Tag: court approval

INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE COURT ORDER: THE FULL POWER OF THE COURT IN ONTARIO REGULATORY PROCEEDINGS

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date October 6, 2025

Insolvency Trustee Court Order: Introduction

As a Licensed Insolvency Trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. in the Greater Toronto Area, I meet with people and business owners every day who feel overwhelmed by debt. Many believe we only handle bankruptcies. The truth is, our role goes much deeper. We act as a bridge between financial trouble and the Canadian legal system.

From our Vaughan office at 167 Applewood Crescent, Suite 6, we help clients find a secure path through their financial challenges. One of the most powerful tools in this process is the insolvency trustee court order.

These court orders form the backbone of fairness and legality in Canadian insolvency cases. Whether you’re a small business owner looking for a way to save or safely close your business, or dealing with a multi-million-dollar corporate restructuring, court orders protect everyone involved.

Let me share a very recent Ontario court decision. In 2025, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) took action against Cacoeli Asset Management and related entities (Cacoeli). This case shows exactly how an insolvency trustee court order can stop improper conduct and protect investors.

In this post, I’ll explain:

What happened in the Cacoeli case and why it matters
How the court decided to appoint a receiver
What a Licensed Insolvency Trustee does under a court order
When you need a court order in insolvency proceedings

Let’s start with the case that brought these issues to light.

The Superior Court’s Insolvency Trustee Court Order Appointing the Receiver

In the recent Ontario court case of, Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management, 2025 ONSC 3012, the OSC asked the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for urgent help. They wanted an insolvency trustee court order to take control of the Cacoeli assets before their investigation was even finished. This is a serious step that requires strong reasons.

The Problem: Misused Investor Money

The OSC found that Cacoeli had raised at least $13 million from about 53 investors. Each investor thought their money was going to buy and manage a specific property. Different limited partnerships were created for each unique property.

However, the investigation revealed something troubling. Money meant for one property was allegedly being moved to support completely different properties. This is called “fund diversion.”

Investors who thought their money was buying Property A discovered it might have been used for Properties B, C, or D instead.

What Standard of Proof Was Needed?

Cacoeli’s lawyers argued that appointing a receiver is extremely serious. It takes away the company’s control over its own business. They said the OSC needed to prove a “strong prima facie case” – meaning very strong evidence that laws were broken.

Justice Steele disagreed. She confirmed that for protective orders under Ontario’s Securities Act, the OSC only needs to show “serious concern that there have been possible breaches.”

Why does this matter? It means courts can act quickly to protect investors. They don’t have to wait months or years for a full trial when people’s money is at risk.

Reading the Partnership Agreements

Cacoeli argued that their partnership agreements allowed them to move money around. They pointed to clauses that gave the General Partner power to “invest funds” and “engage in any transaction with affiliates.”

Justice Steele carefully read the agreements. She found that the “Purpose” section was crystal clear. Each partnership existed for one specific reason: to acquire and manage that particular property only.

The broad powers mentioned elsewhere in the agreement could only be used to support that specific purpose. They couldn’t be used to break the fundamental promise made to investors.

This finding confirmed that the fund diversion was serious and possibly illegal.

Why Include All Properties Under One Receiver?

Certain secured creditors held mortgages on specific Cacoeli properties. Some of them asked the court to exclude their properties from the receivership. They wanted to seize and sell those properties themselves.

Justice Steele said no. She ordered the insolvency trustee court order to cover all Cacoeli properties and companies.

Why? Excluding properties would create chaos:

Different creditors would fight over different assets
Multiple court cases would overlap and contradict each other
Costs would skyrocket
Small creditors would get nothing

Appointing one Licensed Insolvency Trustee as the court-appointed receiver guaranteed central oversight, coordination, and fairness for everyone.

Insolvency Trustee Court Order: The Court of Appeal Upholds Investor Protection

Cacoeli appealed Justice Steele’s decision. The case went to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. A panel of three justices – Hourigan, Zarnett, and Pomerance – reviewed the lower court decision in Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management Inc., 2025 ONCA 654 (CanLII).

The Main Argument on Appeal

Cacoeli made the same argument again. They insisted that appointing a receiver was so powerful that courts should require the higher “strong prima facie case” standard of proof.

The Court of Appeal’s Strong Response

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument completely. Their reasoning matters for anyone dealing with financial regulation:

Public protection comes first: Requiring a high standard of proof would “impede the public protection mandate of the OSC”
Early action is essential: A high standard would make it “impossible for the OSC to obtain receivership at the early stages of an investigation when the facts are not fully known.”

This is a clear message from Ontario’s highest court: when protecting the public is the priority, courts will allow regulators to act fast using an insolvency trustee court order – even before every detail is fully investigated.

The receivership order acts as a protective shield, not a final punishment.

The Final Decision

The Court of Appeal found “no question that the OSC has established a serious concern” about possible legal breaches.

The appeal was dismissed. The original insolvency trustee court order appointing the receiver remained in force.

Cacoeli was ordered to pay the OSC $15,000 for the costs of the appeal.

The Foundational Role of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in Canada

Who Is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee?

A Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT) is the only professional in Canada authorized to administer bankruptcies and consumer proposals. In addition, only LITs can act as a receiver, be it private or court-appointed under an insolvency trustee court order.

We are not lawyers. We are officers of the court.

To become an LIT, you must:

Complete rigorous education requirements
Gain practical experience in the field
Pass demanding written and oral examinations
Demonstrate expertise in financial assessment, accounting, and insolvency law

This high standard allows us to act as impartial administrators of insolvency estates. Think of us as neutral referees. Our job is to balance the rights of:

The debtor (the person or company owing money)
The creditors (the people or companies owed money)

The Law That Guides Everything We Do

The first piece of legislation that covers every action a Licensed Insolvency Trustee takes is the federal law: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act Canada (BIA).

The BIA is the ultimate authority for virtually all consumer and corporate insolvency proceedings in Canada. It:

Lays out the rules for debt relief
Sets the framework for proposals (which help restructure debt)
Defines the powers and duties of trustees

Very large corporate restructurings are usually done under a different federal law, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The BIA and CCAA are our playbooks. The courts are the referees who make the final calls. Provincial laws also apply, but the federal BIA governs all Licensed Insolvency Trustees.

Federal Oversight: The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy

Unlike most private professionals, Licensed Insolvency Trustees are constantly supervised by a federal regulator: the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada (OSB).

The OSB’s job is to ensure that Canada’s insolvency system is fair, efficient, and that trustees perform their duties with integrity.

This creates two layers of oversight:

The OSB (administrative supervision)
The Courts (judicial supervision)

This dual oversight gives the public and creditors confidence in the system. We must report all significant actions to the OSB. For many major decisions, we seek court approval through an insolvency trustee court order.

Our Core Responsibilities

Whether helping an individual consumer get a financial fresh start through a personal insolvency process or managing a complex corporate wind-down, our core responsibilities stay the same:

Secure Assets: Take possession and control of all assets belonging to the debtor (subject to provincial exemptions for individuals and the rights of trust claimants and secured creditors)

Investigate Financial Affairs: Examine the debtor’s finances, including transactions before the insolvency filing, to ensure fairness

Realize Value: Sell assets in a way that maximizes returns for creditors

Distribute Funds: Distribute money collected to creditors according to the priority rules in the BIA and/or as approved by the court through an insolvency trustee court order

Report: Provide detailed financial reports to creditors, the OSB, and the court

Understanding the Necessity of an Insolvency Trustee Court Order in Insolvency Proceedings

What Is an Insolvency Trustee Court Order?

A court order is a written ruling by a judge that must be followed. In insolvency, an insolvency trustee court order is an official directive that either:

Grants the Licensed Insolvency Trustee specific powers, or
Approves a significant decision or action

In the Cacoeli case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an insolvency trustee court order appointing a receiver. This order gave the receiver legal authority to seize control over all assets and properties of the Cacoeli companies.

Why Court Involvement Is Essential

Courts aren’t involved just to follow bureaucratic procedure. They serve two critical purposes:

Neutrality and Impartiality: Insolvency creates conflict. A judge provides a neutral, binding decision that everyone must respect. This ensures no single party unfairly benefits.

Legal Compliance: By reviewing the Trustee’s requests and issuing an order, the court confirms that proposed actions follow the BIA and other relevant laws strictly.

What Requires Court Approval?

Not every action a Licensed Insolvency Trustee takes requires a judge’s approval. The insolvency trustee court order appointing the receiver gives certain discretionary powers, such as handling routine matters, including administrative disbursements.

However, any major decision that impacts the fundamental rights of debtors or creditors must be sanctioned by an insolvency trustee court order. This creates a clear line between day-to-day administration and actions requiring judicial authority.

Key Scenarios Requiring a Licensed Insolvency Trustee to Obtain an Insolvency Trustee Court Order

Many actions taken by a Licensed Insolvency Trustee in a court-supervised receivership require court permission through an insolvency trustee court order. Here are the most common situations:

Approval of Trustee Fees and Administrative Costs

Our fees are strictly regulated through a process called “taxation.” The ultimate fees and costs must be approved by the court through an insolvency trustee court order.

This is a critical check to ensure the estate isn’t being overcharged. It protects creditors from excessive fees eating into their recovery.

Authorizing Unusual or Complex Transactions and Asset Sales

A key duty of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee is to liquidate (sell) assets. However, court approval is required when the transaction is:

Unusual: Selling a non-standard asset or unique piece of real estate

Complex: Selling an entire business as a “going concern” (a live business that continues operating)

Controversial: When one or more stakeholders object to the sale price or terms

In these cases, the Trustee must provide sufficient evidence to a judge for an insolvency trustee court order to approve the transaction.

Resolving Disputes Among Stakeholders

The Trustee may face disputes such as:

A party claiming ownership of an asset under the receiver’s control
A dispute over the validity or priority of different security interests
Creditors disagreeing about distribution

When these disputes can’t be settled through negotiation, the Trustee brings a motion to court. A judge issues an insolvency trustee court order that settles the matter legally and definitively.

In the Cacoeli case, secured creditors wanted their properties excluded from the receivership. Justice Steele rejected this request. She stated the receivership must cover all properties to prevent chaos among creditors. This is a prime example of the court resolving a major stakeholder dispute.

Approving Debtor Proposals and Restructuring Plans

The goal of a business proposal under a BIA Division I Proposal or major corporate restructuring under the CCAA is to financially restructure the company to save it and as many jobs as possible.

A significant insolvency trustee court order is always required for final approval of a Division I restructuring proposal or restructuring plan. The court confirms that the plan is fair, reasonable, viable and calculated for the general benefit of all creditors.

Modifying, Annulling, or Terminating Insolvency Proceedings

Sometimes a debtor’s situation changes. They may need to alter their original plan based on changed circumstances. Or the Trustee may discover an issue that warrants ending the insolvency proceeding entirely, as the original plan is no longer viable.

A judge must review the facts and issue an insolvency trustee court order to modify, annul, or terminate the proceeding.

Addressing Trustee Liability or Allegations of Misconduct

If any stakeholder alleges that a LIT has breached their duties or acted improperly, the matter goes before a judge.

The court must issue an order to investigate the claim. If necessary, the court can order compensation or disciplinary action against the Trustee. This ensures absolute accountability.

The Far-Reaching Significance of Judicial Oversight in Insolvency

Protecting the Interests of All Parties

Judicial oversight is about trust. By demanding an insolvency trustee court order for critical actions, the system provides comfort to all parties:

Debtors know the process is being handled legally

Creditors know assets can’t be sold cheaply or favour one creditor over another

The Public knows the integrity of capital markets is being enforced, as the Court of Appeal confirmed in the Cacoeli case

Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, and Due Process

Every court motion becomes part of a public record. This transparency ensures every stakeholder can review the trustee’s actions.

The process also provides due process – the right to be heard. Any party can attend a hearing and object to a proposed action.

Upholding Public Confidence in the Canadian Insolvency System

Canada’s entire economy relies on:

The ability of businesses to take risks
The ability of creditors to enforce their rights

According to Industry Canada’s publication “Fresh Start: A Review of Canada’s Insolvency Laws“:

Insolvency legislation is a key component of Canada’s marketplace framework legislation that governs commercial relationships for both consumers and businesses. Certain and reliable rules provide security for investors and lenders that, in turn, influences the cost and availability of credit in the Canadian marketplace.

When the system fails, the court restores order. They are the clear, final legal instrument that upholds the integrity of the process and ensures public faith in financial markets and debt restructuring.

The Ultimate Framework for All Decisions

Regardless of the unique facts of any case, every judicial decision is rooted in federal and provincial law. Judges interpret the law to deliver their orders, making it the ultimate framework for every action taken by a Licensed Insolvency Trustee.

Consequences of Acting Without a Necessary Insolvency Trustee Court Order

Potential Ramifications for the Licensed Insolvency Trustee

A trustee who ignores the need for an insolvency trustee court order faces serious consequences:

Personal Liability: The trustee could be held personally responsible for any financial loss to the estate caused by unauthorized action

Disciplinary Action: The court and the OSB could impose sanctions, fines, or, in severe cases, the OSB could revoke the LIT’s license

Voided Actions: The action itself (such as an asset sale) could be reversed or voided by a subsequent court decision, creating chaos and cost

Adverse Impacts on the Insolvency Estate and Stakeholders

When a Licensed Insolvency Trustee acts outside the BIA or without proper authorization, the entire estate suffers:

Increased Costs: The estate incurs significant costs fighting legal challenges and correcting unauthorized actions

Delayed Proceedings: Disputes and legal challenges drag out the process, delaying final distribution of funds to creditors

Loss of Confidence: Creditors and debtors lose faith in the insolvency administration, leading to an unnecessarily hostile environment

Section 37 of the BIA provides that any person aggrieved by any act or decision of a Licensed Insolvency Trustee can apply to court to reverse or alter that act or decision. The court also has the authority to sanction the trustee.

Frequently Asked Questions: Insolvency Trustee Court Order

What is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee?

A Licensed Insolvency Trustee is the only professional in Canada who can legally administer receiverships, bankruptcies and consumer proposals. We used to be called trustee in bankruptcy, but the name changed to better reflect our broader role.

Think of us as a bridge between your financial troubles and the Canadian legal system. We’re officers of the court, which means we have a legal duty to be fair and impartial.

Only Licensed Insolvency Trustees can act as receivers, whether privately appointed or through an insolvency trustee court order.

To become an LIT, you must:

Complete rigorous education requirements
Gain practical experience in insolvency work
Pass demanding national examinations
Demonstrate expertise in insolvency law, accounting, and financial assessment

This ensures that every LIT has the knowledge and skills to handle complex financial situations fairly.

What does a Licensed Insolvency Trustee actually do?

Whether we’re helping someone with personal debt or managing a complex corporate restructuring or bankruptcy, our core responsibilities stay the same:

Secure Assets: We take control of all assets belonging to the debtor. This protects them from being hidden or sold improperly. (Some assets are exempt, and trust claimants and secured creditors keep their rights.)

Investigate Financial Affairs: We carefully examine the debtor’s financial transactions made before filing for insolvency.

Realize Value: We sell assets in a way that gets the best possible return for creditors. This might mean selling items individually or selling a business as a going concern.

Distribute Funds: We distribute the money we collect to creditors following the strict priority rules in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Sometimes, an insolvency trustee court order determines the distribution.

Report: We provide detailed financial reports to the court, creditors, and the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. Transparency is essential.

What law governs Licensed Insolvency Trustees in Canada?

The primary law that guides almost everything we do is the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. This is Canada’s main insolvency legislation.

The BIA covers:

Rules for debt relief and bankruptcy
The framework for consumer proposals and corporate proposals
The powers and duties of Licensed Insolvency Trustees
Priority rules for paying creditors
When court orders are required

For very large corporate restructurings (typically companies with debts over $5 million), the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act often applies instead. The CCAA allows for more flexible restructuring options.

Both laws work together with provincial legislation to create Canada’s comprehensive insolvency system.

Who oversees Licensed Insolvency Trustees?

Licensed Insolvency Trustees operate under two layers of oversight. This dual supervision ensures the system works fairly:

The Courts: Provide judicial supervision and make final decisions on major actions. Courts issue insolvency trustee court orders that authorize significant steps in the process.

The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada: This federal regulator provides administrative supervision. The OSB ensures:

Canada’s insolvency system remains fair and efficient
Trustees perform their duties with integrity
Trustees follow all rules and regulations
Any complaints against trustees are investigated

This two-level oversight gives the public, debtors, and creditors confidence that the process will be handled properly.

What is an insolvency trustee court order?

An insolvency trustee court order is a written ruling issued by a judge that must be followed. It’s a legally binding document.

In insolvency cases, these court orders serve two main purposes:

Grant the Licensed Insolvency Trustee specific legal powers
Approve a significant decision or action that the LIT plans to take

These orders form the backbone of fairness and legality in Canadian insolvency cases. They ensure that major decisions have judicial approval and oversight.

For example, when a receiver is appointed (like in the Cacoeli case discussed in our blog), the insolvency trustee court order gives that receiver the legal authority to take control of assets and manage the insolvency process.

Why do courts get involved in insolvency proceedings?

Courts aren’t just following bureaucratic procedure. They serve two critical purposes in insolvency:

Ensuring Neutrality and Impartiality: Insolvency creates conflict. Creditors want their money. Debtors need protection. The judge provides a neutral, binding decision that everyone must respect. This prevents any single party from benefiting unfairly at the expense of others.

Confirming Legal Compliance: Before issuing an insolvency trustee court order, the court reviews the Applicant’s request carefully. This confirms that the proposed actions strictly follow the BIA and other relevant laws. If something doesn’t comply with the law, the judge won’t approve it.

This judicial oversight protects everyone’s rights and maintains public confidence in Canada’s insolvency system.

When does a Licensed Insolvency Trustee need a court order?

Not every action requires an insolvency trustee court order. We have discretionary powers for routine administrative matters – like paying regular administrative expenses or communicating with creditors.

However, any major decision that impacts the fundamental rights of creditors or debtors must be sanctioned by a court order. Here are the most common scenarios:

Approval of Fees and Costs: Our fees and administrative costs must be approved by the court through a process called “taxation.” This protects creditors from excessive charges eating into their recovery.

Authorizing Complex Transactions: Court approval is required for asset sales that are:

Unusual (non-standard assets or unique properties)
Complex (selling an entire business as a going concern)
Controversial (stakeholders object to the sale price or terms)

Resolving Disputes: When disputes arise – such as someone claiming ownership of an asset, or secured creditors disagreeing about distribution priorities – we bring a motion to court. The judge issues an order that settles the matter legally and definitively.

Approving Restructuring Plans: Final approval of a BIA Division I restructuring proposal or a CCAA corporate restructuring plan always requires a significant insolvency trustee court order. The court must confirm that the plan is fair, reasonable, and has a realistic chance of success.

Modifying Proceedings: If circumstances change and the insolvency proceedings need to be modified, annulled, or otherwise terminated, a court order is required.

Addressing Trustee Issues: If anyone alleges the LIT has breached their duties, the matter goes before a judge who can investigate and order appropriate remedies.

What happens if a trustee acts without getting a required court order?

Ignoring the requirement for an insolvency trustee court order leads to serious consequences for the Licensed Insolvency Trustee:

Personal Liability: The LIT may be held personally responsible for any financial loss to the estate caused by the unauthorized action. This means paying out of their own pocket.

Disciplinary Action: The court or the OSB can impose:

Sanctions
Significant fines
Suspension from practice
In severe cases, complete revocation of the LIT’s license

Voided Actions: The unauthorized action itself – such as an improper asset sale – could be reversed or voided by a subsequent court decision. This creates chaos and additional costs.

Negative Impact on Everyone: Unauthorized actions harm the entire insolvency estate:

Increased legal costs
Delayed proceedings
Loss of creditor confidence
Potential loss of asset value

Section 37 of the BIA specifically allows any person who is aggrieved by an LIT’s decision to apply to court to reverse or alter that decision. The court has full authority to sanction the trustee.

What standard of proof is needed to appoint a receiver in regulatory cases?

This is one of the most important takeaways from the Cacoeli case about insolvency trustee court orders.

When a regulator like the Ontario Securities Commission asks the court for urgent protection, they only need to show “serious concern that there have been possible breaches.”

This is a lower standard than criminal cases or even most civil cases. The court doesn’t need:

Absolute proof of fraud
Complete evidence
A finished investigation

The Court of Appeal for Ontario specifically rejected the argument that regulators must meet a higher “strong prima facie case” standard.

Why does this matter?

This lower standard allows courts and regulators to act quickly through an insolvency trustee court order to:

Protect investors from ongoing harm
Freeze assets before they disappear
Stop improper conduct immediately
Preserve evidence

The insolvency trustee court order appointing a receiver acts as a protective shield, not a final punishment. Full investigations and trials can happen later, but the immediate protection comes first.

Why did the Cacoeli court order cover all properties, even those with secured creditors?

In the Cacoeli case, some secured creditors held mortgages on specific properties. They asked the court to exclude their properties from the receivership so they could seize and sell those properties themselves.

Justice Steele refused this request. The insolvency trustee court order covered all Cacoeli assets and properties without exception.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Here’s why centralized control under one Licensed Insolvency Trustee as receiver was essential:

Prevents Creditor Chaos: If different creditors could seize different assets, they would fight over everything. The process would become a free-for-all with no coordination.

Avoids Multiple Court Cases: Excluding properties would lead to numerous separate legal proceedings, all overlapping and potentially contradicting each other.

Controls Costs: Multiple proceedings mean multiplied legal costs. A single insolvency trustee court order with one receiver keeps costs manageable.

Protects Small Creditors: When secured creditors grab assets first, unsecured creditors and small suppliers are not given a forum. Centralized control ensures everyone is treated fairly according to their legal priority.

Enables Efficient Administration: One receiver can see the whole picture, make coordinated decisions, and maximize value for all stakeholders.

This principle applies to most complex insolvency cases: centralized control through an insolvency trustee court order produces better outcomes than fragmented, competing proceedings.

Insolvency Trustee Court Order Final Thoughts: The Licensed Insolvency Trustee’s Role in a Regulatory Receivership

The insolvency trustee court order is an instrument of authority, protection, and fairness. As Licensed Insolvency Trustees, our job – whether in a standard bankruptcy, a financial restructuring or a specialized receivership like the Cacoeli case – is to impose order and protect stakeholders.

The Cacoeli decisions confirmed two critical points:

Lower Standard for Protection: Courts won’t wait for proof of fraud to a certainty. The “serious concern” standard is enough to appoint an LIT as a receiver quickly. This is essential to freeze assets and prevent further investor harm.

Centralized Control Is Key: The court agreed that the entire portfolio of assets must be placed under one receiver’s control – even properties secured by third parties. This centralized approach, ordered by the court, prevents a fragmented, costly, and unfair outcome for all stakeholders.

Need Help With Debt or Insolvency Issues?

If you’re facing financial challenges – whether personal or business-related – understanding the role of an insolvency trustee court order is just the beginning. At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we’ve helped many individuals and businesses in the Greater Toronto Area find their path to financial recovery.

From our Vaughan office, we provide:

Free, confidential consultations
Expert guidance on bankruptcy alternatives
Consumer proposals that can reduce your debt
Corporate restructuring solutions
Court-supervised receiverships

Contact us today to discuss your situation. Let us help you understand your options and find the best solution for your financial future.

Brandon Smith, Licensed Insolvency Trustee
Senior Vice-President
Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc.
167 Applewood Crescent, Suite 6
Vaughan, Ontario
Greater Toronto Area

The information provided in this blog is intended for educational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional advice regarding their specific situations. The content should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional guidance or consultation. The author, Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., and any contributors do not assume any liability for any loss or damage.

Brandon Smith is a Licensed Insolvency Trustee and Senior Vice-President at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., serving individuals and businesses throughout the Greater Toronto Area. With years of experience in insolvency cases, including financial restructuring, Brandon helps clients navigate complex financial challenges and find sustainable solutions, Starting Over Starting Now.

Tags administrative disbursements, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Cacoeli Asset Management, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, Consumer Proposal, court approval, Court of Appeal for Ontario, court orders, court permission, Division I restructuring proposal, insolvency law, insolvency trustee court order, licensed insolvency trustee, Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada, Ontario court decision, Ontario Securities Commission, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, personal insolvency process, trustee in bankruptcy

Brandon Blog Post

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

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date September 21, 2020

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

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

Stalking horse introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Why would anyone want to become a stalking horse?**

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

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

**How a stalking horse bid works**

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

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

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

**MPH Graphics stalking horse bid process case study**

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

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

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

MPH was insolvent

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

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

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

stalking horse

**The stalking horse bidder came knocking**

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

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

**What kind of stalking horse insolvency process?**

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

receivership;
bankruptcy; and
restructuring.

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

The insolvent company’s requirements were:

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

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

**A stalking horse process works best in an insolvency restructuring process**

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

Liquidating Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).
Liquidating Plan of Arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA).

The benefits of this approach are:

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

**Liquidating proposal under the BIA to run the stalking horse process**

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

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

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

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

**Key elements of the stalking horse sales process**

The key elements of the stalking horse sales process were:

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

**The outcome of the stalking horse sales process**

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

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

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

**Court approval of the stalking horse bid**

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

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

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

Stalking horse summary

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

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

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

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

We know that people facing financial problems need realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.
Call us now for a free consultation.

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

The Ira Smith Trustee Team is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting. We hope that you and your family are safe and healthy.

Tags Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, bankruptcy trustee, BIA, CCAA, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, court approval, insolvent, Ira Smith Trustee, mph graphics, proposal, stalking horse, stalking horse bid, stalking horse bid process, stalking horse bidder, stalking horse offer, stalking horse sales process, trustee

Brandon Blog Post

CREDITORS: ALARM BELLS RING WHEN FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING HEADS SOUTH

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date February 26, 2020

Introduction

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to describe the final type of bankruptcy in Canada. I will describe it from the viewpoint of creditors. Previously I’ve blogged about the three types of bankruptcies in Canada. I also wrote about the personal bankruptcy process and the corporate bankruptcy process in Canada.

Personal bankruptcy and corporate bankruptcy in Canada

From the first two, the personal bankruptcy process and the corporate bankruptcy process, that was from the perspective of a person or company filing an assignment in bankruptcy. I also wrote about a person or company being pushed into bankruptcy by one or more creditors through a bankruptcy application and a bankruptcy order.

Today’s blog is to talk about the third type of bankruptcy and that is a deemed assignment in bankruptcy. The deemed assignment is most commonly associated with when a financial restructuring under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) heads south.

Creditors and a deemed assignment in bankruptcy

In Canada, very large corporate restructurings are done under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. A person or a company of any size can also restructure under the BIA. This blog is about restructuring under the BIA to illustrate the third way a person or company can go bankrupt through a deemed assignment in bankruptcy.

The reason people or companies would file for a financial restructuring is to get a time out from its creditors taking action against them trying to collect on debts. People who owe more than $250,000 and companies who have too much debt qualify to restructure under the financial restructuring debt settlement provisions of the BIA. A restructuring filing gives them the needed time out to formulate a plan for settling the debt.

If a person owes $250,000 or less, then there is a different restructuring provision of the BIA available. That provision is the consumer proposal restructuring debt settlement section. If a consumer proposal restructuring attempt fails, that ultimately does not end up in being a deemed assignment in bankruptcy.

The deemed assignment in bankruptcy, the third type of bankruptcy in Canada, is really the topic of this blog.

Financial restructuring under the BIA

So the BIA has a financial restructuring section. The debtor needing a timeout can either file their restructuring proposal straight away or first buy some extra time by filing a notice of intention to make a proposal. If a debtor first files a notice of intention to make a proposal, within 10 days after that, they need to file a cash flow statement in the prescribed form plus related extra documents (unless the time period is extended by the court). The restructuring proposal must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the notice of intention to make a proposal.

When a debtor files the actual restructuring proposal a cash flow statement has to be filed with it as well. It will be an original one if the debtor goes straight away to the filing of the proposal or an updated one if they first filed the notice of intention to make a proposal.

Meeting of creditors to consider the proposal

Once filed the Licensed Insolvency Trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) must notify the creditors of the filing of a notice of intention to make a proposal and the restructuring proposal. The Trustee must call a meeting of creditors within 21 days of the filing of the restructuring proposal.

The creditors get to vote to approve or not approve the restructuring proposal creditor acceptances by voting and must be in the requisite majority calculated as a simple majority in number and at least 2/3 of the dollar value of all claims voting either in person at the meeting or by proxy and voting letter delivered to the trustee prior to the start of the meeting.

The need for Court approval

After creditors accept the Proposal, the Trustee must get the restructuring proposal approved by the court. For the court approval process, the court considers if:

the restructuring proposal, are the terms of the restructuring proposal fair and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors?
Did the Trustee properly follow all required procedural steps including properly holding and counting the voting by the creditors?

As long as the answers to these questions are yes and the restructuring proposal took the interests of all stakeholders into account, then the court will approve the restructuring proposal. Then the company or the person must successfully complete it including making all payments required under the restructuring proposal.

How can a restructuring proposal fail or head south?

A financial restructuring plan under the BIA can fail if:

the person or company fails to file the required cash flow statement and related documentation within the 10 day period after the filing of the notice of intention to make a proposal or the debtor;
fails to file a financial restructuring proposal within the 30-day time limit after the filing of the notice of intention to make a proposal or such greater time period authorized by the court;
the requisite majority of creditors voting do not accept the restructuring proposal;
the court does not approve the restructuring proposal; or
the restructuring proposal is accepted by the creditors and approved by the Court but the debtor fails to make the payments and do any other things contained in the restructuring proposal.

When the debtor is automatically bankrupt when there is an event of default in the Proposal

Under the following situations, the person or company will be deemed to have filed an assignment in bankruptcy if the person or company:

fails to file the required cash flow statement;
the debtor fails to file the financial restructuring proposal on time;
the requisite majority of creditors voting do not accept the restructuring proposal; or
the court does not approve the restructuring proposal

Under any of these conditions, the person or the company is automatically deemed to have filed an assignment in bankruptcy. You can go back and review my earlier blogs for the personal bankruptcy process and for what the corporate bankruptcy process is all about.

You can do the same thing when the restructuring proposals are accepted by the creditors and approved by the court but the debtor fails to make payments or do any of the other things contained in the restructuring proposal.

A Proposal default that does not automatically mean bankruptcy

Unlike the other events of default, when the debtor fails to make a payment under the Proposal, there is not an automatically deemed assignment in bankruptcy. Rather the Trustee has to give notice to the debtor and if there are any the inspectors in the restructuring to them also. The person or company attempting to restructure then has 30 days to remedy the default. If they do not remedy the default after the 30 day period then the Trustee has to issue a notice of default which is sent to the debtor, the creditors, and to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.

After giving notice of default, the Trustee does not have to do anything else. Any one of the creditors can then bring a court motion to annul the restructuring proposal. If the Trustee has the funding to do so and is directed by the inspectors, the Trustee can also bring that motion.

If the motion is brought and is successful then and only then is the person or company deemed to have filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

But if nobody brings the motion the company or person actually just floats out there and the Trustee is entitled to go for taxation of its receipts and disbursements, make whatever distribution it can with the funds on hand and then go get its discharge.

Three types of bankruptcy in Canada

So to recap, the three types of bankruptcies in Canada are:

filing an assignment of bankruptcy;
a bankruptcy application and the issuance of a bankruptcy order; and
as explained in this blog, a deemed assignment in bankruptcy.

I hope you enjoyed this blog on creditors, a financial restructuring proposal and the process for a deemed assignment in bankruptcy. The IraSmith team is available to help you at any time. We offer sound advice and a solid plan for Starting Over Starting Now so that you’ll be well on your way to a debt-free life in no time.

Do you have too much debt? Are you banking on some outside event that you have no control over, like an inheritance or gambling winnings to save you or your company?

If yes, then you need immediate help. The Ira Smith Team comprehends just how to do a debt restructuring. Much more notably, we know the demands of the business owner or the person who has too much debt. Due to the fact that you are managing these stressful financial problems, you are anxious.

It is not your fault you cannot fix this issue on your own. You have just been shown the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt troubles while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we take a look at your whole condition and layout a strategy that is as unique as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as a part of the debt negotiation approach we will create just for you.

We understand that individuals facing financial troubles require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you as well as end the pain you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will certainly get you or your business back on the road to a well balanced and healthy life and end the pain factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Tags Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, BIA, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, Corporate Bankruptcy, court approval, creditors, deemed assignment in bankruptcy, financial restructuring, Ira Smith Trustee, licensed insolvency trustee, meeting of creditors, notice of intention to make a proposal, personal bankruptcy, restructuring, restructuring proposal, trustee

Brandon Blog Post

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

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date September 17, 2018

Court 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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Tags 558 Dovercourt Road, agreement of purchase and sale, as is where is, court appointed receiver, court appointed receiver + real estate, court approval, court-appointed receiver real estate sale, Ira Smith Trustee, power of sale, private receiver, real estate agreement, real estate property, real estate sale, receiver real estate, vesting order, What Is A Court Appointed Receiver Real Estate

Brandon Blog Post

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

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date April 11, 2018

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:

Whether the Receiver has made enough effort to get the best price and has not acted improvidently.
Considering the interests of all parties.
The efficacy and integrity of the process used to get offers.
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.

Stalking horse credit bid: The outcome

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

ran the advertisement and issued our preliminary “teaser” sales document to all those that requested it; and
set up our online data room of pertinent business and other information about the assets and business operations.

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

Tags bankruptcy protection, corporate insolvency, court appointed, court appointed receiver, court approval, court supervised sales process, insolvency, Ira Smith Trustee, personal insolvency, receiver, sales process, secured creditor, stalking horse, stalking horse asset purchase agreement, stalking horse bid process, stalking horse bidder whose, stalking horse credit bid, stalking horse credit bid process, stalking horse sales process