registrar the authority to, amongst other things, grant orders of discharge. S. 192(4) of the BIA allows a party dissatisfied with an order or decision of a
registrar may appeal it to a judge.

In granting an order of discharge in the bankruptcy process, the registrar is exercising judicial discretion. If the registrar has acted reasonably, the judge should not set it aside or ignore it. Further, if an appeal from a bankruptcy discharge order is based on alleged errors in findings of fact, the court will not interfere if there is no overriding error in the findings of fact and there is evidence from which the findings of fact could be made. Discretionary decisions may, naturally, be overturned if the registrar has materially misinterpreted the law or made an error in respect of the facts underlying the use of that discretion.

When a registrar’s decision in a bankruptcy discharge hearing imposes conditions, those conditions must be realistic for the bankrupt to perform in a reasonable period of time. Where the amount ordered was unrealistic and the bankrupt’s discharge is conditional on making additional payments, the appeal court did hold that results in an error of law and the appellate judge can either substitute the conditions or refer the matter back to the registrar for reconsideration.

The judge’s decision on the appeal from the registrar’s bankruptcy discharge order

The judge dismissed the appeal finding there were no overriding errors made by the registrar. With respect to the amount of $7,500 ordered as a condition of discharge from bankruptcy, the judge found as follows:

Ms. Johnson says that the registrar did not consider Mr. Hanlon’s untapped earning capacity and instead concentrated practically completely on her arguments of his potential inheritance. She suggests that Mr. Hanlon could be earning more than he is. In her opinion, he could earn more to enable him to make a settlement of $50,000 rather than the $7,500 that was ordered.

Mr. Hanlon’s real historic earnings offered adequate assistance for the registrar’s verdict that he was incapable of paying any more than the $7,500 that she ordered for him, did not have the financial prospects himself to do so and without getting personal loans from family members to help him with that. That was properly decided by the registrar based on the evidence before her.

The judge found that there is no merit in this or any other of the grounds of appeal. He found no error in the registrar’s decision, and having found the discharge condition that she imposed to have been reasonable in the circumstances, he dismissed the appeal.

Bankruptcy discharge summary

I hope that you found this bankruptcy discharge Brandon Blog interesting and that you now have a good appreciation for the process at the end of the administration for a person who files for bankruptcy and the considerations of the court if someone appeals a bankruptcy discharge order. Problems will arise when you are cash-starved and in debt. There are several insolvency processes available to a person or company with too much debt.

If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges, you need debt help and you assume bankruptcy is your only option, call me.

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as alternatives to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

The tension put upon you is big. We know your discomfort factors. We will check out your entire situation and design a new approach that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We will take the weight off of your shoulders and blow away the dark cloud hanging over you. We will design a debt settlement strategy for you. We know that we can help you now.

We understand that people and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do as we know the alternatives to bankruptcy. We help many people and companies stay clear of filing an assignment in bankruptcy.

That is why we can establish a new restructuring procedure for paying down debt that will be built just for you. It will be as one-of-a-kind as the economic issues and discomfort you are encountering. If any one of these seems familiar to you and you are serious about getting the solution you need to become debt-free, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost bankruptcy consultation.bankruptcy discharge

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY ACT: ANTI-DEPRIVATION RULE COMPLETELY VALID IN INSOLVENCY

insolvency and bankruptcy act
insolvency and bankruptcy act

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. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

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

Insolvency and bankruptcy act introduction

On October 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) rendered its decision in Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc., 2020 SCC 25 (Chandos decision). This decision upheld the idea that the anti-deprivation rule is completely valid when it pertains to both personal and business insolvency and bankruptcy act cases.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe the Chandos case and what it stands for.

The definition of the word deprive and the insolvency and bankruptcy act context

The Merriam-Webster dictionary states the definition of the word deprive is:

  • 1: to take something away from; and
  • : to withhold something from.

In the Chandos Construction Ltd. (Chandos) insolvency and bankruptcy act case, the SCC was asked to rule on contract clauses that if upheld, would deprive the bankruptcy estate and therefore the unsecured creditors of money that would otherwise be available. This deprivation of funds, which may make total sense as between contracting parties, is not enforceable in bankruptcy.

The anti-deprivation rule in the Canadian insolvency and bankruptcy act matters

Neither the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) nor the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stops non-defaulting parties to a contract, from relying upon agreement provisions that create an inevitable result when a debtor declares bankruptcy. The common law becomes pertinent in these situations.

Canadian courts still refer to these anti-deprivation provisions as “ipso facto” provisions and also this idea as the fraud upon the bankruptcy law concept. In more current times, this has been described as the anti-deprivation rule.

The SCC has recognized the anti-deprivation rule since the 1890s. However, the contemporary application of this principle in Canadian law greatly originates from an Ontario court decision in 1995 – Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Bramalea Inc., 1995 CanLII 7262 (ON SC) (Bramalea decision).

This is a decision from the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Canadian courts have thought about and decided upon the anti-deprivation rule in many insolvency and bankruptcy act cases since then.

The Bramalea case and its relevance of insolvency and bankruptcy act matters

Luckily for me, Ira Smith was the receiver responsible for the file that involved the Bramalea decision. So, I have a bird’s-eye view of that case which started it all leading to the SCC Chandos decision.

In the Bramalea insolvency and bankruptcy act case, a group of companies, including Bramalea Inc. (Bramalea) was in a partnership agreement to develop and operate a shopping mall in Markham, Ontario called Shoppes on Steeles. In 1995, Bramalea was placed into receivership and bankruptcy. Bramalea’s partners included Sears Canada and a private real estate development company.

Amongst the different provisions of the partnership agreement was a specific provision in the contract which considers insolvency. It said that, in case of the insolvency of any of the partners, the non-insolvent partner(s) (given it does not waive the event of insolvency) can buy the interest of the financially troubled partner at the lesser of book value or fair market value.

The paradox of this case was that the large company partners at the time of the drafting of the partnership contract were concerned about what happens if the private property developer one day became insolvent? None of the partners ever believed that it would be that private company that would be the only one that was not insolvent. We all know what happened to Sears Canada!

The moving parties sought to exercise that right by serving a notification to buy the Bramalea passion at book value, approximated to be around $200,000. This was opposed by the receiver and also other stakeholders.

The receiver gave evidence that the fair market price surpassed book value by as much as $2 million to $3 million. The moving parties acknowledged that the fair market value of Bramalea’s stake in the partnership was more than book value. They did not agree with the receiver’s evidence regarding the amount of that difference. They additionally did not submit their own fair market valuation.

The Bramalea insolvency and bankruptcy act decision

Based on the evidence, the court took the view that the specific spread between book value and fair market value was not trivial. The court was satisfied that the distinction is greater than marginal, and enough to properly draw the interest of the receiver and the creditors.

The receiver’s position was that there is a higher principle in play and that the concern is not one of hindering the freedom of contract. Rather it was just one of whether or not that part of the partnership contract is void as being contrary to the public interest.

The receiver submitted that while the arrangement might quite possibly stand as between the contracting parties, it is void as against the receiver and also the bankruptcy trustee in the Bramalea insolvency and bankruptcy act proceedings.

The court agreed with the receiver’s position in this insolvency and bankruptcy act case. The court decided that it was clear from the provisions of the partnership agreement itself that the parties contemplated a transfer to one of the partners of the other partner’s partnership interest, only in case of insolvency, at a price less than what could be acquired for that interest on the open market.

The court specified that this stipulation made perfect sense, as between the contracting parties. It made total sense in regards to maintaining their partnership and their respective interests. Nevertheless, the court likewise specified that the clause cannot survive through the scrutiny of the “fraud on the bankruptcy law” principle.

The receiver ended up selling Bramalea’s partnership interest to the other partners for fair market value.

insolvency and bankruptcy act
insolvency and bankruptcy act

The Chandos Alberta court case and the anti-deprivation rule for insolvency and bankruptcy act matters

Chandos was the general contractor for a condo project contracted with Capital Steel to give $1.3 million worth of steelwork. In the subcontract, Capital Steel agreed that if it became insolvent, Chandos was entitled to all costs arising from the suspension of the contract and it would forfeit 10% of the total subcontract price as an inconvenience fee. Capital Steel performed the majority of its commitments, nevertheless, it filed an assignment in bankruptcy before completing full performance.

As a result, Chandos was forced to finish the contract at an estimated expense of $22,800. Up until that point, Chandos owed Capital Steel $149,618 in outstanding invoices for the job it had performed.

Chandos relied upon the agreement and said that it was qualified to deduct its cost of finishing the job plus 10% of the total contract cost from the amount owing. Given the price of the subcontract, the 10% deduction eliminated Chandos’ balance owing plus an extra amount of $10,511. Chandos declared that gave them a provable claim in the Capital Steel insolvency and bankruptcy act case.

The Trustee’s application to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

On March 6, 2017, the Trustee applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench seeking advice and directions on whether Chandos was entitled to rely on the provision in the contract or was it void pursuant to the anti-deprivation rule in common-law.

The chambers judge acknowledged that the common law anti-deprivation rule stops parties from contracting out of insolvency and bankruptcy act regulations. The judge stated that if that provision was a liquidating damages provision as opposed to a penalty, it would not violate the rule.

The chambers judge ruled that the condition was an authentic pre-estimate of costs, which imposed liquidated damages and not a penalty. He additionally held that the provision represented a bona fide commercial arrangement that did not have as its predominant objective the deprivation of Capital Steel’s property. Consequently, the chambers judge decided that Chandos can implement the clause against the Trustee.

Trustee appeals the Chandos insolvency and bankruptcy act decision to the Court of Appeal for Alberta

The Trustee appealed the Chandos decision to the Court of Appeal for Alberta. The appellate court reviewed the lower court decision in this insolvency and bankruptcy act case and decided that:

  • The chambers court properly determined the presence and application of the fraud on the bankruptcy law principle in Canada.
  • In describing the scope of the anti-deprivation rule, however, the chambers judge erred.
  • The lower court embraced the purpose-based technique set out by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
  • The appropriate technique is to check out the impact of the provision. Its purpose is a different analysis.
  • Chandos certainly had a genuine commercial interest it was looking to protect.
  • However, the clause conflicts with the BIA‘s scheme of distribution. The common law anti-deprivation rule revokes the clause and Chandos cannot count on it to defend its claim against the Trustee.

Chandos appeals to the SCC in this insolvency and bankruptcy act anti-deprivation rule case

One of the key goals of the insolvency and bankruptcy act law is to make certain there is a fair distribution among creditors. In order to fulfill the objective, the legislation restricts specific contractual stipulations that trigger when one of the parties goes into insolvency proceedings (ipso facto clauses).

As seen in the Bramalea situation, one of these limitations is the anti-deprivation rule. It holds that ipso facto conditions that rob the debtor’s creditors of assets they are qualified to receive in insolvency and bankruptcy act matters are void. This is likewise what the Court of Appeal for Alberta decided. Chandos appealed that decision to the SCC.

The Chandos appeal was heard on January 20, 2020. The SCC split decision was released on October 2, 2020. On the facts of Chandos, the SCC dismissed the Chandos appeal. The SCC refused to promote a contractual stipulation that the subcontractor Capital Steel waive 10 percent of the agreed price if Capital Steel became insolvent or bankrupt.

The SCC majority maintained that the test for application of the contractual provision is effects-based and not purpose-based. The SCC majority confirmed that the anti-deprivation rule stands under Canadian common law and it has not been eliminated in dismissing the appeal in this corporate insolvency and bankruptcy act case.

insolvency and bankruptcy act
insolvency and bankruptcy act

Insolvency and bankruptcy act summary

I hope you have enjoyed this insolvency and bankruptcy act Brandon’s Blog. Hopefully, you have better insight now into the fact that a sick insolvent company’s business can be saved by doing a sale of its assets to a healthy organization.

Do you or your company have too much debt? Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or the person who has too much personal debt.

You are worried because you are facing significant financial challenges. It is not your fault that you are in this situation. You have been only shown the old ways that do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team uses new modern ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief freedom.

The stress placed upon you is huge. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. The way we take the load off of your shoulders and devise a debt settlement plan, we know that we can help you.

We know that people facing financial problems need realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team.

That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation.

We will get you or your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

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. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

 

Call a Trustee Now!