Tag: insolvency trustee

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION: THE UNDENIABLE BEST THING YOU NEED TO KNOW TO CASH YOUR INSOLVENT CUSTOMER’S CHEQUE SAFELY

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.

Bankruptcy protection: What happens if a company gets into financial trouble?

A Canadian company seeking bankruptcy protection has two choices when it is financially troubled and wants to reorganize. By hiring insolvency legal counsel and a licensed insolvency trustee to get both insolvency and bankruptcy law advice and financial advice, they can protect themselves from their creditors, either by:

  • using the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to file for bankruptcy protection; or
  • working with an insolvency trustee and filing a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) you can obtain bankruptcy protection.

In order to reorganize in Canada, an insolvent company files for bankruptcy protection. If you are insolvent in Canada, then you must file for bankruptcy protection, which is equivalent to Chapter 11 in the United States. The process is called financial restructuring or financial reorganization. By doing this, the company will try to restructure while it continues to operate to come up with a restructuring plan that allows the company to survive while satisfying the needs of the creditors to some degree.a

This Brandon Blog discusses a recent court decision that demonstrates that there is a risk to creditors who receive payments from the insolvent company under bankruptcy protection for goods or services supplied if the restructuring fails.

What happens to the company that files for bankruptcy protection?

An organization that files for bankruptcy protection, or as it is sometimes called, creditor protection, differs from an organization that files for bankruptcy. A pure bankruptcy procedure consists of a liquidation. The company ceases to operate unless the Trustee sees value in continuing to operate the company for a limited period of time.

The trustee in bankruptcy takes possession of all assets that are either not subject to valid claims by secured creditors (typically financial institutions) or that belong to third parties (for example, equipment under lease or goods undergoing repair that are in the company’s possession). A licensed insolvency trustee then formulates a plan for selling the unencumbered assets of the company to maximize the proceeds. Afterwards, the Trustee distributes the funds in accordance with the BIA.

In the case of a company filing for bankruptcy protection, this is one of the alternatives to bankruptcy. The intention is to continue operating while it tries to restructure. Most of the time, this entails downsizing. A plan will be devised to repay some of the remaining debt in exchange for the creditors writing off the balance that is owed. With success, the company can retain employees and continue to operate. Creditors will be able to earn money by supplying the reorganized company in the future.

The CCAA allows companies that owe at least $5 million to their creditors to file for bankruptcy protection. Either the business will be restructured and continue to exist on new financial terms or a wind-down will be supervised to pay back anyone owed money by selling assets. BIA restructuring provisions can be used by companies that owe less than $5 million.

In other words, a company that goes bankrupt will shut down. Those who file for bankruptcy protection want to keep operating. As disruptive as bankruptcy and restructuring are, they can be beneficial for businesses, individuals and the economy since they preserve value and prevent assets from being wasted.

As soon as the company enters bankruptcy protection (or bankruptcy), proceedings against it are stayed. As a result, all collection rights for creditors are suspended. A “time-out” gives the company a chance to restructure, or the Trustee can handle its duties in bankruptcy without interference from creditors. Additionally, it “freezes” all creditors at the time of the filing, so that one cannot gain an advantage over another.

bankruptcy protection
bankruptcy protection

A record number of companies have sought creditor protection under COVID-19 and more are on the way?

The list of large Canadian companies with outstanding debts looking for bankruptcy protection from creditors got to a decade high in May and June 2020. Numerous financial commentators believed there would be a full-blown financial crisis and that a lot more would certainly file as a result of COVID-19 caused the economic downturn. Despite this, the number of corporate insolvency filings appears to have stabilized and also slowed down in 2021. One main reason is the number of government programs supporting Canadian business. In the same way as the virus itself, COVID-19 has actually taken a hefty financial toll on companies with pre-existing conditions.

Some familiar Canadian corporations in the list of companies that filed in that time due to their financial situation were:

  1. Reitmans
  2. Frank & Oak
  3. Aldo
  4. DavidsTea
  5. Cirque Du Soleil
  6. Mendocino
  7. Bow River Energy
  8. FlightHub
  9. Christian charity, Gospel for Asia
  10. Cequence Energy
  11. Delphi Energy
  12. Sail

Twenty-two major Canadian companies sought creditor protection in May and June 2020, almost four times the usual rate. The list obviously does not include major U.S. names such as Chesapeake Energy, J Crew, Neiman Marcus, Brooks Brothers, Pier 1 and Boy Scouts of America.

The bankruptcy protection court case facts

I want to tell you about Schendel Mechanical Contracting Ltd (Re), 2021 ABQB 893. On November 9, 2021, the Honourable Mr. Justice Douglas R. Mah released his decision.

Schendel Mechanical Contracting Ltd. (Schendel) was one of three associated companies that at one time collectively formed a major construction concern in Alberta under the Schendel name. As a result of financial difficulties, it was an insolvent entity and it filed a Notice of Intention to Make A Proposal under the BIA on March 22, 2019. Schendel continued operations as part of its restructuring effort. On various Schendel projects, Schendel bought HVAC equipment from the supplier between April 2018 and May 2019.

Ultimately, Schendel’s debt restructuring plan failed. Schendel was deemed to have filed for bankruptcy when it failed to implement a successful BIA Proposal restructuring. Schendel went bankrupt immediately. Its secured creditor applied to the Court for the appointment of a Receiver, which was granted.

As a result of reviewing the company’s books and records, the Receiver found and disputed the legality of a $40,000 payment from Schendel, an insolvent company, to one of its suppliers. According to the Applicant Receiver, the payment was prohibited for a number of reasons and the funds should be returned. The recipient supplier asserted that the payment was both innocent and validly received and that it was entitled to retain it.

In this case, a cheque dated July 8, 2019, to make the payment. Due to an unknown reason, the supplier did not negotiate the cheque until 11:48 AM on July 19, 2019. Schendel was also deemed to have filed for bankruptcy and the Court made the Receivership Appointment Order all on the same day, July 19, 2019. The Court had, however, no evidence regarding the exact moment the receivership and bankruptcy decision was made on that same day.

bankruptcy protection
bankruptcy protection

The bankruptcy protection case: The Receiver’s position

It is noteworthy that the action to recover the $40,000 was brought by the Court-appointed Receiver and not the insolvency trustee of the bankruptcy estate. According to the Receiver, the funds should be returned on the following grounds:

  • the automatic stay under section 69(1) of the BIA was in effect at the time of filing and throughout the extension of the proposal period, so the supplier was without recourse against Schendel;
  • the Court-ordered stay contained in the Receivership Appointment Order of July 19, 2019, as well as the concurrent stay imposed by a deemed bankruptcy under the BIA, deprived the supplier of all collection remedies as of that date;
  • as an alternative, the payment may be prohibited under the Fraudulent Preferences Act; or
  • it may be in violation of the Statute of Elizabeth (see note below).

NOTE: The English Parliament passed this statute in 1571 with the purpose of prohibiting transfers that would defraud creditors or hinder their collection efforts. As a result of widespread fraudulent transactions designed to defraud creditors, the 13 Elizabeth Statute was passed. It is still in effect in Alberta today.

The bankruptcy protection case: The supplier’s position

The recipient supplier said that it received the payment both innocently and legally and that it is entitled to retain it. In addition, the recipient supplier said:

  • besides some routine questions about payment, the supplier had not engaged in any activity to try to collect the debt;
  • the relationship with Schendel was arm’s-length;
  • both of the last two extension orders for the NOI define a process by which Schendel may pay, and the Receiver has fallen short to prove that the procedure was not followed when it comes to the subject payment; and
  • for either the Fraudulent Preferences Act or the Statute of Elizabeth, the required intent cannot be shown.

Since the bankruptcy trustee was not involved in this case, nobody was claiming that the payment was a preference or transfer under value under the BIA.

bankruptcy protection
bankruptcy protection

The bankruptcy protection case: The Judge’s decision

The Court was not presented with evidence on whether the $40,000 payment in question was approved within the proposal extension process or whether it was not approved. There was evidence to support Schendel’s compliance with approved procedures. In the post-NOI period, the supplier was found to have provided goods to various Schendel projects worth $34,476.75.

There was evidence that the payment was not just a payment on account of a pre-filing debt without further transactions post-filing. According to the Judge, the stay would not apply to indebtedness arising from goods or services supplied to Schendel after the filing of the NOI. This is because such indebtedness would not be a claim that could be a proven claim in the bankruptcy.

The Judge further stated that it is the Receiver’s responsibility to prove that the payment violated the stay. Schendel and the supplier did continue to do business together after the NOI was filed, according to the evidence. During the hearing, the Judge said that he should not simply assume facts in the Receiver’s favour. Additionally, the evidence indicated that some of the $40,000 payment was applied to the post-NOI supply of goods. A total of $34,476.75 worth of product was supplied to Schendel after the NOI was filed.

As a result, the Judge rejected all of the Receiver’s arguments and dismissed his Application in its entirety. Consequently, the supplier kept the $40,000.

Bankruptcy protection: How to cash your insolvent customer’s cheque safely

Companies filing for bankruptcy protection, whether under the CCAA or BIA, are reorganizing to stay in business. Businesses require purchasing goods and services and paying for them. It’s possible that some pre-filing debts will be paid after the filing date even though the debts are frozen from a collection perspective.

The stay does not necessarily prohibit every post-NOI payment by an insolvent company to a creditor. Such payments are valid when they are necessary to enable the company to move forward with restructuring. For example, a creditor may require payment of all or a portion of its pre-filing debt in order to supply post-filing.

Parties can agree to repay past debts in order to secure future supplies. First and foremost, the BIA process aims to encourage a debtor to reorganize as a going concern. Both creditors and debtors benefit from the debtor’s continued operation during this critical time. The BIA’s stay provisions and preference provisions give debtors breathing room to reorganize their finances. Setting up legitimate agreements with key suppliers is an integral part of that process.

In the end, it is critical to determine whether the payment of past indebtedness is a valid condition of post-NOI supply, which is required for restructuring to proceed. In that case, the post-filing payment of the pre-filing amount will be valid. If not, the insolvency trustee can recover it from the supplier.

Creditors seeking to recover pre-filing debts must make the payment as a condition of a post-filing supply arrangement. Additionally, because all of this is playing out in real-time in higher-risk settings, a supplier is free to amend the pricing post-filing. Similarly, if the supplier can secure it, there is no reason for them to not try to go from an unsecured creditor to a secured creditor on the post-filing supply by taking security or requesting a letter of credit. This would all be done out of an abundance of caution because as stated above, unpaid post-filing debts are not a claim provable in the company’s bankruptcy if the restructuring is unsuccessful.

bankruptcy protection
bankruptcy protection

Bankruptcy protection summary

I hope you found this bankruptcy protection Brandon Blog post informative. Are you worried because you personally or as business owners are dealing with substantial debt challenges and you assume bankruptcy is your only option? If it is too much debt for any reason, call me. It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

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

We understand that people and businesses facing financial issues need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” method with the Ira Smith Team. Even though we are licensed insolvency trustees, we have found that not everyone has to file bankruptcy in Canada. The majority of our clients never do. We help many people and companies stay clear of bankruptcy.

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

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this 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.

bankruptcy protection
bankruptcy protection
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT OF CANADA TR1ES TO GIVE EVERYONE UNDENIABLE EQUITABLE TREATMENT

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.

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon Blog, please scroll to the very bottom and click play on the podcast.

bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada
bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada

What is the purpose of the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act of Canada?

With all the talk of the economy, supply chain problems and the uncertainty of the future these days, it’s no wonder that many people aren’t sure how they will end up when things become “normal” again.

For Canadian people and businesses with too much debt, an insolvency proceeding under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada might just be the answer to getting back to a healthy stress-free life. Notwithstanding that using this federal statute can be a very effective strategy for managing financial difficulties, it is a very scary one that people do not like to talk about.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada is based on the principle of balancing fairness, equity and a fresh start. A recent court decision in Saskatchewan exemplifies these principles. In this Brandon Blog, I describe a little bit about the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada, explain the court decision and how the court used these principles in reaching its decision.

What is in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada?

Canadian citizens, businesses, and companies who run into financial difficulties can turn to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada for assistance. This federal legislation contains the laws, rules, and guidelines that all involved parties must abide by. It details how different financial options work legally, and defines the roles of the various stakeholders – the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, the Licensed Insolvency Trustees, the debtor, and the secured creditors and unsecured creditors (both preferred and ordinary).

Despite the fact that provincial legislation in Canada may overlap or affect stakeholder rights, federal bankruptcy legislation has priority over provincial legislation in insolvency matters. Therefore, provincial governments cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly. However, there are cases where provincial laws will still apply. The laws surrounding property exemptions and enforcement of court orders differ from province to province and territory to territory. These provincial and territorial regulations continue to apply even under bankruptcy laws.

It is the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada that governs all bankruptcies and proposals (either Division I or consumer proposals) in Canada. Receiverships are also governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada. The Laws of Canada – Bankruptcy and Insolvency, are meant to give the honest but unfortunate debtor, be it a person, business or company, a fresh start in life.

bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada
bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada

Growth in consumer proposals and business proposals

A person who files for the personal bankruptcy process submits an assignment in bankruptcy and related documents to a Licensed Insolvency Trustee. These documents outline the person’s assets, liabilities, income, and expenses. An insolvent person’s reason for insolvency must also be included in the documents. Individuals typically give the reason for not being able to pay their bills in a timely manner. Consumer proposals require very similar documentation as bankruptcy, except for the assignment in bankruptcy document.

In order to file a Division I Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada, insolvent companies must describe their assets and liabilities and provide a realistic cash flow statement documenting how they intend to operate under the proposed insolvency process. They must also explain how they became insolvent. Personal insolvency is less complex than corporate insolvency.

Despite a long-term decline in individual bankruptcy filings, consumer proposals have gained in popularity among individuals. The decrease in bankruptcy filings and the increase in proposals can be attributed to several different reasons. Under a proposal, a financial reorganization or restructuring is what is done. Bankruptcy is simply a liquidation.

Regardless of whether it is a consumer proposal, a Division I proposal, or bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada governs these proceedings. The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, another federal government statute, governs reorganizations of very large corporations. This is especially true if there are separate insolvent corporations under the corporate umbrella in different countries, requiring foreign proceedings.

Why does one choose a consumer proposal instead of filing for bankruptcy?

A consumer proposal has many advantages over bankruptcy proceedings. By filing a consumer proposal, you’re able to retain the property you own such as your home, car, boat, etc. and extinguish all of your debts while only paying back a portion. A consumer proposal doesn’t require any of those items to be sold, as long as you can afford them with the monthly payment made under the proposal and your other living expenses.

Changing your lifestyle can help you get out of debt more quickly with a consumer proposal. Bankruptcy means losing everything, except for some assets that are exempt under provincial laws. You have equity if you do not fully encumber your assets by way of secured loans from financial institutions, your house, car, boat, furniture, clothing, jewelry, or anything else of value. You can keep this equity in a consumer proposal, but you will lose it in bankruptcy.

The main reason why people should attempt to perform a successful consumer proposal instead of going straight into bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada is because of this. As you will see in the recent court case I am about to describe, if you don’t pay close attention to how you conduct your affairs once you declare bankruptcy, you might be exposed to another minefield even after receiving your discharge.

bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada
bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada case

This judgment of the Registrar in Bankruptcy of the Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan was released on October 6, 2021. It is a relatively simple case, but it described so well the equitable nature of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada.

In this legal process case, there are two unsecured creditors who are the Applicants. They jointly loaned money to an individual debtor, who is now an insolvent debtor and a bankrupt individual on an unsecured basis. They also filed their proof of claim for this debt with the insolvency trustee. They then applied for an order pursuant to s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada lifting the bankruptcy stay that is in effect with regard to the bankrupt.

The purpose of section 69.3 is to prevent bankruptcy creditors from initiating or continuing enforcement proceedings against a bankrupt debtor. In bankruptcy, a creditor has no recourse against the debtor or the debtor’s property, and may not commence, continue, or seek any action for the recovery of money for a claim that is provable in the bankruptcy.

Nevertheless, Section 69.4 allows a court to lift the stay if it decides that the applicant has established that the continued operation of the stay is likely to cause material harm to him or her, or if there are other equitable grounds for lifting the stay.

The case: How the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada works for fairness and equity

The bankruptcy process generally compromises the debt obligation of the bankrupt, resulting in creditor claims run through the bankruptcy claims process. Generally, unsecured creditors lose their right to enforce their types of debts and, as a result, realize less than 100% of their debt. Some creditors do not receive anything from an estate in bankruptcy.

There are two major objectives of bankruptcy (and consumer proposal or commercial proposal) proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada. For one thing, it provides an equitable system for distributing the proceeds from the estate in bankruptcy among the bankrupt’s unsecured creditors. According to the laws Of Canada – bankruptcy and insolvency, unsecured creditors are expected to be treated predictably and fairly. However, it does not guarantee that creditors will receive a dividend in all cases.

Secondly, it is intended to give an honest but unfortunate bankrupt an opportunity to be freed from the crushing burden of debt and receive financial rehabilitation to become a contributing member of society. That is one reason why every person who does an insolvency filing must attend two financial counselling sessions.

In bankruptcy, an automatic stay allows the bankrupt to re-establish himself or herself financially and restart his or her financial affairs so that he or she can meet his or her credit obligations moving forward without being hampered by debt enforcement proceedings.

bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada
bankruptcy and insolvency act of canada

The case: Role of unsecured creditors trying to lift the stay of proceedings

The Registrar, in this case, followed the reasoning of a 2001 decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. It is far from routine to lift the stay, and therefore the court has to make sure that the reasons for lifting the stay are sound and consistent with the objectives of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada.

In the case of Mcculloch (Re), 2021 SKQB 259 (CanLII), the two creditors were alleging that Ms. Mcculloch induced them to loan her the money on a fraudulent basis. It was their argument that they should be allowed to continue legal action against the bankrupt so that they could prove in a separate court action that the debt was a result of fraud and that, therefore, their claim would survive the bankruptcy and her discharge. In addition, they stated that they would be more severely affected than the commercial creditors if the bankruptcy stay bars them from taking action against McCulloch.

According to the Registrar:

  1. Bankruptcy often disproportionately affects individual creditors over commercial creditors. Generally, creditor relationships are based more on trust than on cost-benefit analysis. When advancing a loan, the commercial creditor such as a credit card company, unpaid suppliers, or a sophisticated secured creditor, generally assesses the risk and determines whether it can absorb the loss in the event of default. Individual lenders do not usually do this.
  2. If this form of prejudice is sufficient to support lifting the stay, other individual creditors may be able to apply to lift the stay merely on the basis of relative disadvantage to individual creditors. Lifting the stay on this basis is inappropriate.
  3. The Trustee objects to this application on the grounds that it will significantly increase the costs of bankruptcy administration at the expense of other creditors. In this case, the Registrar sided with the Trustee.
  4. According to the lawyer representing the bankrupt, the creditors have not established any material prejudice or other equitable grounds for lifting the stay. The Registrar agreed.
  5. Due to the potential cost increases to other creditors, the equities are opposed to lifting the stay.
  6. However, these 2 creditors still have rights in the bankruptcy. The court still has the right to hear their submissions at the discharge hearing. Additionally, they continue to have the right to pursue Ms. McCulloch once the bankruptcy proceedings are over.
  7. At this time, lifting the stay would not benefit the applicants or their creditor claims since during the bankruptcy, Ms. McCulloch’s either the bankruptcy vests her assets in the Trustee for the benefit of the creditors or remain exempt from execution under Saskatchewan law. This disposition of property makes it simply impossible for these creditors to realize much from this stage, prior to the bankrupt’s discharge.
  8. In this case, the equity does not support the court’s exercise of its authority to declare that the bankruptcy stay, established under section 69.3 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada, does not apply to this litigation.

As a result, the Registrar denied the applicant’s request for what they thought was their legal rights in lifting the stay. Clearly, the Registrar was guided by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada‘s aims of fairness and equity to all stakeholders.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada summary

I hope you enjoyed this Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act of Canada Brandon Blog post. Are you worried because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges and you assume bankruptcy is your only option? Call me. It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

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

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

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

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this 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.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE CANADIAN RECEIVERSHIP EASY BEGINNERS GUIDE

receivership

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.

If you wish to listen to an audio version of this Brandon Blog, please scroll to the very bottom of the page and click play on the podcast.

What is Receivership?

Last week I wrote an easy beginner’s guide on bankruptcy. This Brandon Blog is for anybody interested in finding out what type of insolvency process receivership is and how it differs from some other insolvency processes. I will explain the receivership process, provide an overview of what happens in a receivership, explaining what is sought to achieve, and the consequences of receivership.

Receiverships occur when a secured lender enforces its security to recover loans that have been defaulted on by a borrower. Secured creditors appoint an insolvency trustee to serve as receiver or receiver-manager depending on the terms of their security documents when the corporate debtor defaults.

Receivers and secured lenders can enter into a private contract appointing a receiver. Alternatively, the secured lender may seek an order from the court appointing a receiver. I’ll talk more about that shortly.

What Does Going into Receivership Mean?

If the corporate debtor defaults on a secured loan, the creditor may be entitled to appoint a receiver to collect their money. In Canada, “Section 244” notices are specific forms of notification that secured creditors must send to defaulting companies.

The notice specifies the assets covered by the security, the amount owed by the company in default, and that the secured creditor has the right to enforce the security after 10 days. The debtor company in default can consent to the appointment of the receiver before the expiration of the 10 day notice period.

A Section 244 notice is prescribed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA), and it is usually the last notice a creditor receives before the receiver takes possession of the debtor’s assets, properties, and undertakings.

Receivers then liquidate the assets of a business in order to pay secured creditors.

receivership

How Receivership Works

Parliament amended the BIA insolvency legislation in 1992 by enacting Part XI. BIA sections 243 through 252 to deal with secured creditors and receivers. Prior to that time, there was no federal statute insolvency legislation dealing with receivership matters. These provisions provide information about the court that hears bankruptcy and insolvency cases control over receivership matters that involve all or substantially all of the inventory, the accounts receivable, or the other property of a debtor. There are also restrictions imposed on the duties of secured creditors and receivers. It also stipulates that only a licensed insolvency trustee can act as a receiver. Part XI applies to both privately-appointed and court-appointed receivers.

These sections do not confer any powers available to a trustee of a bankrupt estate on secured creditors or receivers. Only those powers conferred upon the receiver in the appointment letter are granted to private receivers, and those are the powers specified in the security instrument. However, the receiver may also exercise certain statutory powers. If certain powers are required to administer the estate but are omitted under the security instrument, a receiver cannot act. Receivers are generally appointed by the secured creditor pursuant to security that at least states:

  • the collateral secured under the security; and
  • the receiver has the right to dispose of the collateral, including operating the insolvent debtor‘s business.

In a court-appointed receivership, the powers of the receiver come from the receivership appointment court order appointing the court-appointed receiver.

Receivership: Notice and Statement of the Receiver

From the 1992 amendments to the BIA, a receiver is required to provide notice to all known creditors of an insolvent debtor in receivership. Previously, creditors were not required to be notified.

When the receiver has become the receiver of an insolvent debtor‘s property, the receiver must provide notice of receivership as soon as reasonably possible but within 10 days of its appointment. Notice of the receivership must be sent to all creditors, the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the insolvent debtor.

If the debtor is also bankrupt, rather than sending the notice to all creditors, the receiver sends the notice to the bankruptcy trustee. Since the creditors are already represented in corporate bankruptcy by the Trustee, the bankruptcy process will deal with them.

A receivership notice states, among other things, that the receiver has been appointed, whether it is a private appointment or a court appointment, and what the receiver’s plan of action is. Additionally, it contains a list of all known creditors.

As part of the receivership process, the receiver must provide interim reports every six months as well as a final report when the receivership is concluded. A copy of the receiver’s final receipts and disbursements statement must also be included in the final notice.receivership

What’s The Difference Between a Court-Appointed Receiver and a Privately Appointed Receiver?

A court-appointed receiver vs. a privately appointed receiver is something people always want to know the answer to. I will explain the difference to you. It is pretty simple. Based on what I have already written, you have probably guessed it by now.

In a Court-appointed receivership, when the Court appoints a receiver, it does so through an Order on the application of the secured creditor. As between a secured creditor and a debtor, a privately appointed receiver is a receiver who is appointed by the secured creditor as provided in the Security Agreement. The Court-appointed receiver’s administration is supervised by the Court.

How is Receivership Different from Bankruptcy? Bankruptcy / receivership

Bankruptcy vs. receivership is also something people want to know. Many times, people confuse the two and use the terms receivership and bankruptcy, mistakenly, interchangeably. Often, receiverships and bankruptcy are confused, but the differences between the two are fairly straightforward. Whether it is a private appointment or a Court-appointed receivership, it is still different.

There are several main differences between bankruptcy and receivership. A receivership is a remedy available to secured creditors, as stated above. In order to enforce the secured creditor’s security rights against a defaulting debtor, a receiver is appointed.

Bankruptcy is a separate legal process. Trustees do not represent secured creditors in bankruptcy. Instead, they represent unsecured creditors. Corporate bankruptcy can occur simultaneously with a receivership of the same corporate debtor. The process of a corporate bankruptcy would be the subject of another Brandon Blog. To find other Brandon Blogs about corporate bankruptcy, use the search function at the top of this page.receivership

What’s the Difference Between Receivership and Liquidation?

By now you know what the definition of receivership is. So I won’t repeat it because I do not want to sound like a broken record (younger people may not catch that reference!)!

Liquidation is not governed by the federal BIA. Rather, it is done under the provincial Business Corporations Act or Wind-Up Act. A liquidation is for a solvent company where the shareholders, Officers and Directors decide to cease business operations by running off any existing contracts and selling off the assets. The cash obtained is then used first to pay off the creditors. Any funds leftover is then distributed to the shareholders.

Just like a receiver, a liquidator can be appointed either privately by resolution of the Directors or by Court order. Liquidation is not a receivership or bankruptcy.

Employee Rights in Bankruptcy Protection and Bankruptcy⁄Receivership

A device was created by the BIA for employees of a company that went bankrupt or into receivership. It does not apply to employees of a company trying to rightsize itself through reorganization; either a BIA Proposal or a Plan of Arrangement under the CCAA. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) protects wages or benefits, including termination and severance pay, accumulated in the 6 months prior to a business going bankrupt or going into receivership.

The WEPPA ended up being enacted due to the federal government’s concern that when a company went bankrupt and employees were not paid their wages, there was rarely an opportunity for them to recoup any of their income. There are limits or caps on what employees can receive.

In the period in which amounts are past due to you, you will not qualify for WEPPA if:

  • you are a Director or Officer of the business;
  • or you have worked as a manager for the company
  • you are part of the management responsible for negotiating or refusing to pay amounts owed.

You may qualify if:

  • the previous employer has gone bankrupt or into receivership.
  • The firm owes you wages, salaries, vacation pay, or unreimbursed costs throughout the six months prior to the date of bankruptcy or receivership.

When an employer enters bankruptcy or receivership, the WEPPA provides funds to employees owed money. Those employees who qualify are paid as soon as possible. An employee’s qualifying earnings are equal to seven times their maximum regular insurance earnings under the Employment Insurance Act. According to Service Canada, the maximum amount of $56,300 a year is the limit for insurable earnings as of January 1, 2021. Thus, in 2021 the maximum amount a former employee can claim under WEPPA is $7,578.83.

Trustees and receivers are required to inform employees about the WEPPA program and provide information about amounts due. In the event of bankruptcy or receivership, trustees, as well as receivers, have 45 days to submit to Service Canada the Trustee Information Forms showing the amounts owed to each employee.

In other words, WEPPA‘s payment for former employees is something, but it may not be enough to fully compensate each. As a result of the amount paid by Service Canada, which administers the employment insurance system, $2,000 per employee is a super-priority against the company’s current assets. All remaining amounts paid to each employee, up to the maximum, are unsecured claims.receivership

Receivership summary

I hope you found this receivership Brandon Blog informative and that the differences between receivership, bankruptcy, restructuring and liquidation legal proceedings are now clearer. Because it all has to do with corporate insolvency, the provincial Bankruptcy Courts also deal with receivership matters to adjudicate under the applicable insolvency law.

With too high debt levels and not enough wealth, you are insolvent. You can choose from several insolvency processes to get the debt relief that you need and deserve. It may not be necessary for you to file for bankruptcy.

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

If you’re thinking about bankruptcy, you’re probably in a situation where you’re overwhelmed, frightened, and feel like you’re alone. That’s natural and it is not your fault.

It’s good that you’ve come to this site, where you’ll find answers to your questions, sort through your options, and discover that you can get help. You’re not alone, and the professionals at Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. are committed to helping you find a debt solution that’s best for you.

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.

You are under a lot of pressure. Our team knows how you feel. You and your financial and emotional problems will be the focus of a new approach designed specifically for you. With our help, you will be able to blow away the dark cloud over your head. 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.

Because of this, we can develop a new method for paying down your debt that will be built specifically for you. It will be as unique as the economic problems and discomfort you are experiencing. 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.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE RECEIVER APPOINTED BY COURT ERRORS TO AVOID

Licensed insolvency trustee: Introduction

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: Back to basics

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

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

In a court appointment, the court-appointed receiver:

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

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

Examples of these indicators are:

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Jaycap situation

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

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

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: The first Jaycap credit bid

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

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

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: The second Jaycap credit bid

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

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

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

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: The guarantor’s appeal

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

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Appeal Court’s analysis

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

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

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

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

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

The Appeal Court went on to say that:

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

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

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Appeal Court’s decision

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

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

Licensed insolvency trustee: Summary

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

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

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

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

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CREDIT CHECK FAILED REASONS: 5 STUPID REASONS STOPPING YOU FROM GETTING THE LOAN YOU COULD ACTUALLY REPAY

Credit check failed reasons: Introduction

Below is our list of 5 stupid credit check failed reasons stopping you from getting that loan you can repay. You likely recognize that not paying your credit card on schedule or missing out on a settlement could harm your credit score. That is probably the most common credit check fail. So, those reasons are not on our list of credit check failed reasons. There are much less clear methods to sink your rating. You could be doing some without understanding the influence you’re triggering.

Below are 5 unexpected methods you could be damaging your credit score:

  1. Credit check failed reasons: Decreasing your credit line

You might assume that you’re increasing your credit score by reducing your credit line on your credit card. However that could be having the other impact. Credit score use is the second-most vital credit score aspect, after history of credit card repayments.

Your credit use is your compared with just how much you’re using. When you lower that proportion, that is a good thing. Many professionals suggest maintaining it around 30 to 35 percent.

By reducing your authorized credit amount, you’re really increasing your credit use proportion.

Toronto financial advisor Seun Adeyemi says that most people are not aware that cancelled credit lines, even after making full repayment, can hurt your credit score.

Here is an example. Say you have 2 credit cards:

  1. a Visa with a $1,500 balance as well as a $4,000 credit limit;
  2. as well as a MasterCard with $1,500 outstanding and a $6,000 credit authorization.

Your credit usage is just 30 percent since you’re making use of $3,000 of your readily available $10,000.

If you reduced your credit limit to $4,000 on that MasterCard, you’re currently utilizing $3,000 of a readily available $8,000. This presses your credit usage to over 35%.

credit check failed reasons 2
credit check failed reasons

  1. Credit check failed reasons: Leasing an automobile with a debit card as opposed to a credit card

When you’re leasing, it’s a great deal less complicated when you make use of a credit card.

Utilizing your debit card will lead to a pull on your credit report. While it could be a soft pull– implying it does not harm your debt– there’s a chance it might be a hard check. A hard check does affect your credit rating.

The procedure changes slightly in the auto rental business. Making use of a debit card will certainly result in a soft credit inquiry. However, when using a debit card to rent a car, there will probably be a hard pull on your credit rating at the first time (when you check-in and get the car).

There would not be a credit check if you use of a credit card for renting a car.

An included incentive of renting your car with a credit card as opposed to debit: Many credit cards offer vehicle rental insurance coverage. This saves you even thinking about taking the car rental company’s costly insurance package.

  1. Credit check failed reasons: Not paying your library fines (yes, libraries still exist!)

Not paying your penalties might lead the library to withdraw your privileges, as well sending your past due account to a collection company. When a collection agency obtains your overdue account, if you don’t pay, it will be noted on your credit report that you are in collection and have not paid. This will adversely influence your credit score.

credit check failed reasons
credit check failed reasons

Normally, you need to owe around $40 or more before the account being sent to collections. To prevent all this, check your public library’s plan on fines, as well as, obviously, paying your late charges in a prompt fashion.

  1. Credit check failed reasons: Not paying your parking tickets

When it concerns vehicle parking tickets, you have 2 choices:

  1. you could pay them; or
  2. go to Court and fight them.

Just what you do not want to do is disregard your parking tickets.

If you do choose to or forget to pay them, after a specific duration, your account will certainly go to collections. The policies on vehicle parking penalties differ by city. For instance, in Toronto, the use of debt collectors starts when your vehicle remains in plate rejection. This is when you could not restore your plate sticker label or acquire brand-new plates– for 2 years. Also, your tickets outstanding balance is more than $300.

  1. Credit check failed reasons: Owing the taxman

If you have an outstanding amount payable on your income tax return, it’s important to settle that financial obligation to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Overdue tax obligations could cost you in penalties and interest. It will also make it more challenging to get loans.

When submitting your tax return, any amount owing is due on April 30th, or the next Monday if April 30 falls on a weekend.

Credit check failed reasons: Not paying CRA is a self-inflicted indirect hit

Not paying your taxes does not directly hit your credit rating. However, two standard questions on any loan application are:

  1. what is the last year you filed your income tax return for; and
  2. how much do you owe to CRA for personal tax.

Not being current in your filing, or having an amount owing to CRA, will limit your chances to get that loan you are applying for.

When applying for a mortgage or home equity line of credit, most lenders ask for a duplicate of your Notice of Assessment from the previous 2 years. If the potential lender sees that you owe the CRA a great deal of money, they might offer you a higher rate of interest than the posted rate or worse, refuse your application.

Credit check failed reasons: What to do if you can’t repay your debts – even if you still have an OK credit score

Maintaining a good credit score is more than just paying your credit card on schedule, yet it does not need to be made complex. You should always aim to pay any type of arrears in a prompt style, as well as understand how every activity or transaction can affect your credit score.

If you are having problems repaying your debt, don’t be afraid to seek professional help. Don’t be enticed by the commercials for debt settlement. A recent study by the federal government shows that people who first go to a debt settlement company, end up paying more to settle their debts than if they just went to see a . That same study shows that ultimately, the debt settlement program alone does not work and the person ends up filing a consumer proposal with a licensed insolvency trustee.

credit check failed reasons
credit check failed reasons

The Ira Smith Team has helped many people in debt get back on track and living debt free lives Starting Over, Starting Now. Take the first step and give us a call today.

Call a Trustee Now!