Tag: debtor

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT DOES RECEIVERSHIP MEAN FOR 1 BETTER GUARANTOR BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGE

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

what does receivership mean

What does receivership mean: Receivership is for secured claims

What does receivership mean? A receivership is an enforcement proceeding that helps secured creditors recover secured debts on debtor defaults on loan payments from troubled companies. There are two types of receivers and receiverships: Privately-appointed receivers and court-appointed receivers.

As you can tell from the title of this Brandon Blog, I am not going to be writing about receiverships. You can take a look at my April 14, 2021, Brandon Blog titled “WHAT IS A RECEIVERSHIP? OUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO RECEIVERSHIP SOLUTIONS” to read all about what receiverships are.

What does receivership mean? It is a remedy for secured creditors.

I want to go through two more concepts quickly, and then I will get to what I really want to talk to you about today.

What does receivership mean: Bankruptcy vs. receivership

Despite the fact that receivership and bankruptcy sometimes get used interchangeably, they are not the same thing. A bankruptcy proceeding and a receivership proceeding are both legal actions conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) and governed by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB). According to the BIA, either a receiver or a bankruptcy trustee in Canada needs to be a licensed insolvency trustee, whose license is granted and whose actions are supervised by the federal government’s OSB.

Here is where the similarities end. In a receivership, a secured creditor would either hire a receiver privately or ask a court to place a company into receivership and appoint one to liquidate the collateral they have against the debtor. According to the Canadian bankruptcy process, either the person or company voluntary files for bankruptcy with a licensed insolvency practitioner, or one or more unsecured creditors apply to the Court for the appointment of an insolvency trustee to administer the bankruptcy Estate.

Licensed insolvency trustees are needed in both cases. The receivership procedure is a secured creditor’s remedy and bankruptcy is an unsecured creditor‘s remedy. To read up more on the bankruptcy process, look at my September 30, 2020, Brandon Blog “DECLARE BANKRUPTCY: A COMPLETE GUIDE ON WHAT IS IT LIKE TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY“.

What does receivership mean? Not the same as bankruptcy.

what does receivership mean
what does receivership mean

Employee Rights in Bankruptcy Protection and Bankruptcy⁄Receivership

Bankruptcy protection can be gained to try to make a troubled company stable and then return the company to profitability by filing pursuant to either the BIA or the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), employees retain their right to unpaid wages, vacation pay, and severance or termination pay. There is no difference between filing and not filing. They are unsecured creditors of a troubled company, and the company directors are personally responsible for amounts owed to employees.

For the company in receivership or bankruptcy, the employees do have greater rights. The receiver of a company in receivership must register with Service Canada under the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) for the Wage Earner Protection Program. This program provides some compensation to eligible employees who are owed money by a bankrupt or receivership company.

To read more about WEPPA, take a look at my February 10, 2020 Brandon Blog, “SEVERANCE PAY ONTARIO & BANKRUPTCY-BARRYMORE FURNITURE UNPAID WORKERS ANGRY“.

So what does receivership mean to an employee with unpaid wages? It means they can claim a priority and get paid by Service Canada.

What does receivership mean: Receivership – a typical appointment

Now I will get to what this Brandon Blog is actually about. In Canada, it is the norm for secured creditors advancing loans secured against company assets, to also take a personal guarantee on the same debt from the principals of the company. In all entrepreneurial companies in Canada, that is at least the president running company affairs. If the lender-secured creditor suffers a shortfall from the liquidation of the company assets, the lender then looks to the guarantor(s) of the company debt to make good on the lender’s loss. Many times the company president/guarantor has no choice but to file consumer bankruptcy.

I was involved in a bankruptcy discharge hearing for one of our personal bankrupts in April 2021. He caused his company, being its sole Director, to file for bankruptcy with another Trustee. That same Trustee was also appointed as the company’s private receiver by the secured creditor. The company president provided the secured creditor with a personal guarantee.

Realizing that they would suffer a shortfall from the company situation, rather than suing on their personal guarantee, they approached us to consent to act as the Trustee in a Bankruptcy Application against the company president. We consented and the company president ultimately consented to a Bankruptcy Order being made to put him into bankruptcy with my Firm as the Trustee.

what does receivership mean
what does receivership mean

What does receivership mean: The bankruptcy of the guarantor

We administered the consumer bankruptcy. There were some assets to realize upon which we did. One realization required court approval as we were selling seat licenses and the right to purchase tickets for the Toronto Maple Leafs to a related party. The bankrupt person’s largest single consumer creditor was Canada Revenue Agency for unpaid income tax. The company in receivership was also a creditor as the president owed the company money. The secured creditor of the company was also an unsecured creditor of his in his personal bankruptcy for the personal guarantee on the shortfall.

The known creditors each filed their respective proof of claim in his bankruptcy, including the company by its privately-appointed receiver. We believed that the company by its receiver was a creditor for the amount of the shareholder loan owing to the company. The proof of claim they filed was for a much larger amount. As Trustee, we neither admitted nor disallowed any proofs of claim filed in this bankruptcy estate. The Trustee would have to take a cold hard look at the receiver’s proof of claim at some future date it is determined that a dividend will be paid to the creditors in this bankruptcy estate, which is highly unlikely.

What does receivership mean: The receiver opposes a bankruptcy discharge

Only one unsecured creditor opposed the bankrupt’s discharge. That was the receiver, or more correctly, the company in receivership by its privately-appointed receiver. The Trustee had not opposed. The lender, as an unsecured creditor, did not oppose either along with the other consumer creditors.

As I mentioned, in April 2021, the discharge hearing was held before the Master sitting as Registrar in Bankruptcy Court. The court raised a novel issue. Does the receiver have the standing to oppose the bankrupt’s discharge? The court allowed the hearing to be completed and allowed the parties to file further submissions, subsequent to the hearing, on this issue. Submissions were received from us, the
Trustee and from the Receiver in mid-May, 2021. The bankrupt took no position on the issue.

what does receivership mean
what does receivership mean

Does the Receiver have standing to oppose the bankrupt’s discharge?

Here is what I wrote to the court.

The security documents under which a privately-appointed receiver is appointed will determine if an unsecured amount owing by a bankrupt debtor is an asset secured by security held by a creditor over the assets of another party. If so, then the privately-appointed receiver has the right to file a proof of claim in the debtor’s bankruptcy as part of attempting to realize upon that asset forming part of the secured creditor’s collateral.

In doing so, the privately-appointed receiver is acting as Agent for the secured creditor. If the privately-appointed receiver files a proof of claim in the bankruptcy that is not disallowed by the licensed insolvency trustee administering the bankruptcy estate, then, in order to oppose the discharge of the bankrupt, the privately-appointed receiver must also be able to be the Agent for the debtor in receivership.

If the security under which the privately-appointed receiver is appointed allows for that receiver to operate the business of the debtor in receivership, then that receiver has the ability to be an Agent of the debtor in receivership and bring a claim in the name of that debtor.

In this matter, of the various pieces of security held by the secured creditor, only the General Security Agreement (the “GSA”), allows a receiver appointed in writing under it to operate the business of the debtor company. Under the GSA, the privately-appointed receiver has the ability to act as both Agent of the secured creditor and Agent of the company. The appointment letter appointing the receiver confirms that the appointment is under all security held, including the GSA.

Therefore, my opinion was that although we have concerns about the amount being claimed, the receiver has the ability to both file a proof of claim in this bankruptcy and oppose the discharge of the bankrupt as an Agent of the company. I believed it aided the administration of this bankruptcy to allow the receiver to oppose because it is able to draw the attention of the court to conduct of the bankrupt of which the court otherwise might not be aware of.

Finally, I advised the court that if there still was concern that it is formal defect or irregularity section 187(9) of the BIA, the court can determine that such formal defect or irregularity will not invalidate the opposition to the discharge of the bankrupt.

What the bankruptcy court decided

The court accepted our submission and agreed with it. The court continued to be skeptical of the amount of the company’s proof of claim filed by the receiver. The court noted that as Trustee, I reported that the bankrupt has fulfilled all statutory duties. Income and expense statements were provided and there was no surplus income payable.

On a general perusal of the Trustee’s s. 170 report, the Trustee does not report any significant misconduct or concerns but reserved its rights as to its position on the discharge pending the hearing and matters disclosed therein. In the court’s view, the Trustee’s non-opposition to discharge is a factor favouring the bankrupt’s discharge. After considering all facts, the court gave the bankrupt an absolute discharge from bankruptcy.

what does receivership mean
what does receivership mean

What does receivership mean summary

I hope that you found this what does receivership mean Brandon Blog helpful in describing the role of a privately appointed receiver especially in opposing the discharge of the bankrupt guarantor of the company’s secured debt. Problems will arise when you are cash-starved and in debt. There are several insolvency processes available to a person or company with too much debt. You may not need to file for bankruptcy.

If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges, you need debt help and you assume bankruptcy is your only option, call me.

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as an alternative to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

The tension put upon you is big. We know your discomfort factors. We will check out your entire situation and design a new approach that is as unique as you and your problems; financial and emotional. We will take the weight off of your shoulders and blow away the dark cloud hanging over you. We will design a debt settlement strategy for you. We know that we can help you now.

We understand that people with credit cards maxed out and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do as we know the alternatives to bankruptcy. We help many people and companies stay clear of filing an assignment in bankruptcy.

That is why we can establish a new restructuring procedure for paying down debt that will be built just for you. It will be as one-of-a-kind as the economic issues and discomfort you are encountering. If any one of these seems familiar to you and you are serious about getting the solution you need to become debt-free, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is absolutely operational and Ira, in addition to Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone consultation or video meeting.

what does receivership mean
what does receivership mean
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS LAW NOT TO DO?

What is a creditor introduction

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

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

Vaughan Crossings Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

The business consultant

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

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

The court case

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

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

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

The analysis

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

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

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

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

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

So what is a creditor not to do?

What you should not do is:

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

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

What is a creditor?

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

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

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

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

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

what is a creditor

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

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

Current insolvency assignments: Introduction

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

Current insolvency assignments: Mr. and Mrs. R

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

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

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

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

Current insolvency assignments: A certain creditor’s reaction

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

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

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

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

Current insolvency assignments: The Trustee’s reaction

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

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

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

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

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

Current insolvency assignments: Off to Court for approval

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current insolvency assignments: What the Court said

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

The Court found that:

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

Current insolvency assignments: What the Court ordered

The Court found that:

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

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

Current insolvency assignments: What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

#VIDEO-HISTORY OF BANKRUPTCY NEVER GETS ANCIENT#

HISTORY OF BANKRUPTCY NEVER GETS ANCIENT

History of bankruptcy: Introduction

A subject that rarely gets written about is the history of bankruptcy. Understanding the history of the Canadian bankruptcy system and how it has evolved, gives a helpful look into how it works and help Canadians and Canadian society.

History of bankruptcy: Helping the debtor

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) provides a way for the orderly liquidation of a bankrupt’s assets and distribute that value to the creditors. In this way, the BIA assists the insolvent debtor who needs a way to be forgiven for his or her financial sins, relieved of their burden and be returned to society as a productive contributor. The BIA assists creditors in providing the system of turning the assets into cash to be distributed to them, and not keeping those assets either out of their reach or just laying in an unproductive state. The BIA also is a system of checks and balances, so that it provides both Canadians and foreigners that there is a vibrant and safe Canadian economy.

History of bankruptcy: Helping the creditors

The BIA also ensures that there is a fair and logical system in place to deal with the assets of the debtor and the claims of creditors. By invoking it, it avoids a race among creditors to attempt to get the right to seize assets in an uncontrolled way. Creditors are paid according to their place in the hierarchy of claims as described in the BIA as follows:

  • Trust claimants who are outside of the bankruptcy scheme
  • Secured creditors, who are also outside the bankruptcy scheme as long as they hold good and valid security
  • Unsecured creditors:
    • Preferred
    • Ordinary

History of Bankruptcy: bankruptcy alternatives

The BIA also provides debtors to opt for avoiding bankruptcy by making a Proposal. In the case of corporations, a Proposal; for people, either a Proposal or Consumer Proposal, depending on the level of their debt. Proposals are the bankruptcy alternative that allows companies or people to financially rehabilitate themselves and avoid bankruptcy, while offering the creditors more than they would receive in a bankruptcy. In this way, the BIA is both a liquidation and a rehabilitation statute, benefiting both debtors and creditors.

History of bankruptcy: The BIA

The present bankruptcy statute came into force on July 1, 1950. The title of the statute was amended from the Bankruptcy Act to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in 1992, to show the statute had matured into a full financial rehabilitation statute, that could be used to carry out a bankruptcy alternative. Further amendments were made in 1997 to deal with a number of practical issues that became problematic for Canadian society applying the BIA, including:

In 2005 there were another round of comprehensive amendments to the BIA mainly dealing with the new legislation of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA), designed to protect employees for their unpaid amounts when their employer goes either bankrupt or into receivership.

History of bankruptcy: Rehabilitation

It is a fundamental purpose of the BIA to offer the financial rehabilitation of insolvent persons. The BIA permits an honest but unfortunate debtor, be it a corporation or an individual, to secure financial restructuring through the Proposal provisions, or a discharge from bankruptcy for people. It allows for a fresh start for the debtor to resume his or her place in the business community and society.

The BIA attempts to offer balance by allowing an investigation to be made of the affairs of the debtor and setting aside fraudulent transactions so that ordinary unsecured creditors can share in a distribution, rather than someone else being the beneficiary of those questionable transactions. Finally, the BIA allows for creditors to purse actions against the bankrupt either through the Licensed Insolvency Administrator or directly by a creditor or group of creditors.

History of bankruptcy: The Courts

The general approach to the BIA by the courts is that it is a commercial statute. To administer the process it is left largely in the hands of business people. Technical and legal objections and manoeuvres are not given weight beyond those that are necessary for the proper implementation and interpretation of the BIA. Settlement and resolution are rewarded, litigation and court proceedings are not.

History of bankruptcy: What to do if you have too much debt

I hope this history of bankruptcy provides you with a good look into how the bankruptcy system developed in Canada and how it works. If you’re suffering from too much debt and are seeking debt relief options, contact Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. Our approach for every file is to create an outcome where Starting Over, Starting Now becomes a reality, beginning the moment you walk in the door. You’re only one call away from taking the steps towards a debt free life.

bankruptcy and insolvency act, BIA, history of bankruptcy, bankruptcy, proposal, consumer proposal, debt, ira smith trustee, licensed insolvency administrator, trustee, debt relief, debtor, creditors, assets, liquidation, avoiding bankruptcy, insolvent, weppa, bankruptcy alternatives, originate to distribute, insolvency law, google scholar, donald trump bankruptcies, abc, 2004, Primetime, 2016 Election, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy (organization termination type), how to rebuild credit after bankruptcy, the history of bankruptcy and, is the history of bankruptcy, rebuild credit after bankruptcy, rebuilding credit after bankruptcy, the history of bankruptcy, credit after bankruptcy, bankruptDebt (Quotation Subject), Debtor Accountancy (Field Of Study), Quotation (Quotation Subject), Police, Down, History, Documentary, System, Cops, Law (Industry), Industry Organization Sector), Police Officer (Film Character), Help, Crime, Court, Culture, Film (Film), Tips, Civil, Need, Tutorial, Tricks

THIS VLOG WAS INSPIRED IN PART BY OUR eBOOK – PERSONAL BANKRUPTCY CANADA: Not because you are a dummy, because you need to get your life back on track

Call a Trustee Now!