Tag: part III division I proposal

BANKRUPTCY MEANS: SERIOUSLY, CAN IT EVER MEAN BEGGING FOR A BANKRUPTCY ANNULMENT?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date July 15, 2020

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

Bankruptcy means introduction

From my perspective, bankruptcy means that a person or company has either filed an assignment in bankruptcy or the court has issued a bankruptcy order against the debtor. The debtor has taken the voluntary action to seek relief and the benefits obtained by doing so under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). Or a court, based on the application of one or more creditors, has ordered that the BIA applies and the debtor is adjudged bankrupt.

As I have written in the past, this is different from insolvency. Insolvency is the financial state where a company or person cannot meet their liabilities as they come due or whose assets, if sold at fair value, would not be enough to pay off all of the liabilities. Bankruptcy is a legal state.

I recently read an article about Mr. Stanley Frank Ostrowski aka Frank Ostrowski, who lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Mr. Ostrowski filed an assignment in bankruptcy on February 12, 2019. He listed his assets having a value of $250. He stated that his liabilities were $259,621. This is his second bankruptcy. His first was in 1983 and he received an absolute discharge in 1985.

The article states that Mr. Ostrowski has now made an application to the court to annul his bankruptcy. This Brandon’s Blog looks at: Is it possible to annul a bankruptcy and under what circumstances? Put another way, is it really the case that bankruptcy means you can file for bankruptcy and then say oops, I didn’t really want to file? I am not really sure that is how bankruptcies work.

The reasons why Mr. Ostrowski thinks bankruptcy means it can be annulled

In May 1987, a jury decided that Mr. Ostrowski was guilty of first-degree murder. In March 1992, he was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison, concurrent with his life sentence for murder.

He served 23 years, 2 months and 24 days in prison. He got out of jail on December 18, 2009. In 2014, then federal justice minister Peter MacKay asked Manitoba’s Court of Appeal to review the case. Then justice minister MacKay believed that there was a miscarriage of justice with respect to the murder conviction.

In a November 2018 decision, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction after it discovered a miscarriage of justice took place when two vital details were not revealed to the defence or the court. While the court set aside his conviction, it did not acquit him. In their decision, the three-judge panel said they thought there was enough proof against the accused, which the court could have found him guilty even if full disclosure had been made.

The court also held that it would be unfair to have another trial given that it had been 32 years since the shooting. The court also entered a judicial finding that the charge is stayed from further prosecution.

In June 2020, Mr. Ostrowski retained legal counsel to commence an action for damages because of his wrongful conviction. His lawyers have not yet launched the claim but they plan to. The article said that he will be seeking $16 million in compensation.

Now he wants to have his 2019 bankruptcy annulled. He believes he has a realistic chance of receiving sufficient compensation to be able to settle all his debts. So with all this background information, do I think his bankruptcy means that he can get his bankruptcy annulled?

Bankruptcy means: what happens if I declare bankruptcy?

I have written before about what happens when a person or company declares bankruptcy. There is a responsibility to make full disclosure to the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) all of your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. The debtor also must give to the Trustee all provincially non-exempt assets so that the Trustee can sell them for the benefit of the creditors.

In his bankruptcy filing documents, Mr. Ostrowski did not make mention of this potential lawsuit that had not yet been launched. He also did not indicate that he had the right to such an asset. If he had, there would be two realistic options.

He could have taken the position that the amount of recovery in a lawsuit not yet launched is unknown and speculative. So, the action should only be valued at $1 as a placeholder. By doing so, he would have made full disclosure to his creditors and to his Trustee as to the existence of this potential asset.

If Mr. Ostrowski had disclosed this asset and valued it at more than $259,371, then he would not have met the asset test for being insolvent and potentially would not have been able to file for bankruptcy. I say potentially because, in his affidavit, Mr. Ostrowski makes no mention of what his income and expenses were at the time of filing for bankruptcy or now. Mr. Ostrowski does not disclose in his affidavit whether or not he has to pay any surplus income to his Trustee for the benefit of his creditors.

Can bankruptcy be annulled?

Annulling a bankruptcy is more than just cancelling a bankruptcy. It is erasing it to the point as if it never happened. It is a complete elimination of the bankruptcy. If it was the person’s first bankruptcy, and it was annulled, they could honestly say they never were bankrupt.

To figure out what are the odds that Mr. Ostrowski will be successful in his application to annul his bankruptcy, we need to look at several factors. First, what reasons does Mr. Ostrowski say are the basis as to why his bankruptcy should be annulled?

In his affidavit sworn June 8, 2020, the reasons he gives are:

“I have a realistic chance of receiving sufficient compensation to be able to settle my debts with my creditors in a manner that would be more advantageous to the creditors than if I pursue bankruptcy.”
“I am advised by…” my lawyer “…that when he advised…” my Trustee, “… of my intention to seek an order annulling my assignment in bankruptcy…” my Trustee “…did not object to it.”.

That is it. No other reasons. To Mr. Ostrowski, his bankruptcy means that maybe perhaps he can do better for his creditors than they would get in his bankruptcy and his Trustee doesn’t object to his trying to annul his bankruptcy.

With all due respect to his legal counsel on this bankruptcy annulment application who only has what he has to work with, I rate those reasons somewhere between weak and lame! The bankruptcy annulment process was not designed for the convenience of the bankrupt.

Bankruptcy means when will a court annul a bankruptcy?

First, Section 181(1) of the BIA gives the court the authority to annul a bankruptcy. It says:

“181 (1) If, in the opinion of the court, a bankruptcy order ought not to have been made or an assignment ought not to have been filed, the court may by order annul the bankruptcy.”

This authority is discretionary. Generally, the court will only annul an assignment if it is shown that:

The debtor was not insolvent at the time of filing.
It was an abuse of process of the court
The debtor was trying to commit a fraud on his or her creditors.

If Mr. Ostrowski’s affidavit is the only evidence submitted in his application to annul his bankruptcy, he has not shown that the bankruptcy assignment “ought not to have been filed”.

Second, there have been cases where an assignment in bankruptcy has been annulled. The list of general reasons why the court found that a bankruptcy order ought not to have been made or an assignment ought not to have been filed are:

An assignment in bankruptcy was completed and was to be held in escrow while the debtor negotiated with his creditors. The assignment was only to be filed if a resolution could not be worked out. A deal was reached but the assignment was filed in error. In other words, a verifiable mistake.
The bankruptcy was of no benefit to the creditors. The creditors would receive a distribution but would bear all the costs of the bankruptcy administration.
The debtor was restrained by court order from dealing with all of his assets without giving his estranged wife seven clear days’ notice and he filed an assignment in bankruptcy with no notice given.
Joint assignment by a husband and wife where it was evident that a large amount of debt was from the husband’s unincorporated business and the wife was not in partnership with him.
A bankruptcy assignment purportedly filed by an infant!
The second assignment filed before the bankrupt received a discharge from the 1st bankruptcy.
The husband filing an assignment in bankruptcy in an attempt to disgorge himself of his assets while embroiled in bitter family law proceedings.
Directors of a company whose assets were already being administered under a court-appointed receiver having filed an assignment in bankruptcy for the company.

In all the above situations, the court DID annul the bankruptcy. The court did not agree that bankruptcy means it was the right choice in those situations.

Bankruptcy means when will a court NOT annul a bankruptcy?

Third, there have been cases where an assignment in bankruptcy was NOT annulled. The list of general reasons why the court found refusing the annulment request was appropriate are:

The sole purpose of the bankruptcy was to rearrange the priorities of certain creditors.
A bankruptcy to defeat the enforcement attempts of a judgment creditor.
The sworn statement of affairs failed to show the name and amount of a creditor.
The debtor had no assets.
Debtor was insolvent and did not bring an application to annul the bankruptcy until 4 months after filing an assignment in bankruptcy. The court decided that an application to annul a bankruptcy only because the debtor did not wish to continue with the bankruptcy process should be brought immediately after the filing of the assignment in bankruptcy.

The last reason why the court did not annul a bankruptcy, is pretty much the reason Mr. Ostrowski says he wants his bankruptcy annulled. Only in his case, he is bringing the application some 18 months after becoming a bankrupt.

Interestingly enough, that last reason was a Manitoba case, Baker (Bankrupt), Re, 1997 CanLII 23100 (MB QB). In that case, the bankrupt contended that the Trustee filed the bankruptcy documents with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in error. However, she waited for 4 months and the court was not persuaded that the filing was an error!

In Mr. Ostrowski’s case, his reasons boil down to it will be more convenient for him! As you can probably tell by now, I don’t place a high probability of his chances of success in persuading the court to annul his bankruptcy. But then I am not the judge.

Bankruptcy means what should Mr. Ostrowski do?

The answer as to what his bankruptcy means and what Frank Ostrowski should do lies within the BIA. Mr. Ostrowski has two choices and I believe it will be what the court decides.

First, the BIA allows for a bankrupt, with the permission of the inspectors in his bankruptcy, if any, to file a restructuring proposal. He could get that started right now without any court application.

If his debts are truly over $250,000, based on the claims filed to date, then he can file a proposal under part III division I proposal under the BIA. If the claims filed are a total under $250,000, then he could file a consumer proposal. Either way, the administration would continue under the BIA.

His proposal would be a very simple one. It would essentially say that he has a claim against several parties for what his lawyer believes is $16 million. He knows he will get at least enough to pay all of his creditors in full. So, if you vote in favour of my proposal, if I win, enough money will be paid to the Trustee to pay all the creditors in full. If I don’t win, or there isn’t enough money to pay everyone in full, all creditors will share in whatever is available.

Once the restructuring proposal is accepted by his creditors and approved by the court, his bankruptcy is annulled. He will get exactly what he is asking for. His creditors will get paid presumably in full. They will not just get the chance to have their debts settled as Mr. Ostrowski states in his affidavit.

Second, section 144 of the BIA says that the bankrupt is entitled to any surplus remaining after payment of all creditor claims in full, with interest, and the cost of the bankruptcy administration. So, if Mr. Ostrowski is successful and gets $16 million, that money would go to his Trustee, after the legal costs of winning that award. The Trustee would keep what is necessary to pay all the claims in full, with interest, and the costs of the bankruptcy administration. Mr. Ostrowski would keep the rest.

I recommend the first way, the restructuring proposal route because that could get Mr. Ostrowski’s bankruptcy annulled fairly quickly, which is what he is asking for.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides. I will let you know when I find out.

Bankruptcy means summary

I hope you found this bankruptcy means Brandon’s Blog informative and interesting.

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

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

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

Income, revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs, their companies and individual Canadians. This is especially true these days. Some people think that bankruptcy means the end of their life. Bankruptcy should be a last resort for anyone. We strive to help people and companies avoid bankruptcy. But if bankruptcy is necessary, do not think of it as the end of life. It really is a fresh new beginning. That is what bankruptcy means.

If anyone needs our assistance for debt relief Canada COVID-19, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

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

Tags assignment in bankruptcy, bankruptcy annulment, bankruptcy annulment application, bankruptcy annulment process, bankruptcy assignment, bankruptcy filing, bankruptcy means, bankruptcy order, bankruptcy trustee, Consumer Proposal, Frank Ostrowski, how bankruptcies work, Ira Smith Trustee, joint assignment, licensed insolvency trustee, part III division I proposal, restructuring proposal, trustee, what happens if i declare bankruptcy

Brandon Blog Post

OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT BANKRUPTCY CANADA – COVID-19 AND “THROWBACK THURSDAY”

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date May 11, 2020

The Ira Smith Team is absolutely operational and both Ira, as well as Brandon Smith, are right here for a telephone appointment, conference calls and also virtual meetings.

Stay healthy and safe everybody.

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

Introduction

As issues about COVID-19 in Canada grows, insolvency practitioners are doing their part by having determined it is needed to take steps to reduce in-person contact. The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has helped Licensed Insolvency Trustees (formerly called bankruptcy trustees) (Trustee) in these initiatives while keeping all aspects of Canada’s insolvency system running.

In my April 29 Brandon’s Blog, CONSUMER PROPOSALS IN ONTARIO TEST POSITIVE FOR COVID-19, I described how the Superintendent of Bankruptcy went to Court in Ontario. They made a motion to have the Court direct how certain procedures would change during the state of emergency lockdown. Part of that will be how the government wants to have Trustees resurrect an old methodology in personal debt settlement plans and corporate restructuring plans not really been used in the last 25 years.

Since then the government has come out with additional information and clarifications on how they see the bankruptcy Canada process continuing to work during the coronavirus shutdown. In Brandon’s Blog, I talk about these issues.

There are many ways that the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has approved social distancing for Trustees.

Initial free strategy session – Most if not all Trustees will provide a no-cost consultation for a personal or corporate insolvency discussion. In the pre-coronavirus era, most of these were done in a face to face meeting. Trustees can and do use methods aside from in-person assessments. These methods were always reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Boy, are we in one now!

So, the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has reminded Trustees that the COVID-19 pandemic is such a phenomenal circumstance and Trustees can conduct assessments making use of approaches other than face to face. Where video-conferencing is not viable, assessments may be done using a mix of telephone conversations and e-mail.

Credit counselling in personal debt settlement or bankruptcy cases – Trustees can offer counselling through telephone conversations or videoconference. The government is updating its software to allow for Trustees to file confirmation of credit counselling done this way as before it was not available. I am finding that our “customers” like this way of being able to deal with credit counselling. They don’t need to travel to our office and appreciate that we are still checking in with them.

Meetings of Creditors – The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada is encouraging Trustees as the Chair of the creditors’ meeting to hold the meetings on time using either telephone conference call or video methods. Trustees can rely on the oral representation from everyone on the call as proof of attendance. The notice and legal ad calling the meeting of creditors looks a bit different than we are normally used to seeing because of this change. At the top of this Brandon’s Blog is an image of the legal notice I ran in a local newspaper.

Signatures/Oaths – I am now circulating papers that call for signature by means of e-mail. I then supply debtors the necessary support to explain the papers via videoconference. I then ask the debtor over the Zoom meeting if they swear or affirm that what is in the document is true. When they respond affirmatively, I then ask them to sign in the space provided. I then commission the document on my end, ask them to email me a copy of the signed document and put the original signed paper in the mail to me. So far it has been working smoothly.

Closure of non-essential businesses

The provinces have ordered the closure of non-essential businesses. So far, the businesses of lawyers and accountants have been deemed essential. The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has confirmed to Trustees that it wants the Canadian insolvency system to continue operating smoothly. So, the Trustee business is considered to fall under these same categories as being essential.

As you are aware, creditors right now seem to be choosing to either explicitly or implicitly forbear on amounts owing to them. They are trying to be supportive of people by recognizing that with reduced or no income, they need some breathing room. Although there are media reports to the contrary, as of now, debtors seem to be getting a break. Trustees are also encouraged to do the same if someone is having trouble making a surplus income payment in their bankruptcy right now. In fact, Trustees will probably be held to a very high standard when their conduct is reviewed by the Court.

In my April 29 Brandon’s Blog, I spoke about the whole issue of a debtor in a consumer proposal who misses three payments. If that happens, the consumer proposal is considered annulled. In this case, the Order the Ontario Court issued essentially gives debtors up to the end of 2020, and in some cases, beyond that date, to make up the missed payments.

COVID-19 insolvency frequently asked questions

There are some frequently asked questions that are coming up. So, I want to give the questions and answers to help people better understand what is going on right now in the Canadian insolvency system.

Q: Do consumer proposal debtors need to make up all missed payments by December 2020?

Response: This was not previously well explained. The answer is No. As much as an extra three monthly payments can be missed between March 13, 2020, and December 31, 2020, before a consumer proposal is considered annulled. Missed payments will need to be made up by the end of the proposal or a modified proposal will certainly need to be authorized by creditors. I am advising debtors to carefully think about whether it is necessary to miss making payments. There is no guarantee that later on, debtors will be able to make up the missed payments. So I am telling debtors that if they can still afford to make the payments, they should. Don’t choose to miss payments you otherwise can afford to. What if you can’t catch up? Do you really want your consumer proposal to be annulled later on after potentially you have paid everything except a few payments? That would be terrible..

Q: If a proposal was deemed annulled before April 27, 2020, when does it need to be revitalized to be covered by the order?

Response: A proposal that is revived by the steps taken under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) on or prior to June 30, 2020, will certainly be covered by the order.

Q: If three payments were missed on or before April 27, 2020, but the Trustee did not send notices of deemed annulment, does anything require to be done to be covered by the order?

Response: Yes. When three payments prior to April 27, 2020, are missed out on the BIA states that a consumer proposal is regarded annulled despite administrative actions that may or might not have been taken. Thus, where the equivalent of three or even more payments has been missed out on, the consumer proposal will certainly need to be revived according to the BIA on or before June 30, 2020, in order to be active under the order.

Q: Is the duration under which a consumer proposal can be automatically revived likewise extended?

Response: No. The order allows the equivalent of as much as three extra payment defaults or an added three months time during the March 13 to December 31, 2020 timeline, prior to a deemed annulment of a consumer proposal. After this happens, a notice of revival has to still be filed within 30 days of the deemed annulment.

Q: Will the five-year restriction on consumer proposals be lengthened in order to offer debtors the time required to make up the missed out on payments?

Response: The BIA says that a consumer proposal needs to say that it will be completed within 5 years. Consequently, all payments, including missed repayments, have to be made during this same timeline. The only thing that will change that is if an amended proposal is filed and approved. After saying that, the BIA does not offer instant repercussions for defaults that lead to non-performance during this 5 year time period. If a consumer proposal has exceeded the five-year period but has actually not been annulled, it remains in force and therefore, in my view, can be completed.

This assumes no interested party goes to Court to ask for a court-ordered annulment. The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has formally stated that where hold-up in completion is due to COVID-19 reasons, they will not be seeking an annulment.

Everything old is new again or “Throwback Thursday”

There is one area that has not yet been covered off by the Order obtained by the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada. When a person who does not fit under the $250,000 debt limit of consumer proposals, and for all companies, debt settlement restructuring plans under the BIA are done under Part III Division I Proposal section.

If a restructuring proposal cannot be filed straight away, the BIA allows for the filing of a Notice of Intention To Make A Proposal (NOI). The BIA statute says that unless extended by the Court, a Proposal needs to be filed within 30 days after the filing of the NOI. The Court can extend the timeline for a period not exceeding 45 days for any individual extension. In total, extensions cannot be more than 5 months. So in total, a debtor who has filed an NOI can be operating under the NOI for a maximum of 5 months and 30 days.

The Court has to order the extension prior to the expiry of the earlier time period trying to be extended. But the Courts are currently closed. They are only hearing emergency applications via telephone conference call or videoconference. Are a bunch of businesspeople fighting over money with the debtor asking for more time to file a Proposal an emergency? I can’t answer that right now. So if they can’t get into Court, what is the answer?

The Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada has recommended an old method. In the “old days”, before 1992, there was no NOI provision. So what did a person or company who needed more time to formulate and file a Part III Division I Proposal debt settlement plan, but needed to hold off creditors right now, do? They filed what was called a “holding proposal”. A holding proposal is no more than a proposal that says I promise to file a debt settlement plan that will clearly say how I plan to settle my debts either by a certain date or when a specific set of events happen.

The benefit was that the debtor got help from the immediate stay of proceedings. If the debtor could, he, she or it filed an amended proposal at the meeting of creditors which really said how the debts would be settled and then paid. If not, the creditors could consider the issues holding up the filing of the real proposal. If they felt it was in their best interests, they voted in favour to give the debtor the necessary time. If not, they voted it down and the debtor was immediately deemed to have filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

Where the creditors gave the debtor more time under the holding proposal, the Court approved them as long as the requirements the Court had to review were met. It was ultimately the creation of the NOI that was made to make it easier for debtors who were not ready to file a definitive proposal but needed relief from creditors to get it.

So now, the Office Superintendent Bankruptcy Canada is recommending for those cases where you just can’t get into Court, file a holding proposal. I am glad that Ira has kept a copy of a holding proposal in our document template file!!

Summary

I hope you found this case review helpful. It should be of particular interest to contractors, developers and builders in Ontario.

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

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

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

If anyone needs our assistance, or you just need some answers for questions that are bothering you, feel confident that Ira or Brandon can still assist you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

Are you now worried just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. This pandemic situation has made everyone scared.

The Ira Smith Team understands these concerns. More significantly, we know the requirements of the business owner or the individual that has way too much financial debt. You are trying to manage these difficult financial problems and you are understandably anxious.

It is not your fault you can’t fix this problem on your own. The pandemic has thrown everyone a curveball. We have not been trained to deal with this. You have only been taught the old ways. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of new contemporary ways to get you out of your debt problems while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you debt relief now.

We look at your whole circumstance and design a strategy that is as distinct as you are. We take the load off of your shoulders as part of the debt settlement strategy we will draft just for you.

We understand that people facing money problems require a lifeline. That is why we can establish a restructuring procedure for you and end the discomfort you feel.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation. We will listen to the unique issues facing you and provide you with practical and actionable ideas you can implement right away to end the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.