Tag: court

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

DEFAULTING ON A MORTGAGE: THE BEST COURT-APPROVED WAY TO DEBT FREEDOM IN 2020 & BEYOND

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.

Defaulting on a mortgage introduction

I just finished reading a defaulting on a mortgage decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released on September 15, 2020. It had to do with a person who had filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). The court case is about the debtor who could not afford to pay all the mortgages on her home. The home was sold on a conditional basis, and a dispute occurred between two potential purchasers. I describe below how the court dealt with the dispute.

That case highlighted for me three things:

  • what we advise everyone who comes to us for a no-cost initial consultation who cannot afford to keep paying a loan registered against an asset, normally a vehicle or house;
  • how sometimes a strategic default on a mortgage or vehicle loan can help someone in dealing with all of their debts when they are about to file either a proposal or for bankruptcy; and
  • the appropriate manner (in my view) the court decided to resolve the dispute between the two potential purchasers.

Defaulting on a mortgage: What we advise debtors

Whenever someone comes to us for a no-cost consultation, we first get financial information from them. We want to understand the nature of their assets and liabilities and their household income and expenses. Through our analysis and discussion, we determine if the person can afford to keep paying that loan or mortgage. We also ask them, if appropriate, are they happy with the asset if it seems that they are paying too much based on the level of secured debt and the market value of the asset.

If the person says they would love to get rid of the asset, that they have no or little equity in, then we look at the impact of using defaulting on a mortgage as a strategic default so that any shortfall experienced by the lender will be an ordinary unsecured debt which can be discharged through either a proposal or bankruptcy.

Obviously, the person has to have a realistic option to replace that asset or have an alternate plan:

  • Can they lease a different vehicle at a lesser cost before filing which they can afford and therefore will not default on?
  • Is public transit a realistic option as opposed to having their own vehicle for the time being?
  • Is there a relative who will co-sign for them so that they can lease or buy a more reasonable cost vehicle?
  • Can they rent somewhere that they can afford for much less than what they have been paying on their home and then look at buying something after they are through their debt restructuring when they are back on their feet?

As I said, we do this all the time when working with people to look at all of their options for financial restructuring. We especially look at in the case of a home, does defaulting on a mortgage make financial sense?

Defaulting on a mortgage: What is a strategic default?

When the market value of your home is less than the amount owed on the mortgage, that mortgage debt is underwater. To put it simply, an underwater home mortgage loan has a higher remaining principal balance than the value of the house.

Homeowners with little or negative home equity can find themselves in this situation when housing prices fall, even if they are current on all their payments. It’s also described as being “upside-down” or having “negative equity” in the residence.

When it doesn’t make sense to keep using your cash to stay current on that underwater mortgage, rather than using that money for other necessary expenses, defaulting on a mortgage as a strategic default may be your only option. After establishing that you can’t see your property rising in value in a reasonable period to restore some of your equity, you may plan to just stop making mortgage repayments. You’ll default and eventually, the lender will enforce on its mortgage, take over the property and sell it.

Even if you have equity in the home, but you can no longer afford to keep up the payments, you may find that putting your home up for sale is your best option. Again, you need to have a realistic plan in place on where you will live once your home sells. Depending on the situation, you might decide to also create a strategic default by defaulting on a mortgage at the same time you list your home for sale. Once sold, the net proceeds of the sale, representing the equity in the home, can be used to help fund the proposal.

During the financial crisis in the United States, a strategic default on underwater homes by defaulting on a mortgage became progressively typical. Such home loans came to a head at 26 percent of all mortgaged homes in 2009. Many house owners did the math and made the agonizing however rational decision to leave the home and let the lender deal with the property and its underwater mortgage.

As I explain in the next section, in most cases, you can just walk away from such a loan in the United States. Unfortunately, it is not so easy for Canadians to walk away from their homes and defaulting on a mortgage. But there is one way to do it in Ontario.

defaulting on a mortgage
defaulting on a mortgage

Defaulting on a mortgage: Walking away from a mortgage in Canada is not simple

In the United States, it is normal for a mortgage to be “non-recourse“. What this means is that the lender can only look to the value of the property it has mortgage security against to repay the mortgage loan. If the lender suffers a shortfall, unless there is a separate guarantee given, the lender cannot sue the mortgagor, the borrower, for any shortfall. So if you have negative equity, defaulting on a mortgage may be the right decision for such a US resident.

In Canada, it is normal for a mortgage to be “full recourse“. This means that if the lender suffers a shortfall on the mortgage debt, the terms of the mortgage loan automatically allows the mortgagee, the lender, to go to court and get a judgment against the borrower for the amount of the shortfall. So defaulting on a mortgage needs to be done in conjunction with a plan to deal with the shortfall debt.

For this reason, walking away from a mortgage in Canada is not simple. However, there is one way to do it. Once the shortfall is known and, either before or right after the lender gets a judgment, the debtor can file a proposal under the BIA to restructure all their unsecured debt. If that is not practical, then bankruptcy is the other option.

Now the shortfall is caught in the insolvency proceeding. The filing invokes an automatic stay of proceedings so that the lender cannot take action to try to execute against any of the assets or income of the debtor who has filed. The debt is caught in the insolvency proceeding and will be dealt with in that forum.

Defaulting on a mortgage: The first sale

The court case deals with a woman in Ontario who had begun a proposal process under the BIA. The debtor owned (at least) two residential properties. The property in question had 4 mortgages registered against it. The other property had multiple mortgages against it, including a mortgage as additional security for the 4th mortgage loan against the property in question. To make matters worse, there was also a lien registered against the same residential property in favour of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in the amount of $308,258.

The 4th mortgage was totally underwater. The debtor entered into an agreement of purchase and sale. The sale of the home would result in a shortfall of over $700,000. It would not provide any funds for the 4th mortgage. It would only partially repay the 3rd mortgage. So, one of the conditions of sale was that the vendor would either get a discharge of all of the mortgages or a court order vesting title in the home to the purchaser clear of all mortgages and other registrations against the title. The 4th mortgagee’s charge against the other home, which was also in 4th position, was also totally underwater.

As part of the proposal proceedings, the debtor brought a motion to the court to approve the sale (supported by appraisals) and get the vesting order to vest title clear of all registrations against the title. The debtor was not only going to be defaulting on a mortgage but on at least 2 of them!

Defaulting on a mortgage: The 4th mortgagee opposes the sale approval motion

The 4th mortgagee appeared at the motion with her lawyer to get an adjournment in order to oppose the authorization and vesting order and enable her to acquire the home on the same terms but also for even more money. This would enable the 4th mortgagee to possibly recover something on her outstanding mortgage loan at a later date.

The purchaser or the purchaser’s lawyer was not told in advance that there was going to be an opposition to the application. Therefore, the purchaser’s lawyer did not attend the hearing.

At the hearing, the court authorized the sale and vesting order yet suspended its issuance for 9 days to allow the 4th mortgagee the chance to make an offer. She did, on the very same terms yet $5,000 greater than the approved offer. She also had the deposit funds put into her lawyer’s trust account. She then made a motion for the approval of her offer and vesting order. Not surprisingly, and as to be expected, the first purchaser objected to her motion.

Defaulting on a mortgage: What the court decided

The 4th mortgagee’s lawyer argued that the first purchaser’s agreement of purchase and sale is nullified since there was neither discharges provided nor a binding court order vesting title free and clear from all mortgages and the CRA registration by the closing date. Therefore, it cannot now come to court and try to extend the closing of a deal that is already dead.

Legal counsel for the first purchaser argued that if the court approves the 4th mortgagee as the buyer, the sales procedure will be unfair. The first purchaser was not notified that there would be any type of objection to its motion for the approval and vesting order of its deal. Although the first purchaser can be criticized for not keeping up with what was happening both before and on the date of its court motion, it is still a good-faith buyer who took part in a fair sales process. The 4th mortgagee had every right to bid on the subject property when it was initially listed and did not do so.

The court decided that ultimately, this situation boils down to the process being fair and seen as being fair. So given all of this, the court decided:

  • All previous agreements of purchase and sale for the subject property are terminated.
  • A new sales process will be carried out where any of the interested parties, being the first purchaser and the 4th mortgagee, can send their best offers to the Trustee, on a confidential basis.
  • The offers are to be submitted and evaluated by the Trustee by September 18, 2020, with the closing of September 25, 2020.
  • In the event, the winning bid is not able to close on September 25, 2020, the other party may purchase the property.
  • If court approval of the successful offer and a vesting order is needed, a draft order may be provided to the court.
  • The proceeds of the sale, presumably net of the realtor commission, the vendor’s real estate legal fees, and any HST that may be applicable on the sale, are to be paid into court in order to figure out the proper amount and priority of the charges against the property.

As neither side was totally successful, the court did not award costs to any party. This seems to be the fairest outcome to all concerned.

Defaulting on a mortgage: A proposal is your best option

So as you can see, it is possible to use the proposal process under the BIA either to sell a home you can no longer afford to keep which has equity. The net sales proceeds can be used to partially fund the proposal. A proposal under the BIA is the only government-approved debt settlement plan.

Alternatively, you can use the proposal process to sell the home where you are defaulting on a mortgage where there are one or more mortgages underwater. The proposal process will compromise the resulting ordinary unsecured debt arising from the shortfall claim of underwater mortgage lenders. An application can be made to the court for an order approving the sales process, the sale, and obtaining a vesting order to complete the sale.

We have helped many people and companies do exactly that when defaulting on a mortgage.

Defaulting on a mortgage summary

I hope you have enjoyed this defaulting on a mortgage Brandon’s Blog. Hopefully, you have better insight now into the fact that there is a way to get out of a secured loan, especially a mortgage. It will require an insolvency proceeding to settle all your debts, including any shortfall on the sale of the secured asset.

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.

defaulting on a mortgage
defaulting on a mortgage

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE COMPANY RESPONSIBILITY IN REVIEWING BANKRUPTCY PROOF OF CLAIM

Introduction

I recently read a case from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. The decision deals with the responsibility of a trustee company in reviewing and disallowing bankruptcy proofs of claim.

The case

The case citation is Re 5274398 Manitoba Ltd. o/a Cross Country Manufacturing (Bankrupt) 2019 MBQB 89. This is an appeal of Bellhop Express Corp. (“Bellhop”) from the Notification of Disallowance of Claim by the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) (Trustee). 5274398 Manitoba Ltd. operating as Cross Nation Production (the Company) filed a Proposal under Division I Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA).

On February 6, 2018, a creditors meeting was held in Winnipeg at which time the creditors of the Company, existing in person or by proxy, elected to approve the proposal. On February 5, 2018, the day prior to the meeting, Bellhop sent its Proof of Claim and also registered its ballot voting down the Proposal.

The Trustee disallowed the Bellhop Proof of Claim for voting. The Trustee also did not count Bellhop’s vote against in the calculation in whether the Proposal received the required majority of creditors.

The Court approved the Proposal. After Court approval, the Trustee again reviewed Bellhop’s Proof of Claim. On September 10, 2018, the Trustee sent a formal Form 77—Notice of Disallowance of Claim, Right to Priority or Security or Notice of Valuation of Claim to Bellman.

Bellhop appealed the Trustee’s decision to the Court. Their right to do so is found in Section 135 of the BIA.

The appeal

In the Canadian bankruptcy system, the obligation to prove a claim is that of the creditor. When a creditor files a Proof of Claim, the Trustee has the duty of examining it in order to identify whether the claim stands. If the Trustee is not pleased with the Proof of Claim, he or she might look for additional details from the creditor. The goal of the Trustee is to figure out whether the claim of the creditor is a claim provable under the BIA.

Once the Trustee has made its determination, the claim is either admitted or disallowed. If disallowed, in whole or in part, the Trustee must issue its disallowance using Form 77—Notice of Disallowance of Claim, Right to Priority or Security or Notice of Valuation of Claim. The creditor receiving such a Notice of Disallowance can appeal the Trustee’s decision to the Court.

In this case, before getting to the merits of the appeal, the Court had to decide if the creditor was allowed to present new evidence in support of its claim not previously provided to the Trustee. In this case, the Court decided that it would be appropriate for this new evidence to be presented.

The Trustee did not handle its investigation properly

The Court was prepared to approve additional Bellhop evidence. The Court said that the Trustee company got Bellhop’s Proof of Claim and made inquiries through the Company regarding it. It obtained specific information and made use of some or all of it. The Trustee then developed its Notice of Disallowance.

The Court was critical of the Trustee’s analysis of the Proof of Claim. The Court stated that the Trustee should have shared with Bellhop the information it obtained from the Company and the Company’s legal counsel which it relied upon to develop the Notice of Disallowance. The Trustee could have also shared a draft of its Notice of Disallowance to see if Bellhop had any other documents or information to refute the Trustee’s analysis. Unfortunately, no such transmittal of details was provided by the Trustee to Bellhop before the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance.

The Court went on to say that it was this failure to share such details, it denied Bellhop of the chance to comment on it. It also, therefore, created this situation where Bellhop had to seek leave of the Court for the chance to submit extra details.

The Court’s view was that a Trustee could prevent this situation by having telegraphed its decision to the plaintiff before the official Notice of Disallowance was issued. The Trustee should have asked for the Bellhop’s remarks of any type of, prior to providing its Notice. If the plaintiff failed to react, or react properly, after that it will certainly have a harder job in obtaining approval to provide more proof of its claim.

So under these circumstances, the Court allowed Bellhop to submit more evidence.

The review of the claim and the Trustee’s disallowance

It is a shame that the Trustee seemed to stop short of a fullsome review of all potential information before reaching its decision to disallow the Bellhop Proof of Claim. The reason being is that the Court spent a great deal of time having to determine the issue of presenting additional evidence. The Court was quite critical of the Trustee in its handling of the adjudication of the claim requiring the motion for leave to present more evidence.

In the end, the Court agreed with the Trustee’s decision to disallow the Bellhop claim. The Court held that the proof sent to the Trustee did not warrant a claim of $3,270,684, or anything near that. To reach a decision to allow the claim, part of which was for the loss of income, the Trustee would have to decide on an arbitrary basis. The role of the Trustee is to be neutral and rely upon evidence; not act arbitrarily.

The Court went on to say that there is a responsibility upon creditors in a BIA proceeding to equip a Trustee with sufficient proof that sustains the claim they are making. That did not happen in this case. The Court went on to say that additionally, there is no responsibility on a Trustee to sustain the cost of a substantial examination of a claim which on its face seems blatantly overvalued. Were that the situation, creditors would certainly be urged to submit extremely pumped up claims.

The far better strategy is to urge a circumstance where creditors file sensible claims with sufficient proof to sustain them. That way creditors ensure that the time, initiative, and expense of a Trustee to examine, analyze and value the claim is reasonable.

So in the end, the Court sided with the Trustee’s decision but admonished the Trustee for essentially wasting the Court’s time.

Trustee company summary

Do you or your business have creditors claiming against you? Are you in financial distress? Do you not have sufficient funds to pay your expenses as they come due?

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can get rid of the tension, anxiousness, pain and discomfort from your life that your money issues have generated. With the unique roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will promptly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

We have years as well as generations of experience helping people and businesses trying to find debt restructuring to avoid bankruptcy. You can have a no-cost evaluation so we can assist you to repair your financial difficulties.

As a Trustee company, we are the only experts recognized, approved and audited by the federal government to offer insolvency guidance and solutions. A proposal is a federal government accredited debt settlement strategy to remove your debt and let you avoid bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will definitely enable you to return to a brand-new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

trustee company

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEES: CAN MY BASIC BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE BE REVERSED?

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

Licensed insolvency trustees introduction

From time to time I am asked an interesting question about licensed insolvency trustees and the bankruptcy process. The question is, can a bankruptcy discharge be reversed? The simple answer is, yes.

Most people then wonder how this could be possible. In order to understand how we should have a discussion of the bankruptcy discharge process. The best way is through a recent Court case I recently read.

Licensed insolvency trustees: The discharge process

It is the discharge when the person’s debts are erased. The debts are not “discharged” until that time. In order to get a discharge, the bankrupt has to live up to all of his or her duties.

The duties of a bankrupt include:

  • make disclosure of and deliver possession of all his or her assets (other than for certain provincial exemptions) that is under his or her possession or control to the licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee) or to anyone the Trustee so directs;
  • in such scenarios as are defined by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, provide to the Trustee, for termination, all credit cards;
  • supply to the Trustee all documents or files relating to the property of the person who has filed for bankruptcy;
  • make full disclosure of all assets and liabilities to the Trustee by completing the sworn statement of affairs within 5 days of the date of bankruptcy;
  • assist the Trustee in making an inventory of all property; make full disclosure to the Trustee concerning all property sold or otherwise transferred within 1 year prior to the date of bankruptcy;
  • disclose any property sold or transferred at undervalue within 5 years prior to the date of filing;
  • attend the first meeting of creditors if held;
  • disclose current income and expense and continue monthly disclosure until discharged in order for the Trustee to calculate any surplus income requirement;
  • if there is surplus income, to make all such payments to the Trustee in full; and
  • to perform any other acts required by the Trustee or the Court, including, fulfilling any conditions of discharge issued by the Court.

Failure to perform any of the duties laid out in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), will result in the Trustee, and perhaps one or more creditors, opposing the bankrupt’s discharge. When there is an opposition, the Trustee will schedule a Court hearing date.

At the Court hearing, the Court can issue an absolute order of discharge, provide a discharge but with conditions to be fulfilled or even suspend the bankrupt’s discharge. Sometimes, there may be both a condition and a suspension, depending on the circumstances. In rare and bad circumstances, the Court could even refuse to hear the bankrupt’s application for discharge. Licensed insolvency trustees are expected to assist the Court by making a recommendation.llicensed insolvency trustees

Mark Daniel MacFarlane bankruptcy

Section 180 (1) and (2) of the BIA states:

“Court may annul discharge

180 (1) Where a bankrupt after his discharge fails to perform the duties imposed on him by this Act, the court may, on the application, annul his discharge.

Annulment of discharge obtained by fraud

(2) Where it appears to the court that the discharge of a bankrupt was obtained by fraud, the court may, on the application, annul his discharge.”

On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia In Bankruptcy and Insolvency released its decision in the bankruptcy case of Mark Daniel MacFarlane (Citation: MacFarlane (Re), 2019 NSSC 201).

This case is not complex. However, it does clearly shows that the answer to the question, “can a bankruptcy discharge be reversed?” is clearly yes.

Mr. MacFarlane had a surplus income obligation to pay to the Trustee for the benefit of his creditors the amount of $3,823.05. At the time he was entitled to a discharge, he still owed the Trustee the amount of $2,879.05. In every personal bankruptcy, licensed insolvency trustees must do the surplus income calculation. If it turns out that the bankruptcy is required to contribute to his or her bankruptcy estate through surplus income payments, licensed insolvency trustees must report to the Court if the bankrupt made all the required payments.

The bankrupt also owned at the date of bankruptcy, an automobile that the Trustee estimated had a forced liquidation value of $17,500. The Trustee had disallowed the claim of a creditor claiming security over the vehicle. That creditor did not appeal the Trustee’s decision.

So, equity in the vehicle was available. In such cases, licensed insolvency trustees must obtain that value. For some reason that the Trustee could not fully explain, he agreed to sell the vehicle to Mr. MacFarlane for $15,702.50 plus HST. The Trustee did not sell it for all cash, but rather, entered into a conditional sale agreement with the bankrupt. In other words, the Trustee gave him financing.

Mr. MacFarlane paid made various payments totalling $7,040.00, both before and after his discharge, leaving a balance of $8,662.50.

Mark Daniel MacFarlane discharge

Although now stated explicitly in the Court decision, it appears that when it came time for Mr. MacFarlane’s application for discharge, the Trustee opposed it. On June 1, 2018, the Trustee applied for his discharge.

For some unexplained reason, the Trustee decided to not collect the balance of the surplus income requirement. The Trustee asked the Court for his outright discharge. The Court gave Mr. MacFarlane his absolute discharge.

So now the bankrupt is discharged, but he still owed the outstanding money for the vehicle that was sold to him by the Trustee under a conditional sale agreement. Rather than paying off the amount owing, Mr. MacFarlane sold the vehicle out of province and pocketed the cash.llicensed insolvency trustees

Licensed insolvency trustees can apply to Court to have a discharge reversed

So now the Trustee makes an application to Court to have Mr. MacFarlane’s discharge reversed. Officially, it is called having the discharge annulled. An annulment makes it as if the discharge never happened. So, if the Trustee is successful, Mr. MacFarlane will be back in bankruptcy. The Trustee also asked that the Court order the payment of the balance of what is owing on the vehicle, for a suspension of the discharge and an amount for costs and disbursements. Mr. MacFarlane represented himself in Court.

The Court was not overly impressed with either Mr. MacFarlane or the Trustee. The Court felt that not did he fail to carry out his responsibilities under the BIA, he actually acted in such a way to deny himself the advantage of any type of latitude the Court might have given him relative to those obligations.

The Court went on to say that his responsibilities under the BIA are not pointers or activities to be carried out when convenient or if life does not get in the way. It was obviously not his place to choose what he would and would not do. Concerning the automobile, it was not his to just sell it, pocket the cash, and tell the Trustee (and by extension his creditors) to go take a hike.

The Court was not too happy with the Trustee

The Court was at a loss to some of the Trustee’s behaviour also. There was no explanation given as to why the Trustee merely gave up on collecting all of the surplus income requirement. Likewise, there was no explanation why the Trustee would have given the bankrupt a discount off of the liquidation value of the vehicle. Such a look is not good for licensed insolvency trustees.

Quite rightly, the Court pointed out that in such situation, licensed insolvency trustees, and specifically this Trustee, should not have recommended to the Court that Mr. MacFarlane receive an absolute order of discharge. Rather, the Trustee should have insisted on a conditional order of discharge. The conditions would have been that the bankrupt pay off both the surplus income balance and the amount owing on the vehicle before being entitled to an absolute order of discharge.llicensed insolvency trustees

The Court’s decision

The Court ordered that:

  1. Mr. MacFarlane’s discharge from bankruptcy be annulled, so now he is once again an undischarged bankrupt.
  2. He must pay the Trustee the $8,662.50 owing on the vehicle.
  3. The Trustee will collect $500 for disbursements in tracing what happened to the vehicle from Mr. MacFarlane also.
  4. There will not be an automatic discharge once he pays the $9,162.50 to the Trustee. Rather, the bankrupt will have to apply to the Court for his discharge and there will be another discharge hearing.
  5. Since the Court was not asked to revisit the balance owing on surplus income, the Court didn’t review that again.
  6. The request of the Trustee for $5,000 as a censure of the bankrupt’s behaviour was denied. The Court said that this situation was caused in part by the Trustee allowing the surplus income requirement to be waived and agreeing to an absolute discharge.

Although not part of the Order, the Court strongly stated that any costs in the additional work done by the Trustee now, and the disposition of the amount to be received once finally paid, will be reviewed by the Court.

The Court emphatically intimated that since the Trustee’s actions were in part to blame for this situation, the Court was going to make sure that part of the $9,162.50 will go to the creditors when the Trustee comes back to Court to have its accounts taxed.

Licensed insolvency trustees conclusion

So there you have it on licensed insolvency trustees. Can a bankruptcy discharge be reversed or revoked? As we see in this case if the discharge was improperly obtained because the bankrupt did not fulfill all of his or her duties, YES. Similarly, if it can be shown that a discharge was obtained through fraud or fraudulent conduct, the discharge can be annulled in that case also.

Whenever I sit down with a person to talk about his or her insolvency, or with an owner of a company to discuss business financial problems, I make sure that we have an entire discussion. I not only talk to them about what process I recommend for their unique situation, but I also walk them through the entire process and what all the rights and responsibilities are. For personal insolvency, this includes the discharge process.

Are you or your business experiencing money troubles? Are you on the verge of bankruptcy? Do not wait till it is far too late to understand how you can restructure your financial affairs and avoid bankruptcy. You do not need to be one more person or company declaring bankruptcy in Canada.

As licensed insolvency trustees, we are the only specialists certified, accredited and overseen by the federal government to provide insolvency guidance and to apply remedies under the BIA. We will certainly help you to choose what is best for you to release you from your debt problems.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can get rid you of the stress, anxiety, pain and discomfort that your money issues have created. With the distinct roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will without delay return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life, Starting Over Staring Now. Call the Ira Smith Team today.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS LAW NOT TO DO?

What is a creditor introduction

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to tell you a true story that all business people can learn from. Especially those wishing to provide consulting services to stakeholders in an insolvency proceeding. Let’s start simply by answering what is a creditor.

A creditor is a person or company that has advanced credit and is owed the payment by a different person or company. The debtor is the party that owes the money and a creditor is a person or company that wishes to be paid.

Vaughan Crossings Inc.

In January 2017, my Firm became the court-appointed receiver of the real property of Vaughan Crossings Inc. (VCI). VCI owned real property comprised of 5.5 acres of commercial development land located at the northwest corner of Dufferin and Centre Streets in the City of Vaughan. The first mortgagee made the application to Court for our appointment. The second mortgagee was a fund made up of many small investors.

Upon our appointment, we learned that the second mortgagee stakeholders had retained a business consultant to advise and assist these investors to try to obtain value out of the receivership from their investment. We dealt with the business consultant throughout the receivership.

It became clear to everyone that there was insufficient value for the second mortgagee group to recoup any funds through the sale of the property. So, the business consultant put together a group which included those who had registered a lien against the property for non-payment and the second mortgagee group.

The business consultant was not paid in cash by the second mortgagee group for his work. His fee and costs were also part of the buying group. They ended up paying above market value in all cash. I was not involved in their financing discussions so, I don’t know how they were able to get the required financing.

The sale was completed and we were discharged as the court-appointed receiver. Now it gets even more interesting.

The business consultant

The second mortgagee group of VCI was put together by a promoter. It turns out that promoter had other properties that they financed by way of the second mortgage the same way. My Firm was not involved in those other properties. However, it appears the same business consultant was involved in at least one other property.

It also appears that the business consultant experienced the same problem in that other property that he did in VCI; no cash to be paid from. In fact, as it turns out, he didn’t even have a retainer to act on behalf of the second mortgage investors in those other properties. That didn’t stop him from trying to work that property and chase his VCI dollars!

The court case

That issue was decided in the court case, The Superintendent of Financial Services v. Textbook Student Suites (525 Princess Street) Trustee Corporation, 2018 ONSC 7392 (CanLII). The consultant’s primary claim is against the Investors’ Committee. He asserts to be entitled to costs for solutions that he executed for the board. He claimed against the Investors’ Committee that because of the work he did in advising them, his charges need to be safeguarded by a court-ordered charge against the properties.

He claims that as a “bankruptcy expert” that his solutions were for the advantage of the stakeholders. Therefore, he ought to be paid his charges in advance of any kind of distributions to lenders.

He also said that his job also helped the lenders in their recuperation of the funds owing to them. He did not provide the court with any case law to support his position. Rather, he was relying on the inherent jurisdiction of the court to order such security.

The analysis

Of course, there was not a written agreement between the consultant and the Investor’s Committee signed by both parties. The Judge stated that the legislation is well-settled that in identifying whether the parties had a binding agreement, the court will take into consideration whether they reached agreement on every one of the material terms. One term that can be material is whether an arrangement requires to be in writing or whether an oral contract will be enough.

As it turns out, there were several drafts of the consultant’s engagement letter discussed with the Chair of the Investors’ Committee. However, the Investor’s Committee found the engagement letter to be too vague. They told the consultant this and asked him to provide a more detailed engagement letter of the activities he would undertake, the time estimate for each phase of his work and what his hourly rate would be for those services. The consultant did not provide a more formal engagement letter and as a result, one was never signed.

Rather, the court found that the consultant continued working. At the same time, he was exchanging emails with the Investors’ Committee. The Committee learned that at this same time, the consultant was trying to strike a deal with the second mortgagee stakeholder in my VCI file. Now the Investors’ Committee felt that the consultant may have a conflict, and did not seek an engagement letter to sign. At the same time, the consultant advised the Investors’ Committee that his retainer, was subject to their legal counsel obtaining a court-ordered charge for his fee and costs ahead of any distribution to be paid to the second mortgage investors.

This email turned out to be the downfall of the consultant in this court case. The court found that by this email, the consultant knew that he did not have that priority, yet was continuing his work. No court application was ever made to obtain that court-ordered charge. The consultant tried advancing all sorts of other arguments as to why he should now be granted the priority claim, but none were persuasive, or even correct!

The Judge ruled against the consultant. So, not only did the consultant not get paid for his work, but he also had costs awarded against him for losing this court battle.

So what is a creditor not to do?

What you should not do is:

  • Not start working if you do not have a properly written retainer to provide the consulting services.
  • Even if you have the properly written retainer, know how you are going to be paid and that the party you are contracting with has the ability to pay.

This is especially true in an insolvency situation. In a receivership or bankruptcy administration, there are many claimants against the assets. Many times the creditor claims are competing. So anyone wishing to provide goods or services to a stakeholder in an insolvency administration better make sure there is a clear contract and know who is going to be actually paying. This consultant found out the hard way that a court is not going to protect you for your mistakes later on, no matter how reasonable you believe it is.

What is a creditor?

Is your business in financial distress because you cannot collect your billings? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your creditors as their bills to you come due?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for financial restructuring, a debt settlement plan and to AVOID bankruptcy.

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A restructuring proposal is a government approved debt settlement plan to do that. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a restructuring proposal vs bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can eliminate the stress, anxiety, and pain from your life that your financial problems have caused. With the one-of-a-kind roadmap, we develop just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

You can have a no-cost analysis so we can help you fix your troubles. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will allow you to go back to a new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over Starting Now.

what is a creditor

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

COURT APPOINTED ESTATE TRUSTEE FROM OUR CASE FILES

320efcd005100f3ee3522fefba70f917 3

Court appointed estate trustee: Introduction

In last week’s vlog, CLAIM BANKRUPTCY IN ONTARIO CASE STUDY: SHE REALLY WANTED TO BUT WE STOPPED HER AND SOLVED HER PROBLEMS, our video provided a case study about a doctor we helped solve her pain and get her life back on track. This week, I want to tell you about another one of our cases where we acted as the court appointed estate trustee. It was a bit unusual, however, it did call on me to use my skill sets as a licensed insolvency trustee.

It seems straightforward so what do you need us for?

An estates lawyer we know contacted us to help him solve a problem for his client. His client was a single man. His mother, whose husband predeceased her, passed away. Her only assets were two pieces of real estate; one a commercial property and the other the family home. The fully leased commercial property was producing income.

On the surface, it appeared to be a very simple situation. Two pieces of real estate and the only beneficiaries were the single man and his single sister. There were no spouses or grandchildren involved. So I asked our lawyer friend the obvious question: “It seems straightforward so what do you need us for?”.

The facts

The lawyer told me that:

  1. his client and his sister cannot agree on anything;
  2. the sister’s lawyer is making unreasonable requests;
  3. the sister is a hoarder, which is a mental health issue;
  4. nobody lives in the home and the utilities turned off services a long time ago; and
  5. the sister has hoarded so much personal property in the home you cannot get past the front door!

The lawyer went on to say that the situation cries out for an expert to intervene to get things done so that the properties can be sold and the funds distributed. Neither sibling is capable of agreeing with the other and then doing what needs to be done. The receivership fees to solve their problems would be less than the legal fees spent fighting and not solving anything.

Please don’t call me the receiver

After a thorough discussion with the lawyer, I said it sounds like what you need is a for the Court to appoint a receiver. The lawyer responded that he felt he could get the other side to agree to the appointment of a custodian, but not to any proceedings called anything remotely close to a receiver or licensed insolvency trustee.

I said to my lawyer friend, that problem is easy to solve. How about we call ourselves either an estate trustee or asset manager? He loved the asset manager title.

The agreement

We took part in a conference call with our lawyer friend and the lawyer for the sister. Everyone discussed all the issues and we pointed out our firm’s wealth of experience in acting as a receiver in complex real estate matters.

Each lawyer agreed that assuming the finer points could be worked out, the brother’s lawyer would go ahead with a motion, on consent, to have our Firm act as the court appointed asset manager.

We provided our lawyer friend with a copy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Commercial List model receivership order. He then amended it to fit the particulars of this situation and to do a global change from receiver to the title asset manager.

The appointment

Of course, the finer points could not be agreed to. Rather than the matter proceeding on a consent basis, the motion was argued. After hearing all arguments and considering all the evidence, the Court appointed our firm as the asset manager. The commercial property did not have any problems associated with it, so other than to tell you that the property sold, the rest of this story will concentrate on the residence.

ISI 4

Selling the house was the easiest part

The house was not just a house. It was the entire reason for the sister’s existence. Given the mental health issues, we quickly realized that from her perspective, we were about to take away her only joy in life; being able to enter the home and see her loot. It did not matter to her that nobody could enjoy the home and that it was mold infested. This was her baby and we were about to take her baby away from her.

Given these issues, our role was as much like that of a guardian for adults as much as it was about the property in Ontario.

We first obtained quotes for the removal of all of her personal property from the home. I realized that removing the property from the house would only give us another problem as hoarders are not willing to let go of anything. We had to devise a method where the sister would choose what was garbage and what would go to storage. However, even the storage could not go on forever.

The removal plan

We presented our plan to both lawyers. All the items would be removed in front of the sister. If the brother wished to attend he could, but it was not a need. We would also prepay from the proceeds of the sale of the home for six months of storage. That way we capped the brother’s liability for expenses. As items left the house, the sister had to say “garbage” or “storage”. Both sides agreed.

The removal began. What should have taken two weeks took six! The reason was due to mental health issues getting in the way of progress. We understood this and just had to work with it. Eventually, we completed the removal of personal property. We could finally see the entire inside of the house.

We entered with a firm we use to investigate and if necessary do environmental damage remediation work; Hazmat suits and all! Surprisingly, although there was mold, we obtained a verbal report that for our purposes, the home was safe for our purposes to enter for brief periods of time for a realtor and potential purchaser to view. Therefore, we did not need to do any remediation work.

Appraise and sell

The rest of the case could now go ahead. We obtained two appraisals of the house. The house was on a great lot in Toronto in a hot housing market. We listed the house for sale. Due to the house’s condition, it would attract a developer/renovator type of buyer.

After one week on the market, we received four offers to purchase. We rejected all of them and asked for everyone’s best and final offer. The final offer we accepted, subject to Court approval, was above market value. Working with our independent legal counsel, we put our motion material together, obtained the consent of both sides and then obtained Court approval for the sale.

We completed the sale, developed our distribution plan, obtained Court approval for that, distributed the funds and got our discharge.

Court appointed estate trustee: Do you have a financial problem that needs someone else to help you solve?

I present this case study to show how, as a licensed insolvency trustee in the GTA, we can use our skills set in a way that may not seem obvious at first. We look at the entire story of each person or company that comes to us for help.

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 dealt with this problem and devised an alternate plan for the siblings, allowed them to monetize the assets they were incapable of doing on their own and letting them get on with their lives.

We know that people facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. 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 back on the road to a healthy stress-free life and recover from the pain points in your life.

court appointed estate trustee
court appointed estate trustee
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CURRENT INSOLVENCY ASSIGNMENTS: A WARNING TO ALL CREDITORS TO STAY IN THE PRESENT TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS

Current insolvency assignments: Introduction

One of our current insolvency assignments teaches creditors a valuable lesson if they wish to take part in a debtor’s restructuring proposal. Every licensed insolvency trustee maintains a website listing their current insolvency assignments that are noteworthy or of public interest. Today I want to tell you about a recent case of ours. It is not of public interest, but it is noteworthy, especially for trustees and lawyers practicing in the insolvency area. Notwithstanding the large volume of receivership and bankruptcy case-law, the issue we came across was novel and never decided in Court before.

Current insolvency assignments: Mr. and Mrs. R

Mr. R was the sole shareholder of a company that serviced the construction industry. Both Mr. and Mrs. R were both Officers and Directors of the company. The company became insolvent, could not continue and ceased operating. Mr. and Mrs. R., in addition to their personal debts, which were significant, were now also faced with extensive claims against them in their capacity as Directors.

Current insolvency assignments: Consultation with Mr. and Mrs. R

Mr. and Mrs. R’s litigation lawyer referred them to us. We advised them that they should not declare bankruptcy, but rather attempt to avoid bankruptcy and restructure by filing a joint proposal under Part III Division I of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). Their had a complicated situation and they required an immediate stay of proceedings to deal with all the lawsuits against them.

Therefore, we first filed a joint Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal (NOI) on June 8, 2016. This first step provided Mr. and Mrs. R with a first 30-day grace period, where no creditor could begin or continue legal proceedings or enforcement against them while we were working with them to finish developing their restructuring proposal.

Current insolvency assignments: A certain creditor’s reaction

As Trustee, we served the NOI on all known creditors by ordinary mail, as we are required to under the BIA. We served one creditor, Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) at two addresses: i) legal counsel for RBC; and ii) BH, an agent for RBC that we regularly deal with. At the time of mailing out the NOI, we did not know if this agent would be on the file, but we provided them with notice out of to be extra cautious. We mailed the NOI on June 9, 2016.

The NOI sent to the creditors, including RBC, did not contain any proposal whatsoever, because it had not been written yet! This is standard for the filing of an NOI before the proposal.

In response to the NOI, by letter dated June 20, 2016, we received, from another agent for RBC that we had never dealt with before and who was not on our original mailing list, two proofs of claim, each in the amount of $438,434.31; one proof for each of Mr. and Mrs. R, individually.

This agent also sent a voting letter. It asked the Trustee to count RBC’s vote “with respect to the proposal” of Mr. and Mrs. R “against acceptance of the proposal made as of the 08th day of June, 2016.”

Current insolvency assignments: The Trustee’s reaction

On June 22, we wrote to the agent advising that the Trustee’s position was that because no proposal was yet in existence, the RBC “vote” was invalid and that RBC would have to offer a proper voting letter once it received the proposal. This was also sent to RBC’s counsel. The Trustee received no response to this communication.

Current insolvency assignments: The joint proposal of Mr. and Mrs. R

The debtors, Mr. and Mrs. R, filed a proposal July 7. We served the proposal on all creditors. The Trustee served RBC three ways to: i) RBC’s counsel; ii) RBC’s agent BH; and iii) the agent who wrote us the June 22 letter with enclosures. Our package included not only the proposal but notice of the first meeting of creditors and forms for proof of claim and a voting letter.

We received nothing further from RBC. The meeting proceeded on July 27. RBC did not attend. One creditor, with a claim of $278,561.29, attended and voted for the joint proposal. The joint proposal was deemed to have been accepted. Consistent with our position, as Trustee, we did not count the RBC June 22 “vote”.

(2017), 2017 ONSC 4234, 2017 CarswellOnt 12497, Rizzo, Re

Current insolvency assignments: Off to Court for approval

After the acceptance of a proposal by the requisite majority of the creditors, a licensed insolvency trustee must make application to Court, for approval of the proposal. The proposal is not binding until there is a valid and subsisting approval order of the Court.

Our motion for approval of the joint restructuring proposal of the debtors, Mr. and Mrs. R, was heard on August 9, 2016. RBC opposed. RBC opposed on the basis that its vote against the joint proposal was not counted. RBC’s vote, if counted, would have defeated the proposal and Mr. and Mrs. R would be bankrupt.

Our lawyer made various submissions, including, that the “vote” of RBC:

  • was not valid;
  • that RBC was advised of this and did nothing to file a valid vote; and
  • RBC failed to attend the meeting of creditors.

As indicated above, only one creditor voted; it voted in favour of the joint proposal.

RBC claimed its vote was valid and ought to have been counted. The Court did not go so far as to say a creditor could never lodge a valid vote against a proposal before receiving it. In this case, the Court agreed with us and found the vote was not valid. The Court went on to say that the Trustee was correct in not counting it.

Current insolvency assignments: What the Court said

The threshold question was whether the Trustee was right to reject RBC’s purported “vote.” Section 53 of the BIA permits a creditor to assent or dissent “from a proposal” before a meeting. Section 54 says the creditors may accept or refuse “the proposal” at the meeting. However, the statutory scheme for creditor voting assumes there is a proposal.

The Court found that:

  • the agent’s purported “vote” was on its face defective;
  • there was no proposal of June 8;
  • RBC or its agent had never seen the joint proposal when it voted;
  • the Trustee was right to reject an obviously defective “vote”;
  • the Trustee made its position abundantly clear to RBC’s agents; and
  • RBC had every opportunity to cure the defect and it failed to do so.

Current insolvency assignments: What the Court ordered

The Court found that:

  • the Trustee was correct in rejecting the June 22 “vote”; and
  • RBC was not denied due process.

The Court granted our motion for approval of the joint proposal and awarded us our costs.

Current insolvency assignments: What does this mean?

What this means is very simple. Make sure that in anything you do, you understand what the rules are, don’t take your eye off the ball and never fall asleep at the switch. If this creditor’s agent and legal counsel had merely reacted to the mailing of the joint proposal and cast a proper vote, we never would have ended up in this situation.

There was nothing wrong with the proof of claim (although it was filed unnecessarily in duplicate). All RBC’s agent or lawyer had to do when it received the joint proposal mailing, was take 2 minutes to complete a new voting letter and send it in to the Trustee. If they had done this simple step, assuming they voted against the joint proposal, Mr. and Mrs. R would now be bankrupts. Instead, they are making their proposal payments to the Trustee to restructure themselves and avoided bankruptcy.

Mr. and Mrs. R have each secured full-time employment, and are making more money than in the last few years of running their company.

Current insolvency assignments: What to do because of too much debt

Being a Director of a corporation can be risky business. If the corporation is insolvent and continues to carry on business, and you continue to act as a Director, it can land you in a personal financial mess.

Are you experiencing financial distress because of acting as a Director or otherwise? Is your business struggling and you can’t seem to find a way out?

If you’re struggling with debt for any reason Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. can help. We’re experts in dealing with debt. Give us a call today and take the first step towards conquering debt Starting Over, Starting Now.

2016 CarswellOnt 21774, 2016 ONSC 8192, IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF MARCO RIZZO AND ANGELA RIZZO

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

STALKING HORSE BID: DO YOU REALLY WANT 2 STALK YOUR ADORABLE HORSE?

stalking horse bid
stalking horse bid

This blog was originally published on July 21, 2015. It was updated on March 22, 2021.

Bankruptcy Sales: What Is a Stalking-Horse Bid?

A stalking horse bid, in the Canadian insolvency context, is an attempt by a company (and/or its Monitor, Receiver or Trustee ) in a Court supervised insolvency proceeding, to set what will be the baseline that must be met and beaten by any other bids for the assets. The intent is to maximize the value of its assets as part of a Court supervised sales process and to discourage any bid below a certain value.

A stalking horse is a process that allows a potential buyer (the stalking horse bidder) to make a public bid for a company’s assets in order to set a floor price for the amount of money to be received by the company’s creditors in a (bankruptcy) sale. The stalking horse bidder will get to purchase the company’s assets if no other bidder comes forward. The stalking horse provision allows for the bidding process terms and conditions to be set in a court-supervised sale.

In this Brandon Blog, I describe the stalking horse bid process and how it works

What’s a stalking horse bid? Example of a stalking horse bid

According to Wikipedia:

“The term stalking horse originally derived from the practice of hunting, particularly of wildfowl. Hunters noticed that many birds would flee immediately on the approach of humans, but would tolerate the close presence of animals such as horses and cattle. Hunters would therefore slowly approach their quarry by walking alongside their horses, keeping their upper bodies out of sight until the flock was within firing range. Animals trained for this purpose were called stalking horses.”

In an insolvency context, a stalking horse bid stands to test the market to see how the market values the assets for sale. If the market values the assets less than the amount of the stalking horse bid, then no one will bid higher and the party who made the stalking horse bid will be successful in acquiring the assets.

If the market values the assets more than the amount of the stalking horse bid, the higher offers will be made for the assets and for the Court to consider for approval. Presumably, a higher offer will be approved, the purchaser will purchase the assets and the stalking horse bid will not prevail.

stalking horse bid
stalking horse bid

How a Stalking-Horse Bid Works

The stalking-horse bid method allows a distressed company to avoid receiving low ball bids as its assets are being sold. Once the stalking-horse bidder has made its offer and it has been negotiated and court-approved, other potential buyers may submit competing bids for the company’s assets.

By setting the low end of the bidding range, the insolvent company hopes to realize a higher price on its assets. Insolvency proceedings are public. The public nature allows for the disclosure of more information about the deal and the buyer than what would be available in a private deal.

Stalking-horse bidders can generally negotiate which particular assets and liabilities it hopes to acquire. After the stalking horse bid is negotiated resulting in an asset purchase agreement, it will be necessary for the company, Receiver or Trustee to obtain Court approval of not only the stalking horse bid but also for the entire sales process to be implemented.

If the company is attempting to restructure and requires “bankruptcy protection”, then those corporate proceedings would be either under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) or the Proposal provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”). In that situation, it is the company making an application to the Court with the support and assistance of the monitor or proposal trustee.

If it is a corporate receivership or bankruptcy proceeding, then it is either the receiver or bankruptcy trustee making the application. In the case of bankrupt corporations, then it is the bankruptcy court that needs to approve the stalking horse bid, the entire sales process and approve the sale.

What does it take to get bankruptcy court approval?

When applying to the Court, approval for an entire sales process is being sought, a component of which is the stalking horse agreement. The Court has various considerations in determining if a stalking horse sale process should be approved. They are:

  • Is a sale transaction warranted at this time?
  • Will the sale benefit the whole “economic community”?
  • Do any of the debtors’ creditors have a bona fide reason to object to a sale process of the business?
  • Is there a better viable alternative?”

In the event the stalking horse bid is not the successful winner because of the other potential bidders at least one made a better offer, it is normal for the stalking horse purchaser to receive some form of compensation. The compensation is for the time, cost and resources invested to perform its due diligence, to make its offer which was found to be reasonable in the circumstances and to expose that offer to the marketplace to stand as a stalking horse bid, and for that bidder to not end up as the successful purchaser.

Our Firm has been involved in situations where the stalking horse bid has been both the successful bid unsuccessful bid. If the compensation, commonly known as break-up fees, is fair and reasonable, it will not dissuade other purchasers from coming forward in the sales process, and it will also be fair to the stalking horse bidder if they are unsuccessful. It is fair to the stalking horse bidder to have these bid protections incorporated into their offer.

The Court in considering the approval of a stalking horse bid also considers if the breakup fee, and the entire stalking horse bid, has been negotiated between arms’-length parties and has the support of the stakeholders involved in the insolvency proceeding.

stalking horse bid
stalking horse bid

The Pros and Cons of Being A Stalking Horse Bidder for Assets In Bankruptcy

There are various pros and cons to being a stalking horse bidder and making the stalking horse bid. First the advantages:

  • First to tie up the company’s management, perform due diligence thereby dealing exclusively with the company for the proposed purchase of its assets.
  • Gaining the advantage of time and access to the company’s financial information.
  • Having the time to be able to understand the company’s problems and challenges.
  • Getting under contract for the assets the purchaser wants to acquire.

The cons of making the stalking horse bid are:

  • Making sure that you set the break fee high enough to fully compensate the stalking horse bidder.
  • Not having too long a time period between approval of the stalking horse bid and the time when other bids must be submitted to avoid the assets or the company’s operations worsening through the process.
  • Would it have been better not to have been the stalking horse bidder and see how the company and its assets fare before having to submit a bid?
  • If the stalking horse bidder is not a secured lender, is there a likelihood the secured lenders will bid their security which will outbid yours?
  • If there is more than one acceptable bid, then an auction process is required to determine the successful bidder. The stalking horse bidder may not wish to participate in such an auction and will end up losing out.

Can a secured creditor credit bid? Cirque du Soleil agrees to ‘stalking horse’ takeover bid from lenders worth $375M

One of the most recent high-profile successful stalking horse bids was the Cirque du Soleil insolvency proceeding under the CCAA. In that case, a takeover proposal from the Cirque du Soleil’s secured creditors has been approved as the benchmark bid for a court-supervised auction of the insolvent entertainment company.

That is called a credit bid. When the secured creditor bids all or a portion of its outstanding loan. This will be done in situations where the secured creditor believes that the value of the assets to be sold is less than the amount owed, yet the company’s assets can be used to run a viable business. In that situation, the secured creditor would rather bid its security with the company debt to take over the assets.

By making a credit bid, the secured creditor potential purchaser does not need to come up with cash for the purchase price. However, cash will be required to make certain payments to parties the company business cannot operate without and to have working capital going forward.

If they bid the full amount of their loan and get outbid in other purchase agreements, it means they get fully paid out. Otherwise, they get the assets to run the company, bring it back to financial good health and profitability. Eventually, then they will sell the healthy company to recoup their money plus make a profit.

Stalking horse bid summary

If your company is experiencing financial difficulties, don’t waste your time stalking horses or any other animal. Seek the advice of your professional advisers. The earlier you seek financial help the more options will be open to you. Contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. today. We’ll review your corporate issues and come up with a sound plan so that Starting Over, Starting Now you can enjoy financial peace of mind.

stalking horse bid
stalking horse bid
Call a Trustee Now!