Tag: CCAA

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY IN SUDBURY: THE LAURENTIAN FEDERATED UNIVERSITIES SUFFERED A CRUSHING DEFEAT

laurentian university in sudburylaurentian university in sudbury

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.

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

Laurentian University in Sudbury introduction

As widely reported, Laurentian University in Sudbury had federation agreements with the University of Sudbury, Thorneloe University and Huntington University (also known as the Federated Schools or federated universities). These three northern Ontario institutions are each an independent university offering university credits through certain courses that Laurentian University students took.

The reason for the federation agreements, which also had a companion Grant Distribution and Services agreement, is because these three colleges did not have full provincial status to register students, handle the admission to programs, confer degrees or receive provincial funding. Everyone benefitted from the arrangement.

The colleges were able to offer courses (in addition to a few specific courses unique to each respective college) and Laurentian, in turn, shared $7.7 million in funding. Canada Laurentian University made the calculation that it may not need all of the courses they administer on behalf of the 3 colleges. Rather, they can gain a full $7.7 million in funding, rather than just their administrative charge for doing the processing of the academic courses and degrees.

As readers of Brandon Blog know, I have been following the northern Ontario Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario financial difficulty insolvency restructuring saga. To date I have written 2 blogs on it:

In my 2 previous Brandon Blogs, I told you about Laurentian University’s academic program cuts comprising 38 English-language undergraduate and 27 French-language undergraduate program closures, in addition to 11 graduate program cuts (4 in French; 7 in English). These undergraduate program and graduate program cuts, dozens of program cuts, have caused job losses amongst the 116 full-time professors and 1 counsellor placement ending up being redundant. It has also obviously affected both undergraduate students and graduate students alike.

In this Brandon Blog, I talk about the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling in favour of Laurentian University in Sudbury in its effort to terminate all of its federated agreements.

laurentian university in sudbury
laurentian university in sudbury

Laurentian University in Sudbury: Losing academic programs will ‘hurt,’ prof says

The Laurentian University in Sudbury Board of Governors approved the issuance of issued Notices of Disclaimer of Laurentian University in Sudbury to terminate the university’s current agreement with the other Laurentian affiliates, Huntington University and Thorneloe University College, as well as the University of Sudbury (the Federated Universities). The decision was made amidst growing concern from students at all three universities. The Notices of Disclaimer were issued on April 1, 2021 (no joke!).

This news made waves in the Canadian higher education community. Laurentian University in Sudbury decided to terminate its agreement with the Federated Universities effective at the expiry of the notices. Laurentian University cited, in a press release, “concerns relating to low retention and graduation rates.” One grad student described it as “An ugly stain for years to come“.

Huntington University ended up settling with Laurentian University. Perhaps capitulating is a better word. On the other hand, Thorneloe University and the University of Sudbury each brought a motion before the court under section 32(2) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for an order that their Federated Universities agreements not be terminated. They did so within the 15 day period they had to oppose the Disclaimers under the CCAA. Their motions were heard on the last two days of April. These motions were heard separately by two different Judges.

laurentian university in sudbury
laurentian university in sudbury

Sudbury’s Laurentian, Huntington universities reach a separation agreement, but Thorneloe and the University of Sudbury fought on

The Thorneloe University College and the University of Sudbury did not want to just capitulate. Huntington reached an agreement with Laurentian University regarding just how to terminate its collaboration. Both Thornloe and the University of Sudbury proceeded with their motions to set aside the Disclaimers. Thornloe’s motion was heard on April 29, 2021, by Chief Justice Morawetz.

Justice Gilmore listened to the University of Sudbury‘s motion on April 30, 2021. The Laurentian University stay of proceedings was expanded briefly up until May 2, 2021. On that date, the Justices released short endorsements dismissing both motions and the CCAA proceedings were extended until August 31, 2021. On May 7, both Justices released their detailed reasons.

The factors that the court needed to consider were:

In choosing whether to make the order opposing the Disclaimers, the court needs to consider whether the:

  • monitor approved the proposed Disclaimers;
  • Disclaimers would boost the prospects of a viable Plan of Arrangement being made for Laurentian; and also
  • Disclaimers would likely cause considerable financial difficulty to a party to the agreement.

The arguments against the Disclaimers in each of the northern Ontario Thorneloe and the University of Sudbury motions were essentially the same. They were:

  • Thorneloe and Huntington did not create Laurentian’s economic problems.
  • The Disclaimer will result in a significant financial challenge for Thorneloe and as a result, Thorneloe will need to make an insolvency filing either under the CCAA or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).
  • Thorneloe and Huntington are immaterial to Laurentian’s financial scenario. Therefore the Disclaimer would not cause a material improvement for the chances of a successful Plan of Arrangement and a restructuring of Laurentian’s finances.
  • The partnership between Laurentian and the two northern Ontario colleges is not a business relationship to which the provisions of the CCAA were meant to apply.
  • Laurentian is acting in bad faith against the provisions of s. 18.6 of the CCAA.
  • The debtor-in-possession lender (DIP lender) has no reason to make it a condition of increased financing that the Federation Agreements must be terminated.

    laurentian university in sudbury
    laurentian university in sudbury

The court decision about the Laurentian University in Sudbury Disclaimers for Thorneloe University and University of Sudbury

In both cases, everyone had their legal counsel and Thorneloe retained a financial advisor also. Thorneloe‘s financial advisor prepared a report for the court to attempt to counter the submissions of both Laurentian University and the CCAA Monitor.

The Judges each weighed all the evidence very carefully and both concluded that the:

  • Monitor authorized the Disclaimer Notices.
  • Disclaimers will improve the prospects of a successful Plan of Arrangement for Laurentian.
  • Notices of Disclaimer will have negative economic consequences to Thorneloe and the University of Sudbury, yet this is not enough of a factor to prohibit the Notices of Disclaimer.
    University of Sudbury and Thorneloe was provided a choice, similar to Huntington, which was not accepted.
  • Court has a choice to make and neither choice is a good one. It is required to consider
    the more comprehensive implication of refusing the Notices of Disclaimer which would result in the demise of Laurentian.

The choice is if the motions succeed so the Disclaimers are not effective, it might cause an unravelling of Laurentian’s restructuring strategy and also the collapse of Laurentian. This in turn would certainly have a substantial impact on all professors, students and parts of the northern Ontario region and the entire Sudbury community. It would likewise create financial harm to Thorneloe and the University of Sudbury. Certainly, this is not a desirable outcome.

If the Notices of Disclaimer are supported, the court acknowledged that this very well may threaten the survival of the colleges. The court was sympathetic to this but stated that the impact on the colleges will be considerably less than if Laurentian and the colleges both stop operating. Given these two undesirable choices, the much better choice or the least unwanted selection is to support the Notices of Disclaimer.

Therefore, the motions brought by Thorneloe and the University of Sudbury to revoke the Notices of Disclaimer were dismissed. The Judges reject appeals from federated universities. Thorneloe stated it would appeal the decision of the court. As previously stated, Huntington has already struck a brand-new plan with Laurentian. The University of Sudbury is considering what it ought to do next.

laurentian university in sudbury
laurentian university in sudbury

Laurentian University in Sudbury summary

I hope you enjoyed the Laurentian University in Sudbury Brandon Blog post. According to the Monitor’s reporting to the court, on April 30, 2021, Laurentian owes millions of dollars; $321.8 million to be precise.

Are you worried because you just lost your job through no fault of your own? Is your business dealing with substantial debt challenges and financial problems due to your largest customer failing to perform and pay your company? Do 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 while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

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. We help many people and companies stay clear of 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, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

laurentian university in sudbury

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

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY INSOLVENCY RESTRUCTURING – OUR UPDATED GUIDE ON ITS MASSIVE CUTS TO GAIN FINANCIAL HEALTH

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.

laurentian university insolvency

Laurentian University insolvency: Laurentian students, faculty ‘shocked’ at university’s declaration of insolvency

On February 8, 2021, I wrote my blog about the Laurentian University insolvency filing for creditor protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) on February 1, 2021. It was the very first time in Canada that a public university took such creditor protection action. That blog is titled: Laurentian University Facing Insolvency Makes Startling CCAA News By Filing For Creditor Protection.

Post-secondary education can be a hard path for lots of young Canadians. The road can be filled with challenging experiences. Nevertheless, students never thought that having their college or university teeter on the edge of bankruptcy while they’re still going there would be a reality they would need to face! “It was a surprise,” declares one third-year Laurentian University student, resembling the views of her peers.

The students found out about the Laurentian University insolvency when they logged into their student portal. That is when they found out that the school has declared itself insolvent. The University President and Vice-Chancellor stated in the CCAA proceedings that the university’s dire financial situation financial issues were first determined as early as 2008-09 when a prior administration.

The students who were accepted to the school on the understanding that the school would continue operating and that their field of study would not be in danger surely feel betrayed by this. What a stressful time for them.

Everyone was pretty shocked when we found out that the Laurentian University insolvency CCAA filing happened. Nobody had really focussed before on the fact that public institutions like Laurentian would become insolvent and then be eligible for a CCAA process.

What went wrong in this Sudbury, Ontario-based university? In this Brandon Blog, I’m going to give you an update to my February 8, 2021, Brandon Blog and what has gone on since then in this Laurentian University insolvency process.

Laurentian University insolvency: Is Laurentian University closing?

No. The purpose of the CCAA filing is to allow Laurentian University to restructure so that hopefully it will remain open for a long time to come. Laurentian has continued operating. Courses are continuing (virtually because of the COVID-19 pandemic).

Laurentian opened up discussions with its different stakeholders, including its students, faculty, other staff, trade suppliers, research-granting agencies and donors immediately after the issuance of the court order approving the Laurentian University insolvency filing.

Laurentian has to negotiate functional modifications in order to drive go-forward financial savings. Consequently, these conversations have included settlement negotiations between Laurentian and the:

  • Committee of representatives chosen by the Senate, to deal with the course offering to restructure.
  • Federated Universities;
  • Laurentian University Faculty Association, the bargaining unit representing the professors; and
  • Laurentian University Staff Union, the bargaining unit for non-faculty personnel.

    laurentian university insolvency
    laurentian university insolvency

Upon the initial CCAA filing, the Laurentian University insolvency application included a request for a sealing order to keep away from public viewing two Exhibits. Laurentian’s position was that stakeholders should not be able to see those documents as it would weaken and perhaps totally frustrate Laurentian’s ability to restructure. The court granted the sealing order.

On March 4, 2021, the Ontario Confederation of University Associations, the faculty union and the Canadian Union of Public Employees served notices looking for leave to appeal the sealing order from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. On March 31, 2021, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued its decision dismissing the motion for leave to appeal.

Laurentian University cuts 100 professors, dozens of programs

Laurentian University told the court that it had many programs relative to its number of pupils. Since the day of the CCAA declaration, Laurentian had roughly 209 different programs – 166 undergraduate programs as well as 43 programs for graduate students. Laurentian additionally advised that a lot of programs have continually reducing enrolment and are not financially sustainable.

The university undertook an evaluation of low-enrollment programs and a review of the variety of courses to be provided moving forward. This procedure led to a full review of programs as well as potential program closures. The results of this analysis led to recommendations for academic program restructuring. The recommendations were accepted by the Senate Sub-Committee charged with completing this review and also the complete Senate.

The program closures consist of 38 English-language undergraduate programs and 27 French-language undergraduate programs. This represents 39% of the undergraduate programs offered as of February 1, 2021. This will affect about 772 undergraduate students (557 in English language programs and 215 in French-language programs). In addition, Laurentian proposes to close 11 graduate programs (4 in French; 7 in English).

If programs are being cut, then it stands to reason that teaching costs and other staff costs also need to be reduced. At the commencement of the CCAA proceedings, approximately 612 employees were represented by LUFA including 355 full-time faculty, many of whom had tenure pursuant to the collective agreement, 252 sessional faculty or health care professionals and 5 full-time counsellors.

The faculty and the Laurentian Board are parties to a collective agreement with a three-year term which expired on June 30, 2020. Pursuant to the provisions of the agreement, it automatically continues year-to-year unless notice is provided that either the union or university intends to terminate or amend it. In February 2020, the union provided the Laurentian Board with a notice to bargain. The agreement automatically remains in force during any period of negotiation.

On April 7, 2021, after participating in insolvency negotiations and mediation, the parties entered into a new labour agreement term sheet. Since academic programs were cut, faculty cuts had to follow. The term sheet calls for a new collective agreement with a five-year term expiring on June 30, 2025. It declares 116 full-time faculty positions and 1 counsellor position redundant.

The faculty downsizing will be achieved through voluntary resignations and termination of employment. Faculty to be terminated, who is currently teaching, will be terminated effective May 15, 2021. Those faculty who were not teaching in the current term were terminated effective April 30, 2021. There are also some other salary decreases across the board and benefits reductions for continuing faculty.

As far as other unionized staff (non-faculty), there will be 42 job losses. For the remaining non-teaching staff, there will be certain salary and benefits adjustments. For non-union staff, there is some salary rollback and loss of certain benefits.

laurentian university insolvency
laurentian university insolvency

Laurentian University insolvency: Court ruling allows Laurentian University to reduce value of pension plan payouts

The institution oversees three pension and benefit plans: (a) a registered defined benefit pension plan (DBP); (b) a supplementary unfunded retirement plan (SURP) and (c) a retirement health benefits plan (RHBP). The SURP, as well as RHBP, are currently unfunded. Repayments pursuant to the SURP and RHBP have remained stayed, in conformity with the terms of the CCAA Order.

The DBP is a plan registered with the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act as well as the Income Tax Act (Canada). The DBP has a going-concern pension deficit of roughly $4.5 million. The University needs to deal with the going-concern shortage. Under provincial government regulations, it needs to do so within a 10-year duration.

Terminated personnel that are DBP members, need to think about whether they want to move their pension plan entitlement to a different trustee due to the fact that they are not qualified to receive their pension payments yet. Alternatively, they could maintain their pension with Laurentian University as trustees. For retiring or terminated staff, depending on their situation, they must elect either an immediate pension plan payment or a deferred pension.

On March 17, 2021, the court made an order specifying, amongst other things, that for any kind of DBP participant that wanted to transfer their pension plan, a transfer proportion of 65.8% will be used for any commuted value transfer request for anyone that received a retirement or termination statement and an election form, for whom such transfers had not yet been made.

Therefore, anyone making such an election lost 34.2% of what they believed their pension entitlement was going to be. Various other amendments to the DBP are also proposed to take place in the Laurentian University insolvency matter. As you can imagine, the further amendments are aimed at creating long-term solvency for the DBP. Therefore, it involves certain reductions to what the remaining members thought they bargained and signed up for!

As part of the restructuring, the Laurentian University insolvency process also proposes that the RHBP will be terminated. Any claims against the SERP will be dealt with in the CCAA proceedings.

The SURP was implemented on July 1, 2002, to supply additional retirement benefits to Laurentian staff members who were in the DBP, to get additional benefits for those earning income over a certain limit. Retiring employees that qualified for the SURP were automatically enrolled. They received either a yearly or monthly payment from the SURP. All of the SURP commitments are unfunded. Historically, the university made annual payments in respect of the SURP from existing operating funds every July.

The insolvency negotiations and mediation have led to the Laurentian University insolvency process recommending that the SURPs be terminated. Accumulated obligations will be managed in the Laurentian University insolvency CCAA Plan of Arrangement. All SURP payments stopped on February 1, 2021, as a result of the CCAA stay of proceedings.

By March 17, 2021, all the changes I have talked about so far were approved by the court.

Judges reject appeals from federated universities, Laurentian insolvency plan can proceed

Laurentian has a federated school structure whereby it has formal affiliations with the Federated Universities: the University of Sudbury, Huntington University and Thorneloe University. Laurentian has a federated institution framework whereby it has official affiliations with the Federated Universities: the University of Sudbury, Huntington University as well as Thorneloe University.

The University of Sudbury is a Roman Catholic multilingual university offering programs in Culture and Communication Studies, Indigenous Studies, Philosophy as well as Religious Studies consisting of courses in both English and French. It was founded in 1913 as Collège du Sacré-Coeur before changing its name to the University of Sudbury in 1957.

Huntington is an independent university founded in 1960 with its own charter and offers programs in Communication Studies, Gerontology, Religious Studies as well as Theology.

Thorneloe is a university with historic origins and association with the Anglican Church of Canada. It offers programs in the departments of Ancient Studies, Religious Studies and also Women’s, Gender as well as Sexuality Studies.

Laurentian and the Federated Universities are connected via a selection of historical connections as well as contractual arrangements. Each of the Federated Universities is a separate legal entity and each is controlled by their own respective board of governors, independent of Laurentian providing oversight of university affairs, respectively.

The Federated Universities do not admit or register their own students and they do not confer their own degrees (with the exception of Theology at Huntington as well as Thorneloe). All Federated University programs and courses are offered by Laurentian University, and all students go to the Laurentian campus. Although the Federated Universities each manage their own respective financial affairs, they cannot receive provincial funding directly. The majority of the public funding for Federated Universities is processed through Laurentian.

As part of the Laurentian University insolvency CCAA restructuring, Laurentian served Notices of Disclaimer on the Federated Universities as it felt it was financially more advantageous for Laurentian to be free from those contractual responsibilities. As a result of the negotiation and mediation process, on April 16, 2021, Laurentian and Huntington entered into an agreement whereby Huntington essentially agreed to cease offering its courses and turn over certain course rights to Laurentian. The only exception allowed in this Laurentian University insolvency process negotiation was that if the court held that the University of Sudbury and Thorneloe University were permitted to continue to receive funding from Laurentian to teach courses or programs, Huntington could also, should it choose to do so.

The University of Sudbury and Thorneloe took a different approach. They each filed motion records in court objecting to the Notices of Disclaimer. The court heard the motions on May 2, 2021, along with Laurentian’s motion to extend the restructuring period and the resulting stay of proceedings to August 31, 2021, and to approve an increase of $10 million to its debtor-in-possession financing.

Laurentian argued that a condition of the increased financing was that the Federated Universities agreements be terminated and that terminating them will improve the University finances. The University of Sudbury and Thorneloe argued that it has not been shown necessary to Laurentian’s future viability and solvency that the Federated Universities relationship had to end and all it really is was an attempt to put them out of business.

Two different judges heard the University of Sudbury and the Thorneloe University motions. Each released their decisions last Sunday night. Each judge dismissed their respective motions. Laurentian’s increased financing and the extension of its restructuring period were also approved. The judges indicated that Reasons would follow. At the time of writing this Brandon Blog, the Reasons have not been released. When they are, I will certainly let you know what the Judges’ thought processes were.

laurentian university insolvency
laurentian university insolvency

Unprecedented Laurentian University insolvency summary

Seeking to escape a mounting debt problem, the administration of Laurentian University insolvency process has led to its filing for bankruptcy protection under the CCAA statute. This will have unfortunate consequences for some students whose courses of study are no longer offered. It will also have a terrible effect on the roughly 164,000 people who live in Sudbury, many of whom are directly involved in the school.

I hope you enjoyed the Laurentian University insolvency Brandon Blog post. You may be very upset and frustrated over this. You may have been directly affected by the course and employee downsizing. Perhaps your pension has just been cut drastically from what you thought it would eventually be. You may even be downright depressed. No doubt the Sudbury entrepreneurs may be very frustrated whether their businesses will be able to continue to pay all its debts as they come due.

Are you worried because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges 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 while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

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. We help many people and companies stay clear of 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, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

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.

laurentian university insolvency
laurentian university insolvency
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY FACING INSOLVENCY MAKES STARTLING CCAA NEWS FILING FOR CREDITOR PROTECTION

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy, and secure during this coronavirus 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 bottom and click play on the podcast.

laurentian university

UPDATE MAY 5, 2021: SEE OUR UPDATED BLOG PUBLISHED TODAY ON THE LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY INSOLVENCY CREDITOR PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS STATUS – CLICK HERE FOR THE UPDATE

Laurentian University introduction

Laurentian University is facing a cash crisis and has filed for creditor protection. The Ontario university states that the application under the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) is intended to permit the university to continue running day-to-day operations during restructuring.

The Sudbury, Ontario school is not shutting down and will continue to provide services for students. It states it will keep normal operations and keep classes running. In this Brandon Blog, I talk about what creditor protection in the Canadian context is and why Laurentian University did so.

Laurentian University: What is creditor protection?

In its simplest terms, creditor protection is the protection you get when you start a proceeding with a filing under either the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) or the CCAA. Under the BIA, an individual or company gets that protection in either a consumer or corporate bankruptcy. This safeguard is also obtained by filing under the restructuring proposal provisions of the BIA. A company safeguards itself when it files for restructuring under the CCAA.

Once a filing is done, without getting special permission from the court, none of your creditors can start or continue legal action against the person or the company for the repayment of a debt or for any enforcement action against its assets.

Laurentian University, therefore, received its sheltering once it made its filing under the CCAA. When using this statute, it can also be called CCAA protection.

Below is the section titled “How the Laurentian University restructuring story begins”. I discuss its particular issues leading up to the need to file.

Laurentian University: What is a stay period?

The “time out” that a person or business gets from its creditors is called a stay period (Stay of Proceedings). Upon the agreement of the court to the initial filing, the result is that the court will issue an Order giving the company an initial 30 days of protection from creditors to allow for the preparation of the restructuring proposal called a Plan of Arrangement.

This initial stay can be extended by the court, as long as the judge is convinced that the company is acting in good faith and working expeditiously in sorting through the myriad of issues stopping it from putting together its Plan of Arrangement.

Laurentian University: What does CCAA mean

The CCAA is a Canadian federal law that helps companies in financial difficulties emerge from its difficulties. The company begins its reorganization proceeding with its application to the court and files for creditor protection to avail itself of the process for a company and its creditors to come to an agreement on how to reorganize the company’s debt, while the company continues to operate normally and pay amongst other things, wages to its employees.

One of the biggest advantages of the CCAA is that it allows a business to “hold the fort” while the creditors and the company work out an agreement that will hopefully get the company back on its feet. While operating in this fashion, company management remains in control of running the business. The company does not hand over its assets to a licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee). Rather, the Trustee is appointed by the court to act as Monitor.

As the title sounds, the role of the Monitor is that of the neutral court officer working with the company. The duties of the Monitor include:

  • overseeing and providing supervision of the company’s affairs;
  • assisting in the negotiations with creditors;
  • helping with the drafting of the Plan of Arrangement for describing what the restructuring process will be;
  • report regularly to the court on the progress and details of the restructuring administration, and ultimately,
  • conducting the meetings of the various classes of creditors where voting on the Plan of Arrangement takes place.

Although the CCAA is unique to the country of Canada, other countries have similar restructuring legislation. The most famous is probably Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. This is when you normally hear the term “bankruptcy protection“.

laurentian university

Laurentian University files to reorganize university finances

Last Fall, Laurentian University recognized it was in financial trouble. On October 1, 2020, it issued a press release advising that it has financial challenges brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic and its pre-existing structural deficit. It also announced at that time that it hired Ernst & Young as financial advisors to assist in a further review of its detailed financial results, budgets, and our various initiatives to help identify and analyze any additional opportunities for cost savings or improvement.

On February 1, 2021, facing insolvency, Laurentian University took the step to begin its insolvency proceeding under the CCAA in order to come up with a formal restructuring plan. Since it is in the early stages of the insolvency administration, the actual plan has not yet been developed as Laurentian University needs time to come up with the proper plan. It will be one of many future events I will keep my eye on for you.

From my review of the filing documents, I can tell you what the story is so far.

How the Laurentian University restructuring story begins

“We are working with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth process for students,” said Peter Baxter, the university’s provost and vice-president, academic.”

Who would’ve thought that universities, which are supposed to be institutions of higher learning, would actually run into financial problems and put their stakeholders at risk? But that’s exactly what happened and is the current situation with the Laurentian University insolvency in Sudbury, Ontario. I guess the place was not run by any of the finance profs! It is obviously a stressful time for all students, staff, faculty, and creditors.

Dr. Robert Haché, the President and Vice-Chancellor of the Laurentian University of Sudbury, swore the necessary affidavit on January 30, 2021, in support of Laurentian’s court application for an Initial Order to commence CCAA proceedings. In his affidavit, Dr. Haché stated:

  • Laurentian’s financial issues were first determined as early as 2008-09 when a prior administration gave a budget to the Board that would not be balanced for the 2008-2009 academic year and showed little to no improvement for the future financial prospects of the university absent any revised processes. The budget was approved, but the Board expected the financial situation to be fixed as a top priority item.
  • A Plan for Regaining Sustainability at Laurentian was presented to the school’s Board on December 18, 2008, and again on February 20, 2009. The Board approved the implementation of the plan, expecting to regain financial health over a three-year period.
  • Starting in 2014, Laurentian undertook a $64 million Campus Modernization Project for the construction of approximately 250,000 sq. ft. of classrooms, research, study as well as a public area.
  • The Campus Modernization Project involved Laurentian incurring a substantial amount of long-term debt (approximately $40 million) to pay for the construction of buildings and facilities to modernize the campus in order to accommodate its historical growth and fuel the projected enrolment growth. The university elected to defer repayment of the principal amounts borrowed until after construction was completed, leading to the accrual of further interest.
  • When the Board approved the 2016-17 operating budget, LU forecasted operational deficits continuing through 2021-22 leading to an accumulated operational deficit of greater than $43 million.
  • With the exception of the modest growth experienced in 2020, enrolment has declined each year from 2015 to 2018 and tuition fees remain low, while labour and debt servicing costs have grown substantially.
  • The 10% tuition reduction and tuition freeze ordered by the Province of Ontario beginning in 2019.
  • Laurentian’s academic costs are generally higher as a percentage of total costs than other Ontario universities.
  • Not re-evaluating over the last decade its programs to make sure it is focusing on those the marketplace of students deem relevant and required.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic has made all these issues worse.

From reading his sworn affidavit, I would use one simple word to describe what has led to the Laurentian University insolvency – MISMANAGEMENT! Dr. Haché joined Laurentian University in July 2019. So he has only been involved in this mess for the last 19 months.

What Laurentian University reports its immediate plans are by making this CCAA filing

Laurentian University reported that as at April 30, 2020, it had $358.5 million in assets based on generally accepted accounting principles. Of that total, only $33.2 million is either liquid or near-liquid. As at the same date, its liabilities are:

  • Line of credit $14.4 million
  • Short-term loan $1.4 million
  • Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $22.4 million
  • Accrued vacation pay $1.8 million
  • Deferred revenue $1.0 million
  • Current portion of long-term debt $2.7 million
  • Long-term debt $89 million
  • Employee future benefits liabilities $20.8 million
  • Deferred contributions $38.6 million
  • Deferred capital contributions $129.9 million

This adds up to $322 million. The balance sheet balances because the remainder represents either restricted capital or special purpose endowments.

Laurentian University advised the court that it intends to come back requesting an Amended and Restated Initial Order. Right now, Laurentian has the benefit of the Stay of Proceedings and will not be making any payments on any outstanding amounts owing as of February 1, 2021.

Among other things, the motion in respect of the Amended and Restated Initial Order will seek the following additional relief:

  • extending the Stay of Proceedings to April 30, 2021;
  • suspending Laurentian’s requirement to make certain special payments in respect of its defined benefit pension plan, pending further Order of the Court;
  • suspending Laurentian’s need to reply to requests for information received under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) during the Stay of Proceedings, nunc pro tunc to February 1, 2021;
  • the appointment of a mediator, as an officer of the Court and a neutral third party to undertake a mediation of various issues under the supervision of this Court, on an urgent basis;
  • approving Laurentian’s request for a debtor-in-possession credit facility (the “DIP Facility”) borrowing authority up to the principal amount of $25 million to finance its working capital requirements and other general corporate purposes, post-filing expenses and costs during the Stay of Proceedings.

The court has now declared that Laurentian University is insolvent. I will be following this CCAA administration and will write more blogs on material points of special interest as this restructuring winds its way through the court.

Laurentian University summary

I hope you enjoyed the Laurentian University Brandon Blog post. If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges 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 while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

The tension put upon you in such a time of uncertainty 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. We help many people and companies stay clear of 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, Contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy, and secure during this coronavirus 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

STALKING HORSE INSOLVENCY PROCESS: OUR BEST GUIDE TO GET YOUR M&A DEAL DONE

stalking horse

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 like to listen to an audio version of this stalking horse insolvency process Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Stalking horse introduction

I have written before about a stalking horse in the insolvency context. Two things recently happened that suggested that I should write about it again, from a slightly different perspective. The first thing was that Ira Smith recently did a Zoom webinar presentation for the M&A Club Canada. The topic they wanted the webinar on and the title of the webinar was “Insolvency restructuring to get your M&A deal done”. Second, I see that there has been an increase in online searches for that term.

So, the purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to describe what a stalking horse is and provide you with some insight as to how an insolvency process can be used to get an M&A deal done.

What is a stalking horse in the insolvency and M&A world?

In the distressed M&A context, a stalking horse refers to a possible buyer participating in a stalking horse auction to purchase the assets of an insolvent debtor as a going concern. In a stalking horse public auction of a financially troubled business, an initial bid by the stalking horse bidder is divulged to the marketplace and becomes the minimum quote, or floor cost, that potential purchasers can then outbid.

It was first extensively utilized in the USA and currently is a routine part of the Canadian insolvency landscape. The stalking horse process is different than the sealed tender sale approach that is traditional in Canada. The stalking horse sales process has been used in Canada many times. The case study that Ira presented in his webinar and gone over below, was one that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved.

The stalking horse participates in the process understanding that it might be outbid. Accordingly, it negotiates a break fee to cover its costs. This includes its due diligence costs to put together the first offer. Typically, for a competing bid to knock out the stalking horse offer, it will certainly have to be more than the stalking horse bid plus the Break Fee (described below). The competing offer will certainly likewise need to be on the exact same terms as the stalking horse bid, and cannot include any kind of burdensome conditions.

Why would anyone want to become a stalking horse?

So, why would someone want to be a stalking horse? Initially, as a stalking horse, you will certainly have the most effective opportunity of discussing the terms of a purchase that are customized to satisfy your specific issues. Also, as the first prospective buyer, you will have even more time to evaluate and comprehend the insolvent debtor’s company. You will also have a chance to develop connections with management, vendors, and key stakeholders in the sales process. This gives the stalking horse bidder a leg up.

Their expenses of participating in the sales procedure are covered by the break fee that you will negotiate. That break fee is generally secured by a unique court-ordered charge against the assets of the insolvent debtor. However, you will need to consider the ranking of this charge against other charges that may have been already granted by the court.

How a stalking horse bid works

The stalking horse method permits a distressed company to prevent receiving reduced proposals as it sells its assets. When the stalking horse prospective buyer has made its deal, the court has accepted that quote and all other conditions of the court-supervised sale, other prospective purchasers may send contending bids for the company’s assets.

By setting the low end of the bidding process, the insolvent firm wishes to realize a greater price, yet understands it cannot obtain a lower one. Insolvencies are public. The general public nature allows for the disclosure of even more information about the opportunity and the company than what would certainly be available in a private deal. Because of this, in this case study, I explain below, I can mention some names.

Stalking horse prospective buyers can typically bargain which specific assets it wishes to obtain. It likewise does not have to acquire any of the insolvent business’s liabilities. It may however choose for business reasons to take some on voluntarily. Examples would be amounts owing to critical suppliers or employment-related liabilities for employees of the insolvent company they may wish to retain.

MPH Graphics stalking horse bid process case study

MPH Graphics inc. (MPH) was an insolvent company. They had a potential purchaser who was willing to stand as a stalking horse bidder. We ran a successful stalking horse process in this case. This case happened quite a few years ago, but, since then, we have used the identical technique in other cases. When a similar kind of case comes up in the future, we would use the same process. So, although the case is older, the steps taken are still well suited today.

MPH was a company that provided printing design and finishing for Canadian and US customers. MPH printed a variety of products such as business cards, direct mail pieces, annual reports, and marketing materials and primarily serviced government agencies, not for profit organizations, and unions.

MPH grew by acquisitions and required additional capital equipment financed by debt. The business also had to change because the industry was changing from traditional printing presses to digital. That changeover required further capital investment.

MPH was insolvent

MPH’s line of business primarily serviced government agencies, not for profit organizations, and unions. Absorbing the acquisitions produced inefficiencies and redundancies. It also needed to move to larger premises which meant moving costs and higher ongoing rent costs were being incurred.

At the same time, the industry was extremely pricing competitive. Gross margins were squeezed. Overhead costs, especially sales salaries and entertainment expenses increased. There was now a history of losses. The technical staff was very experienced. To get the union business, MPH’s technical side had to be a union shop. MPH had a blue-chip client list, which is what was really of interest to the stalking horse bidder.

Receivable collections were slowing down and the bookkeeper had to put payable cheques that were printed every month in a drawer. The cheques could not be released because there was not enough money to pay their liabilities as they become due.

stalking horse

The stalking horse bidder came knocking

The bidder was an industry consolidator. They came knocking to try to buy the MPH assets. The consolidator did its due diligence and issued a non-binding letter of interest. After further discussions, that interest turned into a binding agreement to purchase the assets. One of the terms of the deal was that the stalking horse bidder required court approval of the purchase and a vesting order from the court to vest the assets out of MPH into the acquiring corporation.

Notwithstanding there were tax losses, the purchaser did not want to purchase shares and have to deal with all the creditor issues. The company could not on its own give the purchaser the certainty it wanted by way of a vesting order. So an insolvency process was required.

What kind of stalking horse insolvency process?

There are generally three insolvency options. Some are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They are:

  • receivership;
  • bankruptcy; and
  • restructuring.

Receivership is a remedy for secured creditors. In a receivership, the company loses control of the sales process. Bankruptcy is a remedy for unsecured creditors. In bankruptcy, likewise, the company loses control. It needed a process where the company stays in control.

The insolvent company’s requirements were:

  • stay in control of the process;
  • do that specific transaction or a better one; and
  • get court protection for both the sales process and the sale.

So neither receivership nor bankruptcy would work. So what would allow the company to meet its requirements and run a stalking horse bid process?

A stalking horse process works best in an insolvency restructuring process

What is needed is a debtor in possession option. In the United States, it is called a Chapter 11 proceeding. In Canada, there are two federal statutes that apply and can accommodate the needed process:

The benefits of this approach are:

  • The company stays in control of the process.
  • It allows for the stalking horse transaction or a better one to be completed.
  • Allows the insolvent company to get protection from its creditors through the automatic stay of proceedings. This gives it the time to run the stalking horse process, go back to court for approval, and to complete a transaction.

Liquidating proposal under the BIA to run the stalking horse process

We chose the strategy of a proposal filing under the BIA. The main reason was that the CCAA is for companies that owe $5 million or more. MPH owed under that threshold, so only the BIA process was available. The strategy would have been the same, even if MPH qualified for a CCAA process and we decided to go under that statute.

As time was of the essence, we MPH first filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal (NOI). This quickly got them the stay of proceedings they needed and access to the court, before needing to draft the definitive proposal document.

The company filed the NOI to implement a sale of its assets, properties, and undertaking, in order to attempt to preserve as much value as possible for the Company’s stakeholders, while preserving as many jobs as possible. As Trustee, we then wrote a report to the court in support of the company’s motion to get the purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale to be approved as a stalking horse bid and for approval of a sales process, we would run.

As Trustee, we worked with MPH, the purchaser, and their respective legal counsel, to draft the sales process and the terms and conditions of sale. These would be the rules that would allow for the marketplace to become aware of the opportunity to purchase all or substantially all of the assets, properties, and undertaking of MPH.

Key elements of the stalking horse sales process

The key elements of the stalking horse sales process were:

  • The break fee payable to the stalking horse bidder if they turned out to not be the successful purchaser was set at the amount of $100,000.
  • The Overbid Amount (as described in the Stalking Horse Agreement of Purchase and Sale) was reduced to the amount of $100,000.
  • If an auction was to be held between parties that all qualified as successful bidders, each bid had to be at least $5,000 higher than the last one.

The outcome of the stalking horse sales process

The process we recommended to the court was a 5-week process. The court approved our recommendations and ran the sales process. The process included:

  • Advertising the opportunity in a national newspaper.
  • Preparing and distributing a “teaser” non-confidential information circular to distribute to anyone who requested it along with the terms and conditions of sale.
  • Preparation and distribution of a confidentiality agreement to those who wished more detailed financial information.
  • Receipt of signed confidentiality agreements and distribution of the confidential information memorandum we prepared.
  • Receiving non-binding letters of intent from potential purchasers and deciding which ones we chose to provide access to our electronic data room.
  • Potential purchasers performed due diligence and submitted their final binding offers with deposit funds.

We then reviewed all offers received, to make sure that they met the terms and conditions of sale. We did receive a better offer, but that purchaser’s offer was conditional on them obtaining financing. They could not waive the condition, so the stalking horse bidder’s agreement of purchase and sale turned out to be the winning bid.

Court approval of the stalking horse bid

As Trustee, we then prepared our report to court to provide all the information as to the steps we took and the results of the process. We obviously recommended that the company be allowed to complete the stalking horse agreement. The court agreed and issued the vesting order.

There were enough funds to pay out the government trust claim and all the secured creditors in full. There was also enough cash left over to pay for all the costs of the process. Unfortunately, there was not enough money to do any sort of proposal. So the company filed an assignment in bankruptcy and we became the trustee in bankruptcy.

Moving from our role as proposal trustee to the bankruptcy trustee, we informed all the creditors the details of the sale and the outcome. The business and many jobs were saved as a result.

Stalking horse summary

I hope you have enjoyed this stalking horse 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 have too much debt? Are you 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.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENCY CANADA: IS IT ILLEGAL FOR INSOLVENT COMPANY TO APPLY FOR THE CEWS

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, healthy and secure.

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

insolvency canada
insolvency canada

Insolvency Canada introduction

Canadian business restructuring, a type of insolvency Canada, has been in the news lately and no doubt will continue to be for some time. The COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdown and general fear have affected everyone; both Canadian business, employees and all other Canadians. Everyone is forecasting that business insolvencies will rise as a result of the coronavirus.

An interesting question posed to us recently is, is it illegal for an insolvency Canada company to apply for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS). I have written a couple of blogs specifically on the CEWS previously:

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss the concept of CEWS and try to answer the question about insolvent companies applying for COVID-19 support.

Insolvency Canada CEWS refresher

The CEWS was established for an initial 12-week period from March 15 to June 6, 2020, offering a 75-per-cent wage help to qualified firms. Then on May 15, 2020, PM Justin Trudeau announced a CEWS expansion for 3 additional months to August 29. The CEWS safeguards work by assisting organizations to maintain workers on the payroll as well as also encouraging firms to re-hire staff members previously laid off. To date, 296,030 employers, representing 924,970 applications, have applied to the CEWS program.

Former Finance Minister Bill Morneau then announced in July that the CEWS extension would consist of program changes that would broaden the reach of the program. It would certainly offer much better-targeted assistance to guarantee that more workers can return to their work without delay as the economy reboots.

The modifications announced in July for the CEWS extension would:

  • Prolong the program up until November 21, 2020, with the intent to provide additional support up until December 19, 2020.
  • Make the aid available to a more variety of companies to include those with a revenue decline of less than 30%.
  • Provide a slowly lowering base help to all eligible companies. This would assist various companies with much less than a 30% earnings loss get aid to keep employees.
  • Present a top-up aid of around an added 25 percent for companies that have really been most adversely affected by the pandemic. This would be particularly practical to firms in markets that are recovering far more slowly.
  • Offer assurance to firms that have really already made business decisions for July as well as August by ensuring they would not have their benefits less than they would have had under the previous CEWS program.
  • Address particular issues brought to the government’s attention by various stakeholder groups.

By helping people get back to work and sustaining companies as they try to grow their income, these modifications gave companies some certainty that they needed to recall workers. It is very possible that some employers would fall into an insolvency Canada category.

Insolvency Canada: The current CEWS statistics

The Canadian government has approved 910,940 of the total applications so far. The approved applications by value are:

Under $100K 863,700

$100K to $1M 44,990

$1M to $5M 2,010

Over $5M 240

Total 940,940

To look at is it illegal for an insolvent company to apply for CEWS, we first need to see what the requirements are. Could it be that applications have been made by insolvency Canada employers? For sure it is!

Insolvency Canada: When is an employer eligible for the CEWS

The CEWS was first set up through the passage of BILL C-14, A second Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19. It received Royal Assent on April 11, 2020. It establishes the rules for the CEWS program, as amended and extended.

For the purposes of the wage subsidy, an eligible employer is:

  • a company or a trust, besides a corporation or a trust fund that is excluded from tax obligation under Part I of the Income Tax Act or is a public institution;
  • an individual aside from a trust;
  • a registered charity (other than a public institution);
  • a person that is exempt from tax obligation under Part I of the Income Tax Act (aside from a public institution), that is:
    • a farming organization;
    • a board of trade or a chamber of commerce;
    • a non-profit corporation for SRED activities;
    • a labour organization or society;
    • a benevolent or fraternal benefit society or order; and
    • a non-profit organization;
  • a partnership where each member of which is an individual or partnership in this listing;
  • a prescribed company, including certain Indigenous companies or businesses.

As you can see, the list is very exhaustive. The legislation does not exclude an insolvent company or mention anything about insolvency Canada. The legislation also does not exclude a company that has filed for a corporate restructuring being either a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) or under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA).

Insolvency Canada: How does an eligible employer qualify for the wage subsidy?

In order to get the wage subsidy in respect of a specific claim period, an eligible company needed to have on March 15, 2020, an open payroll program account with the CRA and was using that account to make its payroll remittances.

Concerning the revenue test, a company’s income for the subsidy includes its revenue earned in Canada on an arm’s length basis, calculated utilizing the employer’s regular bookkeeping approach. Companies can pick to calculate their earnings using either a cash basis or the accrual technique of bookkeeping. Companies have to make use of the method they select when they first make an application for the CEWS for the duration of the program. Employers cannot combine the methods.

When a qualified employer has computed its qualifying revenue for each and every relevant claim period, it would determine if it has actually experienced the needed reduction in income to qualify for the wage subsidy for that claim period. However, the company is under no obligation to prove that the decrease in income is connected to the COVID-19 situation. If it does not qualify for one claim period, it is not barred from determining if it qualifies for any other claim period.

There is nothing in the legislation that disqualifies an insolvent company that is an eligible employer from calculating if it meets the test for eligibility for the CEWS. The phrase “insolvency Canada” does not appear anywhere.

Insolvency Canada: It is not illegal for an insolvent company to apply for the CEWS

From my research, as described above, I have not found anything in the legislation that established the CEWS that would make it illegal for an insolvency Canada employer to apply for the CEWS. If you think about it, this makes sense.

The Canadian government was worried that companies shutting down meant all workers were laid off and be applying for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). As the economy opened up again, the government wanted to make it easier for businesses to bring back some or all of their workers in a very unsettling and uncharted time. The aim of all the Canadian government support programs is to give assistance to struggling companies.

There is an implicit assumption that companies could very well be insolvent and would therefore not be able to reopen unless they had financial support. So not only is it not illegal for an insolvent company to apply for the CEWS, it is quite logical that an insolvent company would not reopen or if it did, not hire back many workers.

This is, in my view, one of the reasons why the CEWS was established; to bring back Canadian workers to companies that could not otherwise afford to pay its employees if it could not receive back a refund for what it was spending on wages or salaries.

Insolvency Canada: How would the CEWS be treated under a formal restructuring

Whether the company is restructuring under the BIA or CCAA, the treatment of the CEWS is the same. The CEWS is taxable. You need to include the amount you get on the company’s or business’s income tax return when calculating your taxed revenue.

You will certainly likewise be expected to report the amount of the CEWS that was used to pay each of your staff members’ incomes by utilizing a unique code in the “other information” area at the end of the respective employee’s T4 slip. That specific information on the reporting needs has not yet been made public by the government. It presumably will be before the end of the year.

So in either a BIA or CCAA insolvency business restructuring, the CEWS should be shown as:

  • revenue in any cash flow statement prepared with anticipated receipt dates;
  • income for accounting and financial statement purposes; and
  • disclosed in the Trustee’s/Monitor’s reporting to stakeholders.

If it turns out that the employer involved in a formal restructuring did not qualify for a CEWS payment for one or more of the periods that it applied and received one, then it is a liability to the government. How is that handled in the restructuring? There could be two answers. From my research, I do not see this specifically being addressed.

You may need to return all or part of the CEWS you have actually already received if you:

  • send to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) any type of modifications to a previous application;
  • terminate an application;
  • made a calculation or data mistake for a claim;
  • learn you do not qualify after getting a subsidy payment for a claim made; or
  • receive a notice from the CRA that, following an evaluation, your claim has actually been lowered or disallowed.

Any type of CEWS overpayment you received that is not returned will be subject to interest charges. In the very next insolvency Canada section, I discuss what kind of liability a CEWS overpayment would be in a formal insolvency restructuring.

Insolvency Canada: What kind of liability is a CEWS overpayment

The CEWS is a subsidy payment made to you by CRA based on an application the insolvent company makes. Unlike a claim for unremitted source deductions or HST, it is not an amount the insolvent company collected, held in trust for and failed to remit to CRA. So as far as I am concerned, it is not a trust claim. It would be an ordinary unsecured claim.

The overpayment claim may not necessarily be caught in the restructuring. If the insolvent company applied for the CEWS AND received the subsidy payment BEFORE making the restructuring filing under either the BIA or CCAA, then I believe it would be an ordinary unsecured claim in the restructuring. However, if the company applied for the CEWS AFTER filing for restructuring, regardless of the claim period, the overpayment claim would be a post-filing claim and not caught in the restructuring. All of the overpayment would have to be repaid notwithstanding the formal restructuring.

If not repaid, presumably CRA would offset any other amount payable to the company, such as for HST input tax credits, against the CEWS overpayment liability in such an insolvency Canada situation.

Again, I caution that none of this appears in the CEWS legislation. It is my opinion based on my experience and the review of the relevant legislation.

Insolvency Canada summary

I hope you have found this Insolvency Canada CEWS 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.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

EASY COMMERCIAL RENT RELIEF CANADA: THE SECRET TO CREATING A CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING

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.

Commercial rent relief Canada introduction

Commercial rent relief Canada is one of the biggest needs of Canadian businesses. This is a result of the COVID-19 induced economic shutdown. I have written before on this problem and about the Canadian government Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance (CECRA) Program.

This program is part of Canada’s COVID-19 Economic Response Plan. The CECRA has been updated from its original version which I also wrote about. You can view the updated discussion in my blog – COMMERCIAL TENANCIES ACT ONTARIO: NEW FIX FOR YOUR UNRULY LANDLORD’S COVID-19 COMMERCIAL LEASE TERMINATION.

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to discuss how “unused” leased premises have been treated differently so far under both US and Canadian corporate restructuring. I will also fill you in on the secret to get commercial rent relief Canada for Canadian bankruptcy protection and financial restructuring. Unfortunately, as you will see, it isn’t much of a secret!

Commercial rent relief Canada – The US version

The US bankruptcy courts have been generous and pragmatic in cutting companies who filed under Chapter 11 some slack in relation to leased premises that were unused due to the economic shutdown. There were two cases in particular that I previously wrote about.

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

On March 12, 2020, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court District of New Jersey issued the Order authorizing the Chapter 11 bankruptcy application of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. et al (Modell’s) submitted on March 11. Modell’s is America’s earliest, family-owned ran store of sporting items, sports footwear, clothing and equipment. It was founded in 1889.

On March 27, 2020, the court granted Modell’s court application making an order attending to both a bankruptcy suspension and an operational suspension. The bankruptcy suspension maintained the bankruptcy protection proceedings until April 30, 2020 (the Suspension Period). The operational suspension enables Modell’s to shut down all shops and also not operate. The judge additionally gave Modell’s the right to apply on brief notice to the court to extend the Suspension Period. The order went on to state the stay of proceedings holds throughout the suspension.

As part of their application, Modell’s submitted a modified budget to show what sources of cash it would have and also what expenditures it would pay during the Suspension Period. It likewise showed what expenditures were being incurred, but not paid. Commercial rent on every one of its shops was among the expenditures being accumulated but left unpaid.

Modell did not put any of the commercial lease payments in its amended spending plan. They needed to shut down every one of their stores as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. Shops shut suggests no sales. They were not going to pay rent at the same time the stores were not generating cash.

The court order accepted the modified budget plan. It also verified that the only payments that Modell’s would make were those indicated as most important. The business considered payments to every one of its landlords as non-essential. The court order did indicate that the accumulated and overdue commercial rent payments were not and also were not deemed to be waived or not payable.

Pier 1 Imports took a page from the Modell playbook

In February 2020, Pier 1 Imports, Inc. (Pier 1) declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as part of trying to find a purchaser of its operations. It then closed all of its shops in Canada and most in the United States.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, following the Modell’s precedent, Pier 1 applied to the court to stop paying commercial rent on its US retail locations on a temporary basis. Pier 1 had to shutter all of its shops as a result of the COVID-19.

Following the Modell’s model, the court provided its approval. It is interesting to note that no commercial rent relief Canada was sought from the Canadian court.

commercial rent relief canada
commercial rent relief canada

Could this commercial rent relief Canada occur under Canadian bankruptcy protection?

So the concern is, could a business get this new Modell’s/ Pier 1 precedent to take place in a Canadian bankruptcy protection restructuring? Put another way, could Canadian companies being formally restructured get commercial rent relief Canada?

Under the CECRA program, landlords and tenants need to cooperate and agree with each other to apply for that commercial rent relief Canada. However, what if the landlord plays hardball? Can a Canadian firm declare bankruptcy protection in Canada and be successful in having the court order commercial rent relief Canada?

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 arrangements in either statute to conjure up commercial rent relief Canada. Actually, the reverse is true. In either a restructuring or liquidation, the case law says that if a leased premise is being used then rent must be paid to the landlord. Fairness is part of the Canadian bankruptcy landscape. There are years of cases on this problem and they all wind up the very same. You don’t even have to be open for business. If you are tying up the location and preventing the landlord from the right of reentry, the rent needs to be paid.

However, there are two comparable sections in each of the BIA and CCAA. Section 183( 1) of the BIA says:

“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 wording has been interpreted by the courts to imply that the bankruptcy court in each province has the sole responsibility to supervise and approve all acts needed to be done for the correct administration of the Canadian insolvency system. This holds whether it is bankruptcy protection restructuring or straight-out bankruptcy liquidation.

The CCAA offers more adaptability in an insolvency business restructuring than the BIA does. Generally, the court will reach its decisions in a CCAA restructuring on the basis of fairness and also reasonableness. The court is required to be worried that what is being recommended is not prohibited and there are cogent reasons regarding why what is being proposed serves to benefit all or most of the creditors affected by the restructuring.

Until recently, a Canadian court has not published a decision in response to an application for commercial rent relief Canada due to the coronavirus pandemic shutdown in a BIA or CCAA restructuring.

We now have a commercial rent relief Canada answer from British Columbia

The case is Quest University Canada (Re), 2020 BCSC 921. Quest University Canada (Quest) filed for CCAA bankruptcy protection in January 2020. It had several motions between January and May to extend the restructuring proceedings.

Also in May, Quest premised its request for a boost in its restructuring interim loan facility, somewhat, on it deferring lease payments on four of its university residences from June-August 2020. Southern Star Developments Ltd. (Southern Star) is the owner of the residences and also Quest’s landlord. Southern Star and its mortgagee Bank of Montreal (BMO), objected to any lease deferment. The court had to figure out whether it is appropriate to allow Quest to delay rent payments to its landlord, Southern Star.

Quest mandated that as part of the educational experience, all students going to Quest were required to reside on campus in the residences. A significant percentage of Quest’s students (some 75%) were international students. In addition, some faculty members resided in the residences.

Effects developing from the COVID-19 pandemic, as experienced in BC, across Canada and all over the world, are well known. On March 12, 2020, Quest’s board of governors declared the closure of Quest to the general public. Students had to leave the campus and finish the springtime and summertime semesters online. All occupants vacated the residences. Only a small number of personnel stayed behind for security purposes.

Then the BC government issued a Ministerial Order whereby it declared a state of emergency. The federal government prohibited the entry of foreign nationals into Canada, initially except the United States under the Quarantine Act. The Canadian government then extended the ban to most travellers from the USA also.

The timing of the pandemic as well as its extreme repercussions couldn’t be worse for Quest in regards to its restructuring efforts.

Quest’s commercial rent relief Canada application like Modell’s and Pier 1

Without referencing the US bankruptcy protection court orders I discussed above, Quest made a similar application to the court. Quest was looking for commercial rent relief Canada just like was given to the US companies in the Chapter 11 cases.

On May 18, 2020, Quest advised Southern Star that it would not be making rent payments for the residences starting in June 2020. Quest said it needed to conserve cash due to the fact that the residences could not be used (the same argument as the Modell’s and Pier 1 cases). Quest mentioned the continuous restructuring process, the closure of on-campus learning and the unpredictability of what academic instruction it would be able to offer in fall 2020 as reasons for the deferral.

The court had so far accepted and approved interim financing to permit the restructuring to continue. Quest told Southern Star that it wished to discuss a rent deferral arrangement over the following numerous months. Quest hoped that Southern Star would be accommodating given their history of working together and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unfortunately, Southern Star right away showed its unwillingness to do so. Southern Star stated that, without receipt of lease payments from Quest, Southern Star will certainly not have the ability to make its mortgage loan payments to BMO. For apparent reasons, that is not an enviable situation for Southern Star, nor obviously, BMO, to be in.

In late May 2020, Quest sought and obtained an increase in the approved interim financing by $3 million. The cash-flow forecast that supported that application, included the Monitor‘s Second Report, did not reference any kind of rent payments by Quest to Southern Star until October 2020. Accordingly, the accepted interim funding is not adequate to fund Quest’s lease payments over the summer season.

Quest contended that it is critical to preserve the use of the residences and its relationship with Southern Star. Quest says that its ability to restructure and continue as a university depends on it. They also content that Southern Star and BMO will not suffer any prejudice if the rent deferral is allowed. Quest believed that it would be able to make up the deferred payments sometime in the future.

Southern Star and BMO opposed the court granting that relief. They contend that they will be prejudiced if Quest does not have to make the rent payments.

The court’s decision in Quest’s commercial rent relief Canada application

The court’s analysis was very detailed. The BC court reviewed precedent decisions from various provinces, including Ontario. For Quest, an important question that it wanted the court to answer was were the residences being used?

Quest suggested that it left the residences because of safety issues and provincial health and wellness orders relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. It stated that it is only allowed to make use of the residences for student housing. The court did not equate this absence of physical use of the leased facilities by students with a total absence of “use”.

The court concluded that Quest is “using” the residences within the CCAA restructuring because:

  • Quest is allowing some staff members to live there.
  • It is insisting, as against Southern Star as landlord of the residences, according to its right to quiet enjoyment of the residences. Simply put, Quest is exercising its right to “use” the residences, as usual, notwithstanding they are mostly vacant.
  • Certainly, since June 2020, Quest was able to populate the residences with students or other persons safely. This would be consistent with what they have done every past summer season.
  • The court did not see the use over the summertime as being irregular with the specified and allowed use of the residences.
  • As of June and proceeding right into July and August 2020, the principal reason the residences are vacant is no different than from previous summers. In previous summers, Quest had to pay rent to Southern Star because it was still “making use of” the residences.
  • Quest has actually not chosen to disclaim the (Sub)leases. On the contrary, Quest’s evidence is that the residences are essential and it must maintain them to advance the possible restructuring options available to them. The existence of the residences, and Quest’s legal rights to their use, remain a crucial marketing factor in relation to possible financial partners.

Fairness is a typical touchstone in CCAA and all insolvency proceedings. In the court’s view, substantial indicia of unfairness arise by permitting the rental fee deferment. The court stated that it had the option to allow Quest to choose to pay the rent. The court stated however that it did not have the right to prevent Southern Star from requiring payment and taking action in the face of any kind of default.

The court found that it was not appropriate to grant the rent deferment sought and dismissed Quest’s application. In doing so, the court followed the long line of cases in both CCAA and BIA restructuring cases as well as bankruptcy liquidation cases. By not granting the commercial rent relief Canada requested, it differentiated the Canadian insolvency system from the US system as seen in the Modell’s and Pier 1 cases.

A word of caution:

  • There is no discussion in the decision that Quest attempted to claim or rely upon a force majeure argument.
  • Notwithstanding how detailed the court’s analysis is, this BC court decision is not binding on courts in other provinces.

So as I said at the beginning, the secret to getting commercial rent relief Canada in a formal restructuring simply based on this court decision is either reach a deal with the landlord on your own or just hand the premises back to the landlord. Those are the only ways!

Commercial rent relief Canada summary

I hope you enjoyed this commercial rent relief Canada Brandon’s Blog. 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.

commercial rent relief canada
commercial rent relief canada
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

COMPANY BANKRUPTCIES: A USEFUL TOOL TO SHOWER EXECS WITH BONUSES?

company bankruptcies
company bankruptcies

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.

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

Company bankruptcies introduction

Company bankruptcies have been in the news during 2020. The ones that got the most attention were large US retailers filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, their Canadian subsidiaries filing for restructuring or pure Canadian retailers who needed to file.

In the United States, almost one-third of 40 big firms seeking U.S. bankruptcy protection during the coronavirus pandemic awarded bonuses to execs within a month prior to filing their cases, according to a Reuters evaluation. Eight companies, consisting of J.C. Penney and Hertz, approved the bonuses as few as five days before seeking bankruptcy protection.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss why this happened and look at could it happen in Canadian bankruptcies cases.

The role of a Key Employee Retention Plan (KERP) in company bankruptcies

A KERP is not a new concept in company bankruptcies. KERP refers to an advantage strategy utilized by a debtor company in a bankruptcy situation as incentives to upper management to stay working for the business throughout the bankruptcy. The purpose of this KERP is to help in the retention of particular essential qualified and competent executives of the company and its subsidiaries, by providing a retention bonus offer for such employees in return for their continued employment during the restructuring of the business in bankruptcy protection.

The KERP intends to maintain qualified officers, employees, and directors of the company and its subsidiaries upon whose judgment and effort the company depends upon for the successful conduct of its business. It is expected that providing such persons with a direct stake in the firm’s successful restructuring will assure a more direct alignment of their interests with those of the business and have them working on the company’s behalf throughout the entire financial restructuring. In this way, senior management and key personnel are incentivized to keep their employment with the company throughout its restructuring and not leave for a new opportunity.

So if KERP is normal, why pay out big bonuses ahead of time?

This phenomenon is unique to company bankruptcies restructurings in the United States. So far, it has not been applied directly to Canadian insolvency filings. The main reasons are the legislation and because of the supervisory role and practices of the courts.

KERPs have long caused objections that companies are enriching execs while cutting jobs, stiffing creditors and wiping out shareholders. In March, creditors filed a claim against previous Toys R’ US executives and directors, accusing them of misdeeds that consisted of paying out such rewards days before its 2017 bankruptcy filing. The company liquidated in 2018, terminating 31,000+ workers.

An attorney for the execs and directors stated the benefits were warranted, given the added work and stress on senior executives, as Toys R’ US had wanted to remain in business after its restructuring. As we all know, the restructuring failed and the company was liquidated.

United States legislation in 2005 needed execs and other company insiders to have a competing job offer in hand before getting retention bonus offers through a bankruptcy protection administration. That forced companies to design new means to pay the bonuses.

After the 2008 financial crisis, firms frequently proposed bonuses in bankruptcy court, casting them as incentive plans with goals execs have to satisfy. Courts mostly accepted the plans, ruling that the performance benchmarks placed the payment past the purview of the limitations on retention incentives. The plans, nonetheless, sparked objections from creditors calling them KERPs in disguise.

At some point, companies discovered they could avoid analysis entirely by approving benefits before insolvency filings. US Bankruptcy Trustees have no power to stop bonuses paid even days prior to company bankruptcies.

Why big bonuses are not paid out on the eve of company bankruptcies in Canada

As I mentioned earlier, the treatment of KERPs is really directed by the supervision of the court. A large Canadian bankruptcy protection filing that might involve a KERP is done under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). The Canadian legislation and therefore the decisions of the courts in Canada are different than in the United States.

A financial restructuring under the CCAA is a collaborative effort in Canada. It is not as adversarial as in the USA. In a Canadian CCAA restructuring, a Monitor is appointed by the court. The Monitor to a large extent is the “eyes and ears” of the court. The process is that the Monitor acts as a supervisor over the company’s affairs in restructuring and also acts as a mediator between the various stakeholders. The court places a high degree of reliance on the Monitor’s recommendations. The court also expects its Monitor to be in the middle of all important matters and make thoughtful and pragmatic recommendations.

In Canada, the legislation does not directly address the issue of a KERP. Rather, the court will review the terms of a KERP put before it for approval. The court expects that:

  • Hard evidence will be put before it to show why the KERP is required and will aid in the company restructuring.
  • Why the employees for whom it is being recommended qualify.
  • The court will want to see that the KERP was negotiated, that key stakeholders had input, and there is not a “one size fits all” plan for all the employees.
  • Rather, individual employee characteristics have been taken into account.
  • The Monitor has been involved in the discussions and is recommending it to the court with reasons.

The proper use of an appropriately-calibrated reward plan is evident:

  • Company bankruptcies cause staff members now in an insecure position to be prey to competitors able to provide the possibility of a stable and solvent workplace to people whose natural very first top priority is caring for their households.
  • There is a danger that the top and mobile employees will certainly be cherry-picked while the company in a restructuring might discover itself significantly handicapped in attempting to attract competent senior staff.
  • Sometimes a restructuring can result in a court-supervised sales process. Employees might commonly find themselves being asked to bring all of their skills and devotion to the task of making themselves unemployed.
  • Considering that many employers use a mix of base pay and profit-based motivations, company bankruptcies causing a restructuring may put greater demands on key staff including covering for associates who have been laid off or who have actually left for greener fields.

The main factors considered by the court being asked in company bankruptcies to approve a KERP

The main factors a court considers during company bankruptcies are:

  • Whether the Monitor recommends the KERP agreement and the cost.
  • For the senior staff to which the KERP is being recommended, how realistic is it that they would seriously consider various other work choices if the KERP was not approved?
  • Is the continued employment of the senior staff members for which the KERP is being recommended is essential for the security of the business and to boost the performance of the overall restructuring?
  • Each employee’s background with and expertise in connection with the debtor.
  • Any problems in replacing each of the senior staff for the employees to which the KERP would apply.
  • Were the KERP agreement and its cost authorized by the board of directors, including the independent Monitor, as the business judgment of the board needs to not be disregarded?
  • Is the KERP agreement and charge approved or consented to by secured creditors of the borrower (who might very likely end up paying for it)?
  • Are payments under the KERP payable upon the conclusion of the restructuring process or are milestones built in that may or may not be realistic.

These are the major issues that the court needs to consider when determining whether or not to approve a KERP. As you can see, in company bankruptcies in Canada resulting in a CCAA restructuring, the issues the court must consider are many. So far, business sense has prevailed in Canada not requiring the shenanigans now taking place in US bankruptcy restructuring cases.

Company bankruptcies summary

I hope you have found this company bankruptcies 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.

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

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

BANKRUPTCIES IN ONTARIO: OUR EXCLUSIVE 6 THINGS LIST CREDITORS MUST KNOW ABOUT CANADIAN BANKRUPTCY

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.

Bankruptcies in Ontario -Introduction

Much of the insolvency chatter developing from the COVID-19 pandemic world in which we find ourselves is now concentrating on the waterfall of brand-new bankruptcies in Ontario that are predicted to arrive. I have previously written about some of the big-name US retailers that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Businesses shut down, job losses, government funding for people and businesses to try to hang on through this coronavirus are all in the headlines. What our “new normal” will look like and which companies and jobs will survive, right now, is anybody’s guess.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I want to highlight things creditors must know about canadian bankruptcy and bankruptcies in Ontario. By being well-versed, creditors will hopefully be able to better understand what is in store for them and for the debtors.

1. Bankruptcies in Ontario – the automatic stay of proceedings

In Canadian insolvency matters, an automatic stay of proceedings happens when a company or person files under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) for either:

  1. Bankruptcy
  2. Consumer proposal
  3. Corporate or large personal restructuring

The stay of proceedings is automatic under the BIA. Other than in one specific situation which I will touch on in a minute, absent proof that some sort of fraud is being committed on the court, a judge will not interfere with the automatic stay provisions. So an unsecured creditor will not be able to start or continue any action for collecting on a debt.

The one exception is in a restructuring where the major secured creditor goes to court and provides evidence that no matter what the restructuring may look like, they will never support it. The secured creditor would at the same time be requesting the court to lift the stay of proceedings so that they can enforce on their security.

Absent a restructuring proposal that promises to pay out that secured creditor 100% PLUS proof that the company or person has a realistic chance of refinancing to take out that secured creditor. Even in that situation, the court could give the debtor some time to pull it off, but it will be a very short lease. Otherwise, the secured creditor will probably get their wish and the restructuring effort will end.

In the case of a privately appointed receiver, there is no automatic stay of proceedings. This is notwithstanding that the conduct of the receiver in a private receivership is also governed by the BIA. The reason there is no automatic stay of proceedings is that a private receivership is not a filing under the BIA.

In either a court-appointed receivership or a corporate restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA), the stay of proceedings authority does not come from statute per se. The respective statutes allow for the judge to order a stay of proceedings. That language is then incorporated into the court order appointing the receiver or authorizing the bankruptcy protection CCAA filing. In these cases, the court is available for anyone to make an application to lift the stay if they can prove that they are being prejudiced. Again, normally only secured creditors will be able to show prejudice.

2. Bankruptcies in Ontario – Know whether, when, and where proof of claim needs to be submitted

For bankruptcies in Ontario and restructurings, it is important to know what kind of insolvency proceeding is taking place. The notice you receive from the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) will tell you what kind of proceeding it is. It will also provide a proof of claim form to be completed. The notice will provide all the details.

It is important that you know:

  • The details.
  • How to complete a proof of claim form.
  • Where to send it into.
  • What timelines there may be.

Some creditors wish to file a proof of claim only so that if a dividend is declared they will get one. In that case, you can complete and file the proof of claim any time before the Trustee issues a final dividend. The Trustee must send a final notice to all named creditors who have not yet filed a proof of claim before issuing a final dividend.

Some creditors wish to actively participate in the insolvency process. They may wish to attend the meeting of creditors, vote on a restructuring proposal under the BIA. If creditors wish to actively participate in bankruptcies in Ontario, they should complete and file the proof of claim with the Trustee within the time-frame indicated in the notice accompanying the proof of claim form.

In a receivership, there will only be a need to file a proof of claim if the receiver has realized enough money from the sale of assets to pay out the trust claims and secured creditor claims in full and now has money for the unsecured creditors. This is very rare. In that situation, the receiver will conduct a claims bar process later on in the administration. That is when a notice with a blank proof of claim form will be sent out to the known creditors.

In a restructuring under the CCAA, first, the restructuring plan, called the Plan of Arrangement, is finalized. Then the Trustee will send out notices and blank proof of claim forms for creditors to complete and submit. Filling out the form at that stage will allow creditors to actively participate in the meeting and voting on the plan, as well as be in line to receive a payment.

3. Bankruptcies in Ontario – Obtaining a preference repayment from a future bankrupt debtor is not illegal or unethical, but you may have to give it back

If a customer of yours offers to pay you money, even if it turns out to be on the eve of an insolvency filing, take it! Always take the money; stress over any claim for it by a Trustee later.

The premise of the BIA is that all unsecured creditors will be treated equally. So, if certain unsecured creditors receive partial or full payment on the eve of filing, and then the debtor goes bankrupt, there is a presumption of a preference. The onus is on the creditor who received payment to rebut the presumption of a preference. If the Trustee is successful in attacking such a transaction, then the creditor must pay over the money to the Trustee. The creditor will also have spent money on its own legal fees. There will also probably be a cost award for all or a portion of the Trustee’s legal costs also.

Notwithstanding all this, it is better to have the money than not. Perhaps the Trustee will not knock on your door. Or, maybe you can avoid a lot of heartache by agreeing to and paying over a settlement amount that is less than 100% of what you received. Finally, there is a very limited number of defences to rebut the presumption of a preference. Perhaps your situation falls under one of them.

Taking the money is not immoral, unethical or illegal. You just may not be able to keep it if your customer files for bankruptcy after making the payment to you.

4. Bankruptcies in Ontario – review the Trustee’s Report very carefully and ask questions

The Trustee’s report outlines issues of importance regarding the conduct of the debtor both pre and post-filing. Sometimes, there may be an action that the Trustee could take to enhance the recovery of an asset, but lacks the funding to do so.

In those cases, a creditor or a group of creditors can choose to either:

  1. Fund the Trustee to take the action for the general benefit of all unsecured creditors.
  2. Get court approval to take the action in their own name under s.38 of the BIA.

It would be unusual for creditors to fund the Trustee. The simple reason is that they would be responsible for 100% of the costs but have to share any recovery with all the other unsecured creditors on a pro-rata basis. For this reason, it is not done.

Many times a creditor or group of creditors will choose to obtain court permission to take on the action in their own name. The court will insist that the creditor group make the opportunity to all creditors. However, a “buy-in” will be set. Most of the time other creditors won’t pony up to join in. Either they are not sophisticated enough to realize the potential benefit or they feel it is not worth their spending money in that way.

Under an s.38 action, if successful, the creditor can first pay back all its costs in doing the action. Next, they are entitled to keep up to the full amount of their claim. If any funds are left over, they must be paid over to the Trustee.

I am administering a bankruptcy file right now where there was foreign real estate. I did my investigation and determined that although saleable, the properties would take many years to sell and then to repatriate the money back to Canada. The major unsecured creditor wished to take control of the sales process. So, her lawyer got court approval for her to do so under s.38 of the BIA. No other creditor joined in with her. The properties are now sold, we have so far received a six-figure payment from the surplus sitting in her Canadian lawyer’s trust account after she was fully repaid all of her costs and the amount of her claim.

There is another six-figure amount sitting in a foreign country. We have retained legal counsel in that country now to get the rest of the funds repatriated into our trust account. Once received, we will finalize our vetting of all proofs of claim and make a distribution to the unsecured creditors.

5. A discharge from personal bankruptcies in Ontario ends the debtor’s liability for pretty well all debts

Unless the Trustee of a bankrupt corporation raises enough money for all of the creditors to be paid off in full, with interest, a corporation is never discharged from bankruptcy. In personal bankruptcy, the debtor is eventually entitled to an absolute discharge. The absolute discharge can be:

  • Received straight away when the debtor is able to be discharged.
  • Given once the bankrupt fulfills all of the conditions of discharge.

There are only a handful of claims that are not discharged upon the discharge of the bankrupt. Those are:

  1. Trust claims.
  2. Secured claims.
  3. Those claims which fall under s.178 of the BIA.

If a debtor wishes to get out of a liability where the creditor holds security, such as vehicle financing, the debtor needs to trigger a default prior to filing for bankruptcy. So continuing with the vehicle example, the debtor could tell the lender that it cannot afford to make any more payments. The debtor would then give the vehicle and the keys to the lender.

The debtor should then wait for notice from the lender that the vehicle has been sold, the lender has suffered a shortfall and demands payment for the shortfall. The shortfall is an unsecured claim. The debtor now files for bankruptcy after the shortfall claim has crystallized. There now is no longer a secured claim for this debt.

If the debtor does not wait for the shortfall notice from the lender, they run the risk that the shortfall occurs after the date of bankruptcy. In that case, the shortfall unsecured claim will not be a debt discharged by the bankrupt’s discharge.

I have previously written about the s.178 claims. You can read about them in my blog.

Lacking affirmative action by a debtor or Trustee, all secured claims go through the bankruptcy unaffected. It is incumbent on the Trustee to get a lawyer’s security opinion on the validity of any secured creditor’s security as against the Trustee. I have a corporate bankruptcy file now where the legal opinion was that the security was not valid. I advised the creditor who did not object. I guess they already knew!

6. Bankruptcies in Ontario – A fully completed restructuring also discharges most debts

The most essential element of reorganization situations under the BIA and CCAA that creditors need to know is about how debts get discharged in a restructuring. Similar to a personal bankruptcies in Ontario, in a successfully completed corporate restructuring, the debtor’s debts are discharged. Again, except for trust claims and secured creditor claims, the ordinary unsecured debts of a corporation are fully discharged when a restructuring plan that has been accepted by the creditors and approved by the court is fully completed. When the payout is made to the creditors and the company has successfully completed it, there are no pre-filing debts remaining.

So what is the significance to creditors? Well, if you are a director of the company, any debts that would have been a director liability, other than for a trust claim, vanishes. As there is no debt left, there is nothing left for the director to be responsible for.

Likewise, if someone personally guaranteed a premises lease to the landlord, if the lease is disclaimed as part of the restructuring, then the landlord has an unsecured claim. Once that claim is fully discharged in the restructuring, there is no debt left for the guarantor to be responsible for.

Creditors should also know that a company in a restructuring, may come to you to renegotiate your agreement with the company. If you refuse, the company could disclaim the agreement and any claim you have will be an unsecured claim in the restructuring.

7. Bankruptcies in Ontario bonus tip

It is better to get professional advice about extending credit to a customer and the best way to do it before you approve the credit. Getting professional advice after they have filed for bankruptcy limits your options.

Bankruptcies in Ontario – Summary

I hope you have found this bankruptcies in Ontario Brandon’s Blog 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.

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.

bankruptcies in ontario
bankruptcies in ontario
Call a Trustee Now!