Tag: court appointed receiver

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.

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

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

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

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

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

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT DOES A COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER DO: REQUIRED CONDITIONS FOR RECEIVERSHIP REAL ESTATE SALE

Bankruptcy

What does a court appointed receiver do: Introduction

Earlier this week I wrote my blog COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER REAL ESTATE: ALL PURCHASE TERMS AREN’T EQUAL. In that blog, I described 5 common conditions that a buyer wants in a real estate agreement of purchase and sale. I also showed why a court appointed receiver cannot agree to those requested conditions. The purpose of today’s Brandon’s Blog is to answer the question what does a court appointed receiver do in setting the vendor’s conditions in a real estate sale.

What does a court appointed receiver do: The 5 most common vendor terms

In the earlier blog this week, I listed the 5 most common seller terms that the court appointed receiver cannot agree to. Here are the five most common terms that the court appointed receiver as seller requires.

  1. Capacity – The court appointed receiver requires the buyer to acknowledge that the vendor is selling solely in its court-appointed role.
  2. Title – Buyer agrees to accept title to the property as will be conveyed by the Court order conveying title which is called a Vesting Order. Also, the buyer must acknowledge that it is accepting title subject to any site plan agreements, restrictions, easements for the supply of utilities, services or otherwise. Also, the buyer will accept title subject to any rights of way, encroachments on or by the subject property onto adjoining properties, leases or licences. This is why it is important for the buyer’s lawyer to do a careful search of title and explain any and all issues to the buyer before the purchaser agrees to accept title.
  3. Inspections – A buyer from a court appointed receiver must be very careful in doing its due diligence. The court appointed receiver will allow for reasonable inspections. The buyer must acknowledge that he/she/it relies entirely upon its own inspection and investigation with respect to quantity, quality and value of the property. The buyer must also agree that it is purchasing and accepts the property on an “as is” basis, as of the date of acceptance and as of the closing date.
  4. Fixtures and chattels – Every buyer obviously wants to get the most possible out of the real estate purchase. It is normal for all buyers to want to confirm that they are receiving good title to all chattels and fixtures. The buyer is also looking for a warranty that they will all be in good working order on the date of closing. This is not possible in a court appointed receiver real estate sale. Rather, in a Court-appointed receivership, the receiver will insist on the condition that notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the agreement of purchase and sale, the Buyer acknowledges that the seller does not have title to the chattels or fixtures presently located on or used in connection with the property. The buyer and seller can agree that the chattels and fixtures set out in the schedule to the agreement remain at the property. However the buyer must also agree to take it on an “as is” basis. There is no warranty or representation and the seller won’t provide a bill of sale on closing for any chattels or fixtures. The court appointed receiver probably cannot verify that ownership of the fixtures and chattels are the property of the owner of the real estate. The receiver won’t rely on what is affixed to the premises to to prove or infer title.
  5. Court approval – A court appointed receiver must obtain court approval to the method of offering the property for sale (obtained before the sales process begins) and certainly for a specific sale. The court appointed receiver must seek that approval in order to have the sales process and sale sanctioned. The Court will issue an Approval and Vesting Order. This is the Court order allowing the transfer of title to the buyer. A court appointed receiver will put together its motion material and attend in Court for such approvals once it knows that it has a firm deal, all buyer conditions have been waived and the necessary deposit funds have been received. A Court will not approve a transaction that isn’t firm. The Court will question why the court appointed receiver is wasting resources in making the approval request at that time.

What does a court appointed receiver do: Is your mortgagor in trouble?

I hope this information will help you understand better the most common terms and conditions a court appointed receiver selling real estate requires. A court appointed receiver does this in setting the vendor’s conditions in a real estate sale.

Are you a mortgagor over industrial or commercial realty where the debtor remains in default? There may be reasons that you have to take into consideration for putting in a court appointed receiver.


If yes, call the Ira Smith Team. Our approach for each file is to create an end result where Starting Over, Starting Now takes place. This starts the minute you are in the door. You’re simply one phone call away from taking the necessary steps to get back to leading a healthy, balanced hassle-free life, recover your money and move on to the next investment opportunity.what does a court appointed receiver do

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER REAL ESTATE: ALL PURCHASE TERMS AREN’T EQUAL

court appointed receiver real estateCourt appointed receiver real estate: Introduction

Over the last 5 years, (and of course for many years before then), we have taken on many Court appointments for commercial real estate receivership files. In August 2017 we wrote BUYING REAL ESTATE FROM A RECEIVER: READ, REMEMBER AND FOLLOW THE CONTRACT LAW FINE PRINT. In that blog, we described a BC Court of Appeal decision to show how tricky both the sale and purchase of court appointed receiver real estate can be. For this Brandon’s Blog, I list certain purchaser terms normal in an arm’s length non-distress situation. I explain why they can’t always work when purchasing from a receiver.

Court appointed receiver real estate: 558 Dovercourt Road, Toronto

One of our current assignments is the sale of real property with a civic address of 558 Dovercourt Road, Toronto. This is a residential income property (with a commercial storage component). Given the potential for competing claims, the second mortgagee wanted to go the court appointed receiver route, rather than a traditional mortgagee power of sale. This is so the Court is available to sort out any issues of competing claims or other claims.

We have to date received two offers to purchase. Unfortunately, both offers weren’t acceptable. Our sign back of the first offer was not accepted by the potential purchaser. The second offer was not even worthy of a sign back.

It was not only an issue of price. The potential purchasers also included various terms that were unacceptable to any court appointed receiver. This is notwithstanding that they may be fine to a normal vendor.

Court appointed receiver real estate: Unacceptable terms

Below are some common terms that we see potential purchasers include in an offer. I give the reason(s) why a court appointed receiver cannot include them in an acceptable agreement of purchase and sale. Keep in mind that the court appointed receiver is not trying to be difficult or mean. Hopefully, these explanations will help.

  1. The seller – The seller is not just the court appointed receiver’s company name. Rather, the vendor is court appointed receiver’s company name, solely in its capacity as court appointed receiver of [legal name of property owner]. It is only the official court appointed receiver capacity selling the real estate. The court appointed receiver’s power to offer the property for sale and enter into an agreement as seller comes from the court appointment order. The Court also supervises the administration and sale.
  2. All equipment/appliances will be in good working order on closing – A court-appointed receiver cannot give such a warranty. A private receiver or a court-appointed receiver sells assets on an “as is where is” basis, with no warranties. It’s just the way it is.
  3. The court appointed receiver will obtain court approval for the sale before the purchaser has waived all of the purchaser’s conditions – A court appointed receiver can’t and won’t go to Court to obtain approval to a transaction that may not even exist later on because the purchaser won’t waive one or more conditions and the deal goes dead. The court appointed receiver won’t incur the cost of preparing its motion and going to Court before knowing there is a firm deal. This obviously includes the payment of the deposit funds.
  4. Seller will discharge work orders – A court appointed receiver will not do the repairs or upgrades to the property in order to discharge work orders. The court appointed receiver will, of course, give clear title to the property by discharging mortgages or liens. The Court approval Order, called a Vesting Order, does this. The purchaser has the time to have his/her/its lawyer inspect title. The deal ends if proper title can’t be given. If the purchaser does not want to inherit certain work orders, then that should be another condition.
  5. Seller will provide the buyer with keys that work to every exterior and interior door lock – A court appointed receiver will not agree to this. The court appointed receiver will certainly provide any keys in its possession.

These are the most common buyer conditions that a court-appointed receiver real estate sale won’t be able to handle. In my next blog, I will look at common conditions a court appointed receiver seller uses.

Court appointed receiver real estate: Is your mortgagor in trouble?

Are you a mortgagee over a commercial real estate property where the mortgagor is in default? Are there reasons why you need to consider applying to Court for a court appointed receiver + real estate sale?

If yes, contact the Ira Smith Team. Our philosophy for every person and company is to develop an outcome where Starting Over, Starting Now happens, beginning the minute you come in the door. You’re just one call away from taking the essential action steps to get back to leading a healthy and balanced stress-free life.

ira smith bankruptcy trustee vaughan

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

SMALL BUSINESS LOANS CANADA CASE STUDY: LOSING YOUR MONEY IS NOT FUNNY

1st Global Capital

Small business loans Canada: Introduction

Today I am going to be telling you a story about a US corporate bankruptcy, and then a case study of our own. The purpose is to illustrate how you need to understand all the risk factors as a private small investor in making small business loans Canada.

Small business loans Canada: 1st Global Capital bankruptcy

A $283 million corporate US bankruptcy has derailed many retirement plans. It has left many investors in a financial crisis. In one case, a small inheritance was invested. In another, a cash award granted by a Court was invested. These are just two of the investor stories coming out of the US bankruptcy case of 1st Global Capital of Hallandale Beach, Florida.

1st Global Capital describes itself this way:

“1st Global Capital is an industry-leading direct funder with the professionalism, flexibility and fast turnaround you need to maximize your success. We use our years of industry experience, our funding power and our technological expertise to empower Independent Sales Organizations (ISOs) and Partner’s like you to maximize your business opportunities. Behind every 1GC deal is the expert vetting and oversight from our team of funding professionals with over 50 years of combined underwriting experience.”

Small business loans Canada: The “memorandums of indebtedness”

1st Global Capital was created 5 years ago to fund small companies. It funded loans to small businesses throughout many states in the USA. Examples of the types of businesses it funded are dining establishments, retail stores, construction businesses, healthcare, and e-commerce companies.

They raised money by issuing “memorandums of indebtedness” to people who invested with 1st Global Capital. Many used retirement savings accounts to fund their investment. 1st Global Capital used commissioned agents in many states to sell the 1st Global Capital investment opportunity. These short-term deals were supposed to pay back with interest at the end of nine months.

Small business loans Canada: The risky loan products

1st Global Capital was an alternative lender. It’s loan products included:

  • Merchant Cash Advances
  • Specialty Funding Options
  • Asset Based Lending
  • Accounts Receivable Funding

By its very nature, this was risky lending to businesses that could not obtain more traditional bank financing. The investors were wooed by promises of high returns, but I am certain they did not really understand they were making unsecured loans to a company that placed the money into risky loans.

Small business loans Canada: The small investors

Bankruptcy documents indicate greater than 4,000 1st Global Capital accounts existed across the country at the date of bankruptcy. Numerous are individual retirement accounts, each owed in between $621,000 and $922,000.

Court records indicate that 1st Global Capital stated that the cause of its bankruptcy was examinations by the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the U.S. attorney’s office in southern Florida over alleged securities violations.

As a result, the inflow of money from investors stopped when 1st Global Capital could no longer offer its memorandums. The bankruptcy files show that as a result, the company dealt with an unexpected and intense liquidity situation. The regulatory agencies state that 1st Global Capital was selling securities and the company was subject to government registration with and oversight by government regulatory agencies.

The bankruptcy records do not indicate this but I am certain that eventually, the bankruptcy trustee will report that the investment scheme was a Ponzi scheme. If the inability to take in more loans caused the company’s bankruptcy, it is obvious that they required fresh money in order to honour their existing liabilities. New investors’ money paying back older investors is a classic definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Small business loans Canada: Our very own Canadian case study

Not understanding what you are investing in is not a story unique to the United States. Let me tell you about one of our case studies from last year called Vaughan Crossings Inc (“VCI”). We were appointed by the Court as Receiver of the assets, properties and undertaking of VCI. The main asset of VCI was 5.5 acres of owned development land located at the northwest corner of Dufferin and Centre Streets in the City of Vaughan, ON. In this receivership, our main role was to sell these lands. You can find all the Court records and public information on our webpage that we set up for VCI, so I won’t go through the history of the file in this Brandon’s Blog.

The important point in this file is that the second mortgagee was a group of investors. These investors were found through the use of commissioned agents. These agents were mainly financial advisors and insurance agents. The agents made commissions to raise funds from their clients for investment in this project. Just like in the 1st Global Capital case, the investors were mainly individuals, many of whom used funds in their RRSPs to make the loan.

Small business loans Canada: The dangers of not understanding risk

During the receivership, I had the chance to speak with many investors who called in wanting to know the status of their investments. These unsophisticated people were wooed by the promise of high returns when the project was fully built out. Just like in the 1st Global Capital case, the mortgage syndicator had to cease raising funds as they were being investigated by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Ultimately, the mortgage syndicator went into receivership also.

The money put in by this unsophisticated investor group was secured by way of a second mortgage. The developer ran out of cash to develop the property. The mortgage syndicator was shut down. The lands were not be developed. The plan was that the mortgage syndicator was going to do another round of financing to provide construction financing, which would be in priority to the second mortgagee! The mortgage syndicator had the authority, acting as trustee of the second mortgage, to subordinate that mortgage to the construction financing. However, that never happened.

Small business loans Canada: The receivership

Without construction financing, the development project could not continue; hence our appointment as Receiver. There two mortgages against the property and numerous construction liens filed and perfected against the property. We obtained our appraisals and ran a receivership sales process. We sold the property for much more than its appraised value. The sales price repaid the construction liens and the first mortgage. However, there was very little available for the second mortgagee investors.

The promise of a high-interest rate wooed these investors. They may not have been as focussed on the safety of their capital. Unfortunately, these small investors did not understand the risks associated with this type of loan they were making. Shame on their financial advisors who sold them this investment, knowing it was not right for most of them. The financial advisors were hungry for commissions, regardless of what harm may come to their clients.

Small business loans Canada: Is your business at risk?

If your small business is having financial problems, more small business loans alone is not the answer. You must first look at all aspects of your business. First, you should look at the viability of your business.

Are there expenses that need cutting and activities that you must do that can generate more revenue? If so, perhaps we can restructure your business. You may not need a long-term small business loan. Perhaps a short-term loan to get over the immediate financial hurdle you are facing is enough.

If you are looking for ways to restructure your corporate or personal debt call Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. We understand the stress and pain your financial problems are causing you. We feel your pain and we can end it for you.

Our strategy for every single business and person is to develop a result where Starting Over, Starting Now comes true, starting the minute you walk through our door. You’re just one call away from taking the necessary actions to get your debt settlement and back on the road to leading a healthy and stress-free life. Contact the Ira Smith Team today.small business loans canada

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

STALKING HORSE CREDIT BID: WE NEED COURT APPROVAL BEFORE STARTING A COURT SUPERVISED SALES PROCESS

2

Stalking horse credit bid: Introduction

In last week’s vlog, “STALKING HORSE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT: THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY GALLOPS INTO A COURT SUPERVISED SALES PROCESS“, I described what a stalking horse asset purchase agreement is. I also defined and described the proposed stalking horse credit bid process of The Weinstein Company. That process was approved last Friday by a Delaware bankruptcy judge. The Court delayed the court sales auction by a couple of business days to May 4, 2018.

Stalking horse credit bid: Our earlier case studies

Over the last few weeks, I have provided some case studies from our files for both personal and corporate insolvency matters. As a refresher, these case study vlogs are:

Stalking horse credit bid: Our stalking horse sales process case study

This is the last vlog along our case study theme. The purpose is to show the decision making that the Court goes through in being asked to approve a stalking horse credit bid and a stalking horse sales process in a corporate insolvency file.

We were Court-appointed as Receiver and Manager of a club operating a golf course, restaurant and party function business. The first secured creditor filed its motion to appoint us. We were appointed very close to Christmas that year. Obviously, the golf course was not operating at the time of our appointment. The food and beverage facilities only had one remaining Christmas party and the annual club New Year’s party. No parties were booked yet into the New Year.

We did the normal things a Receiver does such as:

  • taking physical possession of the premises and the books and records;
  • identifying if there were any assets located off premises; and
  • arranging for property and liability insurance.

We were able to use the time to understand the business and the nature and extent of the assets.

There was already a purchaser ready to give an offer to purchase the Receiver’s right, title and interest in the operating assets comprising the club’s businesses. We arranged for an appraisal of the assets and business. We received and reviewed the appraisal. The secured creditor told us the form of offer they would support.

Armed with the appraisal information and the secured creditor information, we entered into a conversation with the potential purchaser. The amount this purchaser told us it was willing to pay was far more than appraised value and above the minimum threshold for acceptance from the secured creditor.

Stalking horse credit bid: Our stalking horse offer

We decided that a stalking horse bid process would be ideal. We doubted that any party would bid higher than the value this potential purchaser was discussing. It made sense to also have the court supervised sales process completed prior to April, so that it would be the purchaser opening up and preparing the course for play and running the food and beverage business, rather than the Court appointed Receiver.

The potential purchaser agreed to become a stalking horse bidder and to the timeline. We and our legal counsel worked with the potential purchaser and its legal counsel to prepare a draft stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The purchase price was the amount this now stalking horse purchaser was always discussing.

Stalking horse credit bid: We galloped off to Court

We filed our motion for approval of our activities to date, requested permission to enter into the proposed stalking horse agreement and sought approval for our proposed stalking horse sales process. The Court had no problem with our activities to date, or the stalking horse agreement, but did not like our truncated stalking horse sales process. We were not able to be in Court until February and we wished to complete the sale by March 31. The Court felt that was not enough time to run a sales process that was fair to all potential bidders. Our legal counsel attempted to persuade the Judge that comparing the appraisal (which the Court saw but our purchaser did not see) and the value of the stalking horse offer, we did not feel that there would be any other bidders.

We could not persuade the Court. The Judge approved everything, but he amended the timeline so that we would run a process that would last at least 5 weeks from the time we ran our advertisement for this business opportunity.

The Court considers various factors when asked to approve a receivership or bankruptcy sales transaction. The basis for this comes from a 1991 Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA). In no particular order, the Court is concerned with:

  1. Whether the Receiver has made enough effort to get the best price and has not acted improvidently.
  2. Considering the interests of all parties.
  3. The efficacy and integrity of the process used to get offers.
  4. If there has been unfairness in the working out of the process.

In the Judge’s opinion, a 5 week sales process would ease any concerns he had.

ISI 4
stalking horse credit bid

Stalking horse credit bid: The outcome

We amended our sales process in accordance with the Judge’s instructions. We then:

Anyone who wished to do due diligence signed our confidentiality agreement. Everyone who signed our confidentiality agreement was then provided with a unique password to enter the online data room.

The due diligence period ended and since everyone knows the amount of the stalking horse offer, no other potential bidders submitted an offer. Nobody wanted to bid more.

We went back to Court to tell of the results and obtained Court approval to complete the transaction of the stalking horse bidder whose asset purchase agreement was already approved by the Court.

In the meantime, spring had arrived. We hired the necessary golf course superintendent and other maintenance and operating staff and opened up the golf course. We ran the golf club until the sale was completed near the end of June that same year. In the eyes of the Court fairness was achieved, we operated the golf club and the secured creditor was happy with the result of the sale.

Stalking horse credit bid: Is your business facing financial problems?

This case study shows how we were able to satisfy all stakeholders in a Court supervised sales process, to transfer the assets to a new business, remit funds to the secured creditor on a basis acceptable to them and meet the requirements of the Court.

Is your business facing financial problems? Perhaps your company is in need of a restructuring. The Ira Smith Team can develop a restructuring plan which may or may not include the need to file for bankruptcy protection.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. Team understands the pain you are going through trying to keep your company alive while trying to negotiate with potential purchasers. We understand that you are playing beat the clock, and the pain and stress you are feeling thinking that you may just run out of time. The bankruptcy protection process can ease this stress and provide a level playing field so that no potential purchaser takes advantage of you.

The Ira Smith Team has a great deal of experience in running a stalking horse stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. Call the Ira Smith Team today for your free consultation. We can end your pain and put your company back on a healthy profitable path, Starting Over, Starting Now.

stalking horse credit bid 0
stalking horse credit bid
Call a Trustee Now!