Tag: court appointed receiver

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS A RECEIVERSHIP? OUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO RECEIVERSHIP SOLUTIONS

what is a receivership?

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.

What is a receivership?

What is a receivership is a question I am asked often. Receivership is a remedy available to secured lenders to recoup as much of their debt as possible. A secured creditor, normally a financial institution, has lent funds to the company or individual under a secured financing transaction. They did it this way so in the event the company or person defaults on its finance payments, they can enforce against the assets subject to the security.

Receivership is a different process than bankruptcy for the sale of the properties of a corporation. In Canada, the secured creditor is typically the Bank as the lender. Normally, when a borrower misses payments, they tend to be insolvent. However, it is possible to have a receivership in Ontario even if the borrower is not insolvent.

In this Brandon Blog, I am going to tell you all about receivership. What is a receivership? How it works. When it can be used? What types of receivership are there?

What is a receivership? Examples of receivership in a sentence

What is a receivership? Receivership is a legal proceeding. Either a secured creditor privately appoints the receiver by instrument or a court appoints a person or company, called a receiver, to collect and manage the assets of a person or business that is unable to manage those assets effectively.

To understand more about the receivership process, we first need to look at the types of receivership. These are:

  • Liquidating receivership – This is a type of receivership that is brought about when a company ceases operations because the management of the company is unable to make it a viable business again. If the business is not viable, then the receiver will not operate it and will find buyers for the assets.
  • Operating receivership – This form of receivership is when parts of the company are viable or must otherwise continue operating under receivership. The business assets have a great deal of value if operating, but if shut down, relatively no value. In this case, the receiver will continue operating the business and the secured creditor will agree to lend funds if the business’s cash flow is insufficient. While operating the business, the receiver will also look for buyers.

The word “receiver” originally meant “a person appointed by a court to manage the affairs of another, especially a bankrupt or insolvent“. The term is now more widely applied and refers to a person placed in temporary charge and control of another person’s assets or a business entity. A receivership is a form of governance used in a wide range of situations. It is particularly common in the fields of law and business.

What is a receivership in a sentence – A receivership is a legal process started by a secured creditor either privately appointing a receiver by instrument or making an application to the court for an order that forces a party to carry out the duties of a receiver over the assets of a company or person.

what is a receivership
what is a receivership?

In Canada, section 243(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) dictates that only a licensed insolvency trustee can act as a receiver. From the above, you should now realize that there are two types of receivers: (i) privately appointed receiver; and (ii) court-appointed receiver.

What is a receivership? 10 – Day Notice of Intention to Enforce Security

Section 244 of the BIA relates to a secured creditor who intends to enforce its security against an insolvent debtor, either through private appointment or by making an application to the court. This section states that any secured creditor who intends to enforce against all, or substantially all, of the inventory, accounts receivable or other property used by the insolvent debtor in its business, must give adequate notice. The notice must be in writing by using the form prescribed by the BIA.

The BIA defines adequate as a minimum of 10 days. A secured creditor must send out the 10-day notice of intention to enforce security and cannot enforce its security until the 10 days have expired unless the debtor consents in writing to earlier enforcement. The purpose of giving the 10-day notice is to allow the insolvent debtor a chance to either negotiate some resolution with the secured creditor or otherwise attempt to reorganize its financial affairs. An example of reorganizing would be speaking with new potential lenders, consideration of assets that could be sold to repay or otherwise reduce the indebtedness to the unhappy secured creditor.

The insolvent debtor may also be considering invoking an insolvency process such as a Division I Proposal under the BIA to reorganize all of its debts to implement a financial reorganization strategy. If a proposal or a notice of intention to make a proposal under the BIA is filed by the insolvent debtor before the expiry of the 10 day period, then the enforcement action of the secured creditor has initially stayed.

That secured creditor would have to make an application to the court to show that it has lost total confidence in the insolvent debtor’s abilities and it will not support any reorganization attempt. The application is to lift the automatic stay of proceedings that happened when the insolvent debtor filed, to allow the secured creditor to enforce its security against the assets to try to recover as much of the secured debt as possible through the appointment of a receiver.

Why did 10 days become the official notice period? This was part of amendments to the BIA made in 2009. It arose as a .esult of court decisions over what is reasonable notice. The most famous case is one that insolvency practitioners refer to as Lister v. Dunlop. The case made its way all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The proper name of the case is R.E. Lister Ltd. v. Dunlop Canada Ltd., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 726. The decision was released on May 31, 1982.

The case dealt with a variety of issues, including what is receivership. Another of the issues considered was a reasonable notice to be given when a secured creditor demanded repayment of its demand loan, due to one or more defaults on loan? The most common default is defaulting on making the required loan payments on time. The loan agreement and debenture securing the loan stated that it was a demand loan and that the lender must give reasonable notice when making the demand.

However, in the “old days”, there was never a definition of what reasonable notice was. In fact, in Ontario, the law at the time was that reasonable notice only came into being if the business owner asked for a time to repay the loan. What was reasonable was a matter of discussion and negotiation. In Lister v. Dunlop, it was determined that Dunlop did not provide reasonable notice, based on the specific facts in that case.

Case law evolved and eventually, in 2009, the BIA was amended as part of the new provisions to bring receivership under the BIA and receivers subject to the supervision of the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada. The 10 day notice period was Parliament’s way to try to codify what reasonable notice is.

Court Appointed Receivers vs. Privately Appointed Receivers

As discussed above, receivers are appointed when secured creditors want to recover on their secured loans. Receivership is a remedy for secured creditors. It is not a remedy for unsecured creditors. The intent is for the receiver to take possession of the insolvent company assets subject to the security agreement and conduct a sale of assets. The proceeds of the sale will then be distributed in accordance with the priority of the creditors under the BIA. The secured creditor should want to make sure that it is in the first place to receive the funds from the receiver, for the receivership process they are paying for!

From the above, by now, you have probably realized that a privately appointed receiver is appointed in writing by the secured creditor. The receiver gets properly retained and then is given an appointment letter by the secured creditor after the 10 day notice period has either passed or was waived by the insolvent debtor. The privately appointed receiver gets its powers from the security documents which will outline the approved steps the receiver can take.

Court-appointed receivers, as the term implies, are appointed by the court. The secured creditor properly retains the receiver and makes an application to the court for the appointment of the receiver. The secured creditor is the plaintiff in this litigation. If the court grants the order, then the court-appointed receiver begins the receivership administration. The powers and responsibilities of the court-appointed receiver come from the court order, called the Appointment Order.

The steps the receiver will take in determining what method will realize the most money possible from the sale of assets should be pretty well identical under both a court-appointed receivership and a privately appointed receivership. The analysis of how and the steps to be taken to realize the most money possible from the assets of the company in receivership should be the same, regardless of the form of appointment.

Either way, as stated above, the receiver must be a licensed insolvency trustee who is experienced in acting as a licensed insolvency practitioner.

what is a receivership
what is a receivership

What is a receivership? Duties of a receiver

Receivers are required to act honestly and in good faith. A privately appointed receiver has a duty to the secured creditor who appointed the receiver. A court-appointed receiver has a duty to act in good faith to all creditors.

The main roles of the receiver, whether private or court-appointed, can be summarized as to:

  • Secure all the assets of the insolvent debtor pledged under the security agreement or covered by the Appointment Order.
  • Make sure the receiver has control of property, the assets are conserved and properly insured.
  • Advance the rights of the debtor with the approval of either the secured creditor or the court. This could include continuing or beginning any necessary litigation.
  • Formulate the plan to maximize the realization from the sale of assets. This also involves a decision as to whether or not to operate the business of the company.
  • Offer the assets for sale in a properly advertised public sale.
  • Complete the sale and distribute the net proceeds in accordance with the provisions of the BIA.
  • Make regular reporting to the court and/or the appointing creditor
  • Obtain the approval of the secured creditor, and under a court appointment, approval of the court for all actions to be taken by the receiver.
  • In a court appointment, to obtain the approval of the court for its fee and disbursements and for those of the receiver’s legal counsel.

The Appointment Order generally will give the court-appointed receiver extensive powers.

I want to summarize the difference between company receivership and bankruptcy

I find that many times people will confuse the terms receivership and bankruptcy. What is a receivership is not the same as what is bankruptcy. I want to summarize the difference between company receivership and bankruptcy. There are important differences between bankruptcy and receivership.

The terms bankruptcy and receivership are often mistakenly used; they are not the very same thing. Bankruptcy is a legal process for unsecured creditors. The bankruptcy of a person and that person’s discharge from bankruptcy acts to discharge that person’s unsecured debt. As a company is never discharged from bankruptcy, the bankruptcy process has the effect of ending the company’s business.

What is a receivership? Receivership on the other hand, is a legal process for the benefit of secured creditors that safeguards their security if an insolvent borrower defaults on its secured debt financial obligations.

what is a receivership
what is a receivership?

What is a receivership? Is receivership the right solution for you?

I hope you enjoyed the what is a receivership Brandon Blog post. I have gone to great lengths to describe what is a receivership, the different types of receivership and that it is a remedy for secured creditors. However, many times, if properly handled, it can also assist the business owner. The entrepreneur may be very frustrated that the company can no longer pay all its debts as they come due and is looking for a way out, a way to sell the business or a way to get rid of the sick parts of the business and keep the good parts.

There may be sufficient value to take care of the secured creditor, but nothing for anyone else, including the unsecured creditors. There may be some business units that should not survive, but if cut out, the business will be viable. A receivership might very well accomplish the goals for the entrepreneur also. I have many times structured a receivership process, in order to meet the goals of the entrepreneur, while satisfying the requirements of the secured creditor.

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 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.

what is a receivership
what is a receivership?
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE TORONTO CORONAVIRUS EXTRAORDINARY PLAN TO BUSINESS RECOVERY

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.

[monkeytools msnip=”https://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=22255″]

Introduction

For businesses having a hard time enduring the Toronto coronavirus pandemic, insolvency may very well be the outcome. General insolvency filings were down in April, this is mainly because everyone has a built-in stay of proceedings right now.

Banks, credit card companies and collection agencies are not making a name for themselves right now during the Toronto coronavirus lockdown by harassing people who cannot afford to pay their regular monthly payment. However, that will not last too long.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss options available to the entrepreneur if the Toronto coronavirus lockdown and quarantine wreaks havoc on your business.

Telltale signs from the United States

We have already seen the variety of companies that submitted to Chapter 11 insolvency. They did so in order to attempt to reorganize their financial obligations while trying to stay in business. This has been especially true for the large retail business sector. Their business problems were not caused by COVID-19. However, the pandemic merely accelerated where they were heading anyway.

The American Bankruptcy Institute reported that Chapter 11 filings in April 2020 represent a 26% boost from April 2019.

I have previously written about Modell’s Sporting Goods and Pier 1. Now we can add Neiman Marcus, JCPenney and J.Crew. Outside of the retail sector, Hertz Car Rental, Gold’s Gym, Foodora and Virgin Australia are also recent restructuring filings. I also really believe that it won’t be long before the floodgates open up to subject an excess of small firms looking for relief from their financial problems, in North America and the rest of the world. That is probably obvious to you, it really can’t be called a Toronto coronavirus news update!

Entrepreneurs are doing whatever they can

I have definitely noticed an uptick in telephone calls from people scared about their personal situation and from worried business owners in the past 4 weeks. They aren’t all set to throw in the towel right now. They are attempting to do whatever they can through the shutdown to stabilize their company. So for now, they are trying to take advantage of various federal government programs to help them stay afloat. The programs include:

However, the people I am talking to are also realists. They all understand that if what they are doing now doesn’t work, they will either have to try to restructure the company or have it go bankrupt. So for now, there is somewhat of a pause in remedies such as distraints, repossessions, terminations of leases and financial institution collections.

The moratorium won’t last forever

Right now the Canadian federal government is taking the lead. They have extended timelines for filing income tax and HST returns and paying amounts owing. They have also extended certain relief programs from their original expiration date of June 30. Right now, subject to a further extension, of course, it looks like the feds are shooting for September 30 to end the COVID-19 assistance programs.

Ultimately, the patience for non-payment being shown right now by landlords and creditors won’t last permanently. I expect business bankruptcy protection and bankruptcy filings to climb after the “all clear” is sounded on this Toronto coronavirus state of emergency and the government assistance ends. The pent up collection activity will go into full flight.

The floodgates will open. I expect one of the worst offenders to be the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). There will be so many companies in default of their tax payment obligations. The government is spending trillions of dollars to prop up the Canadian economy. Those programs will have to be paid for and all the IOU’s will be called in.

It seems that everybody I have spoken with is simply waiting until this Toronto coronavirus period quiets down. The pool of business problems is overflowing right now.

Corporate bankruptcy is not the only option for a company battling its financial demons. There are going to be three categories of insolvent companies:

  1. Those who are too small and it just does not make sense for them to do anything other than paying the employees their final salary, wages and vacation pay. Then file their final corporate and income tax files. Then, turn the key in the door and walk away.
  2. A company that has just a few creditors and all or some of the business operations remains viable. They can negotiate with their creditors for a reduction in each amount owing on a creditor by creditor basis. The reason this does not work if there is a large group of creditors is because of human nature. Everyone is worried that the next person is getting a better deal. By the time you get the last person to say yes, the first person may have changed their mind. There is no way to independently satisfy all the creditors that nobody is getting a better deal. In reality, some are getting a better arrangement than others. It will be based on the negotiation ability of the creditor and how essential maintaining the supply of their product or service from them is.
  3. Businesses where all or some of their operations remain viable. However, the company can only survive if it can chop off the sick parts and eliminate however much debt they need to so that the newly restructured company is solvent.
  4. Companies with complex issues needing to assign their assets to a licensed insolvency trustee through a bankruptcy or whose secured creditor will enforce on their security by appointing a receiver, either a private receiver or court-appointed receiver.

Toronto coronavirus induced restructuring

If you anticipate your entire business or certain business units will remain viable but require relief from its creditors and debts, the first look at restructuring. This route enables a company to stay functioning while renegotiating its financial obligations. This process includes looking critically at all business units and determining how operations can be made more efficient in order to improve profitability. Many hard decisions will have to be made.

Companies have two choices in Canada for restructuring. For the larger restructurings, the kind that you read in the newspaper, the restructuring statute is the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). In order to qualify for restructuring under the CCAA, the company has to owe its creditors at least $5 million.

All other companies restructure under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) restructuring provisions. It is called Part III Division I of the BIA. Regular readers of Brandon’s Blog will know that I have written several blogs before on aspects of both the CCAA and restructuring under the BIA.

In my blog, BANKRUPTCY EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON US & CDN SMALL BIZ RESTRUCTURING, I lamented the fact that the Canadian insolvency system does not have a streamlined restructuring process for smaller companies. We have the consumer proposal restructuring under the BIA for smaller personal insolvent debtors trying to restructure.

The United States has the Small Company Reorganization Act (SBRA) of 2019, also known as “Subchapter 5”. The SBRA is aimed at simplifying restructuring procedures for small companies by boosting efficiency, lowering costs, and easing the restructuring plan confirmation process. I believe this would be a great addition to the Canadian insolvency system. It may very well move some companies from my #1 category listed above into #3.

There is no sense dwelling any longer on what we don’t have. The Toronto coronavirus news today has affected so many companies. Many will just not survive. Others will be able to come out of the other side of this Toronto coronavirus pandemic but will need major surgery to stay alive.

The first step for any entrepreneur is to get professional advice in order to strategize and make a decision on what plan to put into place. You should speak either to a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) or a lawyer who has experience in insolvency matters.

Most licensed insolvency trustees will provide a one-hour no-cost strategy session.

You need to understand whether or not you have a viable business and company. Then, you need to have a sensible plan to increase your chances of success based on the viability analysis.

Both Ira and I have been doing many such strategy sessions over the telephone and video meeting since the Toronto coronavirus self-quarantine lockdown came into effect. I know that we will be doing many more as the city and the province begin to open up.

The goals of the entrepreneur have to be the driving force. For example, if the entrepreneur is adamant about staying in business, then you have to hope that business viability can be proven so that the likelihood of a successful restructuring is enhanced. On the other hand, if you can prove business viability but the entrepreneur has had enough and wants out, then you look at the restructuring and sale of the viable business parts.

Once viability is established, then a restructuring plan can be developed. The restructuring will take place either under the BIA or CCAA. Depending on the circumstances and the goals of the entrepreneur, either a refinancing of the restructured company of a sale of the business is part of any restructuring plan.

Business not viable

If the business is not viable, then pure restructuring is not possible. However, that does not mean that the assets that form the business unit cannot be used by someone else to efficiently run the business. I am not just talking about hard assets. Things such as patents, trademarks, processes, experienced workforce and the customer base before they go off to find a new supplier are all valuable parts of a business.

Perhaps the tangible and intangible assets can be sold to someone that can bring them into their existing operation and run the business profitably. Jobs can be saved also if this were to happen.

When this is the case, then you are into some form of liquidation. A secured creditor will move for the appointment of a receiver. As I have written before on this topic, the appointment can either be by way of a private appointment or an application to the court for a court-appointed receiver.

If there are no secured creditors, the security taken is invalid, or there are other factors that make a bankruptcy necessary, then the company can assign itself to bankruptcy. It isn’t every day you find this, but in a recent corporate bankruptcy filing that I am administering, I found that the security of the purported secured creditor was invalid as against us as Trustee.

Then either the receiver or Trustee can take possession of the assets, run a well-advertised and managed sales process and hopefully find a buyer for the assets to comprise all or many parts of the operating business. If such a buyer does not exist, then it will be a straight liquidation of individual assets. Obviously, higher values can be achieved when selling what amounts to a business rather than just individual assets in a liquidation.

Personal guarantees and director liabilities

In any corporate or business insolvency, the exposure of the directors has to be taken into consideration. This is not Toronto coronavirus news. It is normal for entrepreneurs to have to give a personal guarantee to a lender in addition to the security taken. Such a guarantee can be backed up by specific personal assets as collateral, or be an unsecured guarantee. Or, an entrepreneur has to indemnify the landlord as part of the corporation leasing premises.

Directors also have certain liabilities under provincial or federal law. Generally, directors will have personal liability for:

The exposure of directors must be recognized and taken into account in any restructuring attempt.

Toronto Coronavirus Summary

Businesses all over will look different due to the Toronto coronavirus pandemic and lockdown. The current environment is unprecedented and is teaching all of us things we have never seen before.

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

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

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

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

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. During this Toronto coronavirus state of emergency, we are doing telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences that 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.

toronto coronavirus

 

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TOP COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER SECRET: DETAILS MATTER

court appointed receiver

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

Introduction

I recently read an interesting case from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta involving a court appointed receiver. To me, it highlights that sometimes the simplest of things can provide major difficulty. I will explain, but first, I will go over some basic facts that will help you understand the issue in this case better.

What is a court appointed receiver?

When a borrower defaults on its borrowing agreement, typically by non-payment, the secured creditor needs to decide if it is required to enforce against its security. The most common method for a lender to use is receivership. There are 2 types of these procedures in Canada; 1) private appointed or; 2) court appointed.

Normally, the procedure begins with the secured creditor seeking advice from its legal counsel and the receiver it is thinking of using. If it is chosen that there should be a receiver appointed, the secured creditor, normally a financial institution, then makes a selection. They can either appoint the receiver by private letter of appointment or make an application to the Court for an Order designating the receiver (court-appointed).

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) requires that just a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) can work as a receiver. A privately appointed receiver acts on behalf of the selecting secured creditor. A court appointed receiver has a duty of care to all creditors.

1305402 Alberta Inc v 0774238 B.C. Ltd, 2019 ABQB 982

This case was an application by the court appointed receiver (as a British Columbia Court designated receiver of two individuals and also several companies) to have funds in the amount of $281,711.11 paid to it in its capacity as the receiver. The application on its face seemed simple.

The British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Securities Commission”) made considerable enforcement orders versus the individuals and the companies (the “Debtors”). The total fines exceeded $9 million in total. They arose from the Debtors having gotten from various parties real estate financial investments without a prospectus and various other violations.

The Securities Commission got a receivership court order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia on October 3, 2019, appointing a receiver (the Receivership Order). The Debtors are the named parties whose assets the Receivership Order covers.

This application in the Alberta Court was made by the court appointed receiver to take possession of surplus cash paid into the Alberta Court, available from the sale of a property located in the Province of Alberta.

The Court’s problems

On the face of the Receivership Order, it was difficult to tell which parties were originally served with notice of the case. The Receivership Order indicates that a list of those served was attached as Schedule A. Yet Schedule A was not the service list. Rather, it was an example of the Receiver’s Certificate to be utilized in securing financing of the receivership. There was also a Schedule B to the Receivership Order. Unfortunately, it also was of no help. Its only purpose was to list the legal description of the subject land.

Counsel for the applicant argued that certain findings in the original receivership application would decide the outcome of this case. As a result, the Master said that it would certainly have been handy to understand whether the objecting party to this application had any type of capacity to make any kind of argument now!

For example, was the matter in this application already decided in the original motion, or, are there any estoppel issues that would stop someone with notice of the original receivership application from objecting now? In the end, the Master decided that the documents now before the Alberta Court was not adequate to figure out those problems now.

Duties of a court appointed receiver

In addition to having a general duty of care to all stakeholders, the specific duties are spelled out in the Receivership Order. Like all such orders, this one gave the receiver the duty to take possession of all of the assets of the Debtors.

The funds in Court are surplus from a sale or foreclosure in Alberta known as the “Rocky View Lands”. There was a consent order for repossession in the foreclosure action giving the mortgagee title. It was not readily evident from the material before the Master just how surplus proceeds were generated. Nevertheless, the funds were being held by the Court and the receiver was applying to take possession of the cash under its Receivership Order powers and duties.

The receiver’s problem

The proceeds were paid into Court on the application of the previous authorized owner of the Rocky View Lands. Unfortunately, that owner was not one of the Debtors! Just to make matters worse, one of the individuals who were one of the Debtors, filed an affidavit that appended a purported Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement stated that the owner of the Rocky View Lands was holding the property in trust for 19 different named investors who were opposing this application.

The Master held that the applicant did not adequately prove its case to its entitlement to the funds paid into the Court. The owner of the lands was not one of the Debtors. It was only the property of the Debtors the court appointed receiver had authority over.

So the Master decided that the parties could come back to Court for a full trial to figure out who really had an interest in the funds. This could only be decided after full argument by both the receiver and the opposing parties. It was too early to direct that the funds be paid to the court appointed receiver now.

The devil is in the details

From the Master’s decision, it is obvious that the court appointed receiver came to Court without knowing all the details. In addition, the details that it must have known about who was served with the original receivership application were missing. I am sure this receiver was not trying to pull a fast one over anybody – they were just sloppy.

A detail like whose property was the receiver trying to take possession of is not a small thing. A detail like was any party who was opposing the receiver’s request already stopped from raising such opposition is also not such a small thing. The Master was correct in not allowing the receiver’s application to take possession of the cash sitting in the Alberta Court. This receiver will have to do its homework for when it comes back to Court when a full hearing is conducted.

Summary

I hope you have seen why details matter. Not only for a Court but for a licensed insolvency trustee also. When someone comes to consult with me about their business or personal debts and financial situation, I need details too so that I can fully understand their situation.

Do you or your company have too much debt and in need of debt restructuring? Wouldn’t it be beautiful, though, if you could do a turnaround?

The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a debt 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 a 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.

[monkeytools msnip=”https://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=21941″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS LAW NOT TO DO?

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20930″]

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

LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE RECEIVER APPOINTED BY COURT ERRORS TO AVOID

Licensed insolvency trustee: Introduction

I want to chat with you today about the independence of the licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or trustee) (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) acting as a court-appointed receiver. I have seen many times when a secured creditor needs to resort to a court appointment, and not privately appoint the receiver, yet feel they still can control every aspect of the court-appointed receiver’s actions and conduct.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta released on February 4, 2019, in Jaycap Financial Ltd v Snowdon Block Inc, 2019 ABCA 47 (Jaycap), highlights the issue.

Licensed insolvency trustee: Back to basics

To better understand the Jaycap decision, I want to talk about a few basic points. In a private receivership, the receiver’s primary duties are to act:

  1. On behalf of and have a duty of care primarily to the secured creditor who appointed the receiver.
  2. In a commercially reasonable way.
  3. Lawfully.

In a court appointment, the court-appointed receiver:

  1. Acts on behalf of the Court as a Court officer.
  2. Be and be seen to be independent of all stakeholders.
  3. Owes a duty of care to all stakeholders.
  4. Must act in a commercially reasonable and lawful way.

Various practices have evolved over time to indicate the independence of the court-appointed receiver. They aren’t necessarily rules or laws. However, they are indicators that the Court looks to in determining if its court-appointed receiver is seen to be independent and is actually independent of specific stakeholders, normally, secured creditors.

Examples of these indicators are:

  1. The court-appointed receiver has its own legal counsel and does not rely upon legal counsel for one of the secured creditors.
  2. The court’s receiver has obtained sufficient independent appraisals of the assets and has not taken the word of or earlier appraisals commissioned by a secured creditor.
  3. A sales process being recommended by the court-appointed receiver is fair to all parties and does not favour one or more stakeholders over others.
  4. The analysis performed by a court-appointed receiver in making its recommendations to the court is seen to be free from undue influence.
  5. The court-appointed receiver has not shared its appraisal or other information which could influence the outcome of the receivership administration with any of the stakeholders.
  6. The court-appointed receiver has not treated some stakeholders differently than others.
  7. Any information shared by the court-appointed receiver or meetings held to share information has been done with all secured creditors, not just a senior secured creditor or the secured creditor who made the court application to appoint the receiver.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Jaycap situation

The receiver was appointed by the court as receiver and manager of Snowdon Block Inc. (Snowdon) in February 2016. The only material possession of Snowdon was land and building in Calgary. In July 2016 the receiver started a sales procedure to ask for deals for the property. In October 2016 the Receiver ultimately received 2 offers for the real estate. The receiver accepted a conditional offer from a third party.

After months of extensions, the potential buyer was incapable to remove its conditions and the sale did not continue.

Jaycap was the primary lender of Snowdon and was funding the
receivership. Jaycap became interested in capping the increasing costs and safeguarding its financial investment. The receiver advised Jaycap that a credit bid would be a possible option to get title to the real estate and bring the receivership to an end.

On July 5, 2017, Jaycap emailed the Receiver that it would credit bid its “current costs” as a specific amount. Jaycap scheduled a numbered company it managed to be the buyer. For simplicity, I will refer to Jaycap’s nominee company as the buyer.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The first Jaycap credit bid

An agreement of purchase and sale (APS) was prepared and entered into by Jaycap and the Receiver on August 2, 2017. The total debt was defined to be the amount included in the July 5, 2017 e-mail and that amount was likewise the acquisition cost.

On August 21, 2017, the Receiver obtained the approval and vesting order authorizing the APS. The guarantors of the Jaycap debt did not oppose this application as there would be no shortfall that they would be responsible for.

It is somewhat unclear as to the reasons for what happened next. The receiver states in its 3rd report that on August 28, 2017, legal counsel for Jaycap indicated that there was an error in the purchase price. The report after that states that the receiver’s legal counsel advised it that a common mistake occurred about the purchase price as set out in the APS. They further advised that court authorization was needed to fix this mistake.

The transaction subject to the APS was not completed at the end of August 2017.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The second Jaycap credit bid

On September 6, 2017, the receiver and Jaycap entered into a new agreement (the 2nd APS), which decreased the purchase price. On September 8, 2017, the receiver filed an application to abandon the first approval and vesting order and sought approval of the 2nd APS.

The guarantors were served with the new application. One of the guarantors, a Mr. Richardson, sent out a series of letters to the receiver’s legal counsel asking for information as well as papers to support that a mistake had actually occurred. The receiver’s lawyer answered some, however not all, of these demands.

The application was to be heard on September 19, 2017. It was adjourned to October 26, 2017. The chambers judge reserved to think about the submissions and to evaluate Mr. Richardson’s materials which had not made it into the court documents prior to the hearing.

She released her decision a week later approving the 2nd APS and providing the necessary vesting order. She discovered that she was not prevented from abandoning the first order and providing another.

The chambers judge considered the merits of the 2nd APS and whether it fulfilled the requirements established in Royal Bank of Canada v Soundair Corp (Soundair). She was satisfied the 2nd APS was sensible in the circumstances, whether the receiver had made sufficient efforts to get the best price and was not acting improvidently. She kept in mind the lack of offers, the lack of ability to complete an earlier conditional deal, the earlier order approving the sale, and the changed acquisition price, which was still higher than the property’s appraised value.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The guarantor’s appeal

Under the 1st APS, there was no shortfall and the guarantors had no liability. Under the 2nd APS, there was a shortfall in excess of $1 million that the guarantors would be responsible for.

The guarantors appealed the approval of the 2nd APS specifying that the court erred in finding there was a mutual mistake. Further, given the lack of information provided to Mr. Richardson to his reasonable request for information, the guarantors say that the receiver’s conduct casts doubt on the honesty of the process. They say that the Receiver did not discharge its independent obligation and was following guidelines and instructions from Jaycap, that had a change of mind about the transaction and wanted to decrease the price.

Their position was that the 2nd approval and vesting order needs to be vacated, the 1st APS ought to be reinstated, and the guarantors should be alleviated of their responsibility under the guarantee.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Appeal Court’s analysis

The Court of Appeal of Alberta agreed with the guarantors that the evidence did not support a mutual mistake was made. They found that it was a mistake for the chambers court to conclude that the test was satisfied.

While the guarantors were successful on this ground, this does not finish the matter. The appeal cannot be successful unless the guarantors establish a reviewable error in the chambers court’s Soundair evaluation.

The guarantors raised two concerns sustaining their allegation that the integrity of the process was jeopardized. First, the receiver fell short in not disclosing all relevant records about what transpired after August 2, 2017. Second, the receiver did not seem to be acting independently of Jaycap.

The Appeal Court agreed that the receiver’s proof about what transpired after August 2, 2017, was not sufficient, also taking into consideration the evidence from the confidential supplement to the third report. The receiver’s lawyer’s conclusion that there was a mutual mistake was inappropriate. That was for the court to decide.

As far as the conduct of the receiver, the Appeal Court had this to say. While insolvency proceedings undergo special procedural rules and are not surprisingly time delicate in nature, these considerations do not relieve the receiver from its basic responsibilities to the stakeholders and the court. Also, it does not excuse the Receiver from supplying proof to fulfill its requirement to provide sufficient evidence to the requisite standard for each application that it brings.

The Appeal Court went on to say that:

  1. A court-appointed receiver is an officer of the Court appointed to
    discharge certain duties listed in the appointment order.
  2. When a court-appointed receiver is appointed, the receiver-manager is given exclusive control over the assets of the company and in this regard, the board of directors is displaced.
  3. The significance of a receiver’s power is to clear up liabilities and sell off assets.
  4. It is well developed that a court-appointed receiver owes a duty of care not just to the Court, but likewise to all parties who may have an interest in the debtor’s assets. This includes competing secured creditors, guarantors, unsecured creditors, contingent creditors, and shareholders.
  5. A receiver has the duty to work out such reasonable treatment, supervision, and control of the debtor’s property as a regular person would give to his or her very own.
  6. A receiver’s duty is to perform the receiver’s powers truthfully and in good faith.
  7. A receiver’s responsibility is that of a fiduciary to all interested stakeholders involved with the borrower’s assets, properties.

The Appeal Court was harsh in its criticism of both the receiver and Jaycap. The court found that the absence of details about what occurred and the method the receiver and Jaycap used to skirt around the issues in its application materials definitely did not assist in showing the receiver’s independence.

The optics of the circumstances most likely added to the guarantors’ uncertainty that what had taken place warranted even more inquiries and that the Receiver was following Jaycap’s instructions to hide from the guarantors the real state of affairs.

Jaycap and the receiver were jointly represented by the same legal counsel before the Alberta Court of Appeal, which was unhelpful and was in the court’s view, highly unusual. Jaycap could not address questions the Receiver would be anticipated to know. Throughout the hearing, the panel discovered that the guarantors’ arguments were convincing.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Appeal Court’s decision

What was missing was transparency. The process should be transparent. It should enable the court and interested parties to make an informed decision as to whether the sale can be considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Given the significant questions left unanswered by the Receiver, the Appeal Court had serious concerns about the efficacy, fairness, and integrity of the process the Receiver followed between August 2, 2017, and the hearing of the application to approve the 2nd APS. As a result, the Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed with the chambers judge that the Receiver met the requirements of Soundair.

The appeal was allowed, and an order was made returning the matter to the lower court for a rehearing before a different judge.

Licensed insolvency trustee: Summary

This decision clearly states what a court expects from a court-appointed receiver.

Does your company have too much debt and is in danger of shutting down? Are you concerned that future interest rate hikes will make currently manageable debt totally unmanageable? Is the pain and stress of financial problems now negatively affecting your health?

If so, contact the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of helping people and companies in need of financial restructuring and counselling. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals licensed and supervised by the Federal government to provide debt settlement and financial restructuring services.

We offer a free consultation to help you solve your problems. We understand your pain that debt causes. We can also end it right away from your life. This will allow you to begin a fresh start, Starting Over Starting Now. Call the Ira Smith Team today so that we can begin helping you and get you back into a healthy, stress-free life.licensed insolvency trustee receiver appointed by court

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OPPORTUNITIES FROM A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

succession law reform act

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

Succession Law Reform Act: Introduction

I wish to focus on the last provincial statute that is also important for the administration of a deceased estate; the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26.

This is my last blog in this collection to show how it would certainly be proper to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

As always, given that we are not lawyers, and I am not offering in this or any of the other Brandon’s Blogs in this series, suggestions on wills or estate issues. For that, you have to consult your lawyer.

My estate trustee blogs

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I discussed some crucial issues when it entails a deceased estate and why a LIT would certainly be exceptionally knowledgable and qualified to serve as an estate trustee.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I discussed why many times moms and dads attempt doing the correct thing by selecting their youngsters as estate trustees and the several times it simply ends up all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the needs and stipulations of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. As a matter of fact, a lot of the tasks called for by the Estates Act are currently carried out in the insolvency context by a LIT.

My blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I clarified why a LIT is an appropriate specialist to lead the management of Estates Act Canada.

In the blog TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, I describe the duties of a trustee under the Trustee Act Ontario and how a bankruptcy trustee is experienced to carry out those duties.

In this blog, I will explain why a bankruptcy trustee would be extremely comfortable working with this provincial legislation.

Things an estate trustee must be aware of

The Act has 79 sections and regulations. Sections 1 through 43 inclusive, set the ground rules for establishing wills and their validity.

The Act figures out how your estate and assets will be allocated to family members based on based upon guidance and a collection of policies.

This statute is different from the other ones I reviewed affecting acting as an estate trustee in a deceased estate. The Act is really just a set of guiding rules.

Intestacy and the entitlement of spouse and the preferential share

Section 44 of the Act deals with a person who has a spouse and no living children who die intestate. This section says that his or her spouse is entitled to all the property.

Section 45(1) of this Act deals with the situations where a person dies intestate and has both a spouse and living children. It says that where the value of the deceased’s property is not more than the preferential share, which is a defined term, then the spouse is entitled to all the property.

Preferential share is set by Ontario Regulation 54/95. It says that for the purpose of section 45 of the Act, the preferential share is $200,000.

Section 45(2) of the Act deals with the person who dies intestate, has a spouse and living children, and whose property is worth more than the preferential share. This section says that the spouse is absolutely entitled to the preferential share or the amount of $200,000. Presumably, the spouse and children then have to either agree or litigate about who is entitled to how much of the value above $200,000.

Just to add another wrinkle, Section 45(3) deals with the situation where the deceased dies with a will dealing with some property but intestate to the balance of the property and is survived by both a spouse and children. This section states that the spouse is always entitled to the preferential share out of the property not governed by a will. If the spouse is entitled to property under a will having a value of more than the preferential share ($200,000), then there is no need to be concerned with the workings of the preferential share.

Residue: spouse and children

Section 46(1) of this provincial statute says that where a person dies intestate and has a spouse and one living child, the spouse is entitled to one-half of the residue of the property AFTER payment of the preferential share.

Section 46(2) states that if the intestate dead person has a spouse and more than one child, the spouse is entitled to one-third of the residue. Again, this is after payment of the preferential share. Section 46(3) deals with the situation of any children predeceasing the parent who died intestate. This section says that for the purposes of calculating the spouse’s share, assume the deceased child(ren) is alive.

Distribution of kin

Section 47 of the Succession Law Reform Act deals with how property should be distributed when a person dies intestate. The general principle starts with the property being divided between the spouse and living children as described above. The balance of the section deals with the treatment of grandchildren, parents, siblings and nephews and nieces when a person dies intestate.

This section ultimately says that if there are no kin, then the intestate property becomes the property of the Crown under the Escheats Act, 2015.

Succession Law Reform Act: Designation of beneficiaries of interest in funds or plans, survivorship and support of dependants

The balance of the Act deals with specific rules about:

  • the designation in plans or funds of specific beneficiaries;
  • how to deal with the death of two or more persons at the same time who either hold property together or may be entitled to all or some of the other’s property; and
  • support of dependants.

Summary

I really hope that this collection of blogs show to you just how the various provincial statutes describing the obligations of a trustee or estate trustee tracks actually near to exactly how a LIT executes in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy mandate.

If you have any type of concerns about a deceased estate and the requirements for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, call the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

If you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20245″]

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20240″]

Trustee Act Ontario: Introduction

I want to highlight a provincial statute that is also important for the administration of a deceased estate; the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23 (Trustee Act Ontario). This blog continues my blog series to show how it would be proper to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

As always, since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

My prior estate blogs

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I looked at some essential matters when it involves a deceased estate and why a LIT would be extremely knowledgable and competent to act as an estate trustee of a deceased estate with those basic requirements.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I explained why many times parents try doing the proper thing by appointing their children as estate trustees and how many times it just turns out all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the requirements and provisions of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. In fact, most of the duties required by the Estates Act are already performed in the insolvency context by a LIT.

My blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I explained why a LIT is a right professional to lead the administration of Estates Act Canada.

In this and my next blog, I will focus on two more Ontario statutes that impact the administration of a deceased estate by an estate trustee. The three statutes are:

  1. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23; and
  2. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26

As you have by now correctly guessed, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of this provincial legislation.

Things an estate trustee must be aware of

There are various sections of the Trustee Act Ontario that affects the duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee in administering a deceased estate. All the concepts are very familiar to a LIT.

Power of court to appoint new trustees

Section 5(1) of this statute gives the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the authority to make an Order for the appointment of a new trustee. This is the same Court that we attend for Court-appointed receivership and bankruptcy matters. So, a LIT is very familiar with the workings and requirements of this Court.

Who may apply for the appointment of a new trustee, or vesting order

Section 16(1) of this provincial statute says that anyone who has a beneficial interest in the property of the trust can apply for the appointment of a new trustee. This is very similar to how a Court-appointed Receiver is appointed. Although it is normally a secured creditor who makes the application, in theory, it could be any party that has an interest. Section 101(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 states that a receivership Order may be made “…where it seems to a judge of the court to be just or convenient to do so.”. It is the “just and convenient” clause that was relied upon by the judge when we were appointed Receiver and Manager of the assets, properties and undertakings of The Suites at 1 King West condo strata hotel back in August 2007.

For this reason, as a LIT, we are very familiar with this aspect of appointing a trustee.

Power and discretion of trustee for sale

In my blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I referred to sections 16 and 17 of the Estates Administration Act. Section 17 in particular, provides the estate trustee with the power to pay off the debts of the deceased. It also allows a trustee to distribute or divide the estate among the beneficiaries.

Section 17 of the provincial Act provides the trustee with the authority to sell, but subject to the requirements of the Estates Administration Act.

A LIT, either in receivership or bankruptcy, is extremely acquainted and experienced in the sale of real and personal property. The LIT likewise makes certain that the creditors are paid in the correct order of priority.

Sales by trustees not impeachable on certain grounds

Section 18(1) deals with a certain aspect of the sale of the property. It states that unless it is proven that there was an inadequate sales price, a sale properly made cannot be impeached by any beneficiary. Any beneficiary wanting to try to impeach a sale must prove that the process used resulted in a sales price at less than fair market value.

Similarly, in a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy, the LIT must be able to prove that both the conditions of the sales process and the sales price achieved, was right for the types of assets in the circumstances.

The leading case is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA). The process a LIT must follow is known as the “Soundair principles”. This is the test used when deciding whether a receiver or trustee applying for Court approval of a sales process and the authority to sell assets has acted properly. The Court must decide whether the receiver or trustee has:

  • made a sufficient effort to get the best price and has not acted improvidently;
  • considered the interests of all parties;
  • Devised a fair process that has integrity by which offers were obtained; and
  • Introduced any element of unfairness in the working out of the process.

Therefore, I submit, that a LIT is very experienced in devising a sales process and selling assets in a way that is fair to all stakeholders or beneficiaries to attempt to maximize sales proceeds.

Trust funds and investing

Section 26 of the Act deals with the area of the requirement for a trustee to maintain trust accounts and to invest trust property in a way that will maximize the return while not putting the capital at risk to swings in investment pricing, inflation or income tax.

The LIT is very familiar and experienced in trust accounts and the investing of trust funds. Section 25 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) deals with the requirement of a trustee to establish trust accounts. Also, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Directive no. 5R5 deals with Estate funds and banking. The Superintendent also monitors the banking of trust funds by all LITs across Canada.

Therefore a LIT is very knowledgeable and experienced in the banking, investing and protection of trust funds.

Security by the person appointed

If letters of administration were granted under the Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21, section 37(2) of the provincial legislation requires every trustee to post security.

I discussed in my blog ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, the experience of a LIT in the posting of security by way of an insurance company bond.

Actions for torts

Section 38(1) of the provincial statute gives authority to an estate trustee of a deceased person to maintain an action for all torts and injuries to the deceased person or his or her property, except in cases of libel and slander. Any recovery forms part of the deceased’s personal estate. Section 38(3) provides for a limitation on such actions. The action cannot be brought after the expiration of two years from the date of death.

As a LIT, this is a familiar concept to us. When a person or company is insolvent and has a chose in action against one or more parties, such action can be started or continued by a receiver or bankruptcy trustee. In fact, in a bankruptcy, the action actually vests in the trustee.

The receiver or trustee has to make sure that they have a legal opinion on the likelihood of success. The receiver or trustee also has to make sure that they can afford to fund the litigation. The litigation cost cannot reduce the value of the assets under administration. This includes the issue of costs if the action proves unsuccessful.

Distribution of assets under trust deeds for benefit of creditors, or of the assets of the intestate

Section 53(1) of the Act lays out the requirements of a trustee to make a distribution for the general benefit of creditors. As I have described in previous blogs, Section 135 of the BIA deals with the admission and disallowance of proofs of claim and proofs of security.

A LIT is an expert at sorting out creditor claims and could certainly do so under the Trustee Act also.

Trustee Act Ontario: Summary

I hope that this blog reveals to you how the provisions of this provincial statute, detailing the duties of a trustee or estate trustee tracks really close to how a LIT performs in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of a trustee as described in this provincial legislation.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Succession Law Reform Act and how a LIT is most familiar with it also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

 

trustee act ontario

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO

administration of estates act canada

If you would rather hear an audio version of this administration of estates act Canada, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the podcast.

Administration of estates act Canada: Introduction

I want to discuss with you another provincial statute that is very important for the administration of estates act Canada; the Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22. It continues my series of blogs to show how it would be very natural to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I looked at some essential matters when it involves a deceased estate and why a LIT would be extremely knowledgable and competent to act as an estate trustee of a deceased estate with those basic requirements.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I explained why many times parents try doing the proper thing by appointing their children as estate trustees and how many times it just turns out all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the requirements and provisions of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. In fact, most of the duties required by the Estates Act are already performed in the insolvency context by a LIT.

In this and the next two blogs, I want to focus on the three more Ontario statutes that deal with the duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee of a deceased estate. The three statutes are:

  1. Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22;
  2. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23; and
  3. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26

As you have by now correctly guessed, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of the Estates Administration Act.

As always, since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Administration of estates act Canada: Things an estate trustee must be aware of

Payment of debts out of the residuary estate

Section 5 of the Estates Administration Act states that both the personal property and the real property (subject to the rights of mortgagees) is available to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and the costs of the estate trustee in administering the deceased estate. The LIT is familiar with such a provision.

Section 136(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) prioritizes the reasonable funeral and testamentary expenses incurred by the deceased’s legal representatives. In a bankruptcy, those costs are paid as a preferred unsecured claim, behind trust and secured claims but before payment of ordinary unsecured claims.

Vesting of real estate not disposed of within 3 years

Section 9(1) of the Estates Administration Act states that real property not disposed of or conveyed within three years after the date of death is automatically vested in the persons beneficially entitled to such real property. The exception is if the personal representative or estate trustee has registered a caution on the title, then the three-year period starts from the date the last caution was registered.

The purpose and intent of the BIA is that all property of the bankrupt, not subject to a valid trust claim, security interest or is otherwise exempt, will automatically vest in the bankruptcy trustee. Section 40(1) of the BIA establishes the rules a trustee must follow to return to the debtor any property that could not be realized upon, despite the LIT’s best efforts.

Powers of executors and administrators about selling and conveying real estate

Sections 16 and 17 of the Estates Administration Act gives the power to sell real estate to a personal representative or estate trustee. It also says that additional powers are not just for paying off the debts of the deceased, but also for distributing or dividing the estate among the beneficiaries.

A LIT, either in a receivership or bankruptcy, is very familiar with and experienced in the sale of real and personal property. The LIT also ensures that the creditors are paid in the proper priority.

Protection of purchasers from personal representatives and beneficiaries

Sections 19 and 21(1) of the Estates Administration Act protects a purchaser of real property in good faith and for value from a personal representative or estate trustee. The purchaser can hold the asset free and clear from any debts or liabilities of the deceased, or any claims of the beneficiaries. The only exception would be those claims secured by a specific charge on title against the real property, such as a mortgage.

In an insolvency context, and especially in a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy, a purchaser would be wise to insist on the receiver or bankruptcy trustee obtaining the approval of the Court and vesting Order. The purpose would be to have Court orders approving the sale to the purchaser and vesting the assets in the purchaser.

In this way, the purchaser gains protection against any claims to the assets. The vesting Order vests out the asset(s), replacing it with the cash paid by the purchaser. Those with claims against the asset(s) now have to prove their claim against the cash. A LIT is very familiar and experienced in this aspect of selling assets.

Powers of personal representative about leasing and mortgaging

Section 22(1) of the Estates Administration Act gives the power to the personal representative or estate trustee to lease out real property to provide the deceased’s estate with income. It also allows for the mortgaging of real property to pay off the debts of the deceased.

Section 30(1) of the BIA gives various powers to a bankruptcy trustee. The leasing out of the real property and borrowing money, including giving mortgage security against real property, are two such powers. A Court-appointed receiver would get the same powers from the Order appointing the Receiver. A privately appointed receiver could also, with the permission of the secured creditor who made the private appointment, does the same thing. Therefore, a LIT is very familiar and experienced in exercising these powers and making the necessary business decisions.

Administration of estates act Canada: Summary

I hope that in this blog I have shown you that the provisions of the Estates Administration Act outlining the responsibilities of an estate trustee tracks very closely what a LIT does in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of an estate trustee as described in the Estates Act Ontario.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Trustee Act and how a LIT is most familiar with them also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20226″]

Estates Act Ontario: Introduction

I am continuing my series of blogs to show how it would be very natural to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate under the Estates Act Ontario. In this blog, I am going to focus on that piece of provincial legislation that guides the activities of an estate trustee.

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I set the stage by going over some basics when it comes to a deceased estate and why a LIT would be very comfortable with those basic requirements for an administration of a deceased estate. In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I described why in some cases parents trying to do the right thing by making all their children an estate trustee could turn out very wrong.

In this and the next two blogs, I want to focus on the three main Ontario statutes that govern the conduct, duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee of a deceased estate. The three statutes that I will talk about are:

  1. Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21;
  2. Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22; and
  3. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23

As you have probably guessed by now, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of the Estates Act.

Since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Provisions a LIT is familiar with

Jurisdiction

Section 5 of the Estates Act Ontario states that letters of administration shall not be granted to a person not residing in Ontario. Similarly, a bankruptcy trustee must be licensed by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in each province the LIT wishes to practice in.

Posting of security

Section 14(2) of the Estates Act Ontario requires that the administrator appointed to administer a deceased estate may be required to post security as the court might require.

Section 5(3)(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that the Superintendent of Bankruptcy can:

“…require the deposit of one or more continuing guaranty bonds or continuing suretyships as security for the due accounting of all property received by trustees and for the due and faithful performance by them of their duties in the administration of estates to which they are appointed, in any amount that the Superintendent may determine…”

The posting of security is another common area that a LIT understands well.

Court can appoint

Section 29 of the Estates Act Ontario deals with the appointment of an estate trustee. This section gives the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the authority to appoint an estate trustee where:

  • a person dies intestate;
  • the estate trustee named in the will refuses to prove the will;
  • where the named estate trustee(s) ask another person be appointed to administer the deceased’s estate; or
  • where there are special circumstances.

Section 243(1) of the BIA gives the Court the power to appoint a receiver. So, assessing the appropriateness of acting as a Court officer and providing consent to do so is something a LIT is quite familiar with.

Accounts to be rendered

Section 39 of the Estates Act Ontario requires the estate trustee to “…render a just and full account…” of the estate trustee’s activities. The LIT is fully familiar with this process. In both a Court-appointed receivership and a bankruptcy administration, the LIT must submit full and detailed accounts showing its activities, fees and disbursements for approval by the Court. This approval process is called taxation. This is another common area between the duties of an estate trustee administering a solvent deceased’s estate and the duties of a LIT.

Admitting and disallowing claims

Sections 44 and 45 of the Estates Act Ontario deals with the rules to be followed in contesting claims made against the deceased’s estate. The LIT is very familiar with this process. Section 135 of the BIA deals with the admission and disallowance of proofs of claim and proofs of security.

The LIT is a perfect party to be able to decipher claims made against a deceased’s estate and follow the provincial statute in the allowance and disallowance of claims.

Disputes as to ownership

Section 46 of the Estates Act Ontario describes the process for handling the claim by any third party to ownership of personal property in the estate not exceeding $800 in value. There are steps in the BIA that a LIT must follow when faced with claims of ownership of property by a third party in the possession of the bankrupt. So resolving such disputes is very familiar to the LIT.

Summary

I hope that in this blog I have successfully made the case that the provisions of the Estates Act Ontario outlining the responsibilities of an estate trustee tracks very closely what a LIT does in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of an estate trustee as described in the Estates Act Ontario.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Estates Administration Act and how a LIT is most familiar with them also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.estates act ontario

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

PRIVACY BREACH LAWSUIT AGAINST LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE FAILS

privacy breach lawsuitPrivacy breach lawsuit: Introduction

A licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) and a Court appointed Receiver are both officers of the Court. As such, they have a duty of care to all stakeholders and parties. A decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released in late 2018 deals with an application to begin a class action privacy breach lawsuit against a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or Trustee).

The case I am referring to is Netlink Computer System Inc. (re),2018 BCSC2309. Netlink Computer System Inc. (Netlink) was a British Columbia-based business that marketed computers and associated software solutions. In late 2017, Netlink went bankrupt.

Privacy breach lawsuit: The request to go ahead

As is required under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA), any party wishing to initiate litigation against a bankruptcy trustee must first get the permission of the Court to do so.

In the Netlink case, a former Netlink customer wanted to start a class action lawsuit against the Trustee. The customer claimed that the Trustee breached the personal privacy of Netlink’s customers by permitting their personal details to be revealed. The unproven claim was that the Trustee sold to or, otherwise, allowed 3rd parties to get personal information of the Netlink customers.

This particular customer wished to start an action versus the Trustee for breach of privacy. If leave is approved, this customer would then seek certification of his case as a class action lawsuit.

Privacy breach lawsuit: The issue in requesting the leave of the Court

The Court’s task was to figure out whether to exercise its discretion to allow the claim to go ahead. The Court had to look at the nature and scope of the proposed claim taking into account the evidence. Leave is rarely given. If leave was granted in this case, it would be the first time in Canada a bankruptcy Trustee has been taken legal action against in a potential class action proceeding.

The BIA does not give any type of specific advice about the elements the Court ought to take into consideration in thinking about an application for leave to start an action against a LIT. These have just been developed through case-law analyzing and using s. 215 of the BIA.

For almost 150 years, Courts and legal scholars have been of the view that the bar for approving the commencement of litigation I versus a Court-appointed receiver or Trustee is not a high one. It is designed to protect the receiver or LIT against only frivolous or vexatious actions which have no basis.

The leading cases on the issue of leave to go ahead with litigation against either a Court-appointed receiver or LIT can be summarized as follows;

  • Leave to take such legal action should not be given if the action is frivolous or vexatious. Manifestly unmeritorious claims need to not be allowed to continue
  • Actions need to not be allowed to continue if the evidence submitted on behalf of the action, does not show a cause of action against the Trustee.
  • The court is not required to make a final evaluation of the benefits of the claim prior to granting leave.

This threshold tries to strike the ideal balance between the security of bankruptcy trustees and Court appointed receivers from the interruption of an insolvency administration from unimportant or simply tactical suits and preserving to the maximum degree possible the legal rights of creditors and other stakeholders.

In this privacy breach lawsuit case, the claimant states that his affidavit evidence provides proof reveals a real case against the Trustee. The Trustee says that the proposed claim and the evidence on its behalf does not satisfy the relatively reduced threshold called for to prove leave.

The claimant described in his materials, his potential claim. . He also discloses that he has already begun a claim against the auction company who sold the bankruptcy company’s assets, Netlink and Netlink’s landlord. (The action versus Netlink has remained stayed due to the fact that Netlink is in bankruptcy). The proposed claim against the LIT is exactly the same and consists of practically the same phrasing as the action already started. There is no separate accusation that the Trustee did anything different from the auctioneer, Netlink, or the landlord.

The proposed claimant’s main points were:

  1. He purchased a product from Netlink and provided personal information, including, his name, address and credit card details.
  2. The Trustee contracted with the auctioneer to sell the assets.
  3. During that process, the Trustee allowed customers’ private information, including addresses, credit card numbers, and various other sensitive information (the “Private Information”) to be exposed and offered to or otherwise acquired by 3rd parties, including criminals.
  4. The Trustee provided the auctioneer computers and Netlink servers and other records containing the Private Information.
  5. Criminals that obtained the Netlink servers offered the information to other criminals, consisting of cybercriminals and identity thieves.
  6. The trustee knew that customer details are often included in the property of such bankrupt’s estates and it took no steps to safeguard the information when taking guardianship of Netflix’s property.
  7. The Trustee’s choice to offer the Private Information, or at a minimum, the Netlink servers including the Private Information, was intended and deliberate and was made knowing that Netlink customers had not consented to their details being shared.
  8. Customers have suffered damages.

Privacy breach lawsuit: This evidence

The Court examined the claims and the evidence. Unfortunately, the claimant did not have first-hand knowledge of what the Trustee did or did not do. Rather, the claimant submitted two sworn affidavits of what he believed took place. The information contained in the two affidavits was derived mainly from blog posts and YouTube videos that the claimant believed to be true.

The Trustee submitted 2 sworn affidavits of the LIT responsible for the Netlink file. The Trustee’s evidence was mainly why the relatively low threshold for allowing a claim against a Trustee or Court appointed receiver were not met. It did not provide much information about what the Trustee actually did (or did not do).

The Court had no choice but to rule that the claimant’s evidence was mainly hearsay and not admissible. With no real evidence before the Court to support the accusations, the Court dismissed the application and leave to begin the action against the Trustee was denied.

Privacy breach lawsuit: My take

Based on my reading of this case, I believe the Trustee was very lucky that there was no real evidence against it. There is no information indicating what steps the Trustee took to make sure that all Private Information was protected prior to the assets being sold. It is imperative that privacy breaches do not take place. Once a Trustee or Court appointed receiver to take possession of assets that may contain private or sensitive information, steps must be taken to ensure that the information does not fall into the hands of 3rd parties who have no right to that information. It does not matter whether the information is stored on computer hard drives, in the cloud, or physically in books or on paper.

The claimant still has its action against the auctioneer and the landlord. My understanding is that the landlord is involved because once the auction sale was completed and the auctioneer left the premises, there were still books, records and papers that contained some or all the Private Information. The landlord disposed of such papers in a way that did not protect the Private Information.

My Firm’s standard practice is to remove hard drives that contain Private Information so that computers would be sold minus a hard drive. With respect to physical records, any documents not required that would contain Private Information, we have shredded. We do not just throw it into a dumpster intact for someone to find. These are minimum steps required to protect Private Information.

Unfortunately, in the Netlink case, the Court’s Reasons for Decision does not include any information indicating the Trustee took such steps.

Privacy breach lawsuit: What does it all mean?

What it all means is that in any insolvency assignment, the LIT needs to know what it is he or she has taken possession and control of. Decisions must be made that protect the interests of all stakeholders, as best possible. There are always competing interests. The LIT must balance them all carefully when making decisions.

Do you have too much debt because you are a victim of identity theft? Does your company have too much debt and is in danger of shutting down? Is the pain and stress of too much debt now negatively affecting your health?

If so, contact the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of helping people and companies in need of financial restructuring and counselling. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals licensed and supervised by the Federal government to provide debt settlement and financial restructuring services.

We offer a free consultation to help you solve your problems. We understand your pain that debt causes. We can also end it right away from your life. This will allow you to begin a fresh start, Starting Over Starting Now. Call the Ira Smith Team today so that we can begin helping you and get you back into a healthy, stress-free life.privacy breach lawsuit

Call a Trustee Now!