Tag: receiver

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

BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE: OUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO WHAT IS A LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE

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

Licensed Insolvency Trustees, licensed by the Canadian Government

A bankruptcy trustee (now called a Licensed Insolvency Trustee) is a person or company licensed to administer receiverships, bankruptcies, and proposals in Canada. We are licensed by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada (OSB).

The role of the bankruptcy trustee is to help people and companies look at their financial situation and explore the various debt relief options. The Trustee can help with many possible debt solutions; much more than just filing bankruptcy. The Trustee looks at various ways the person or business can avoid bankruptcy first. Bankruptcy, which is the legal process for debtors to deal with their unsecured creditors, by discharging away their unsecured debt, including credit card debt and income tax debts, is the last resort.

In this Brandon’s blog, I provide my complete guide on how a bankruptcy trustee helps people and companies who are in a precarious financial situation because they have too much debt by providing insolvency services and helping people and companies through the Canadian insolvency process.

About Bankruptcy Trustees: what is a licensed insolvency trustee?

A Licensed Insolvency Trustee (LIT) is federally certified by the OSB. A trustee in bankruptcy is the old name for a LIT. LITs are the only debt professionals who are federally regulated and supervised professional that offers recommendations and solutions to individuals and businesses with financial problems.

LITs help people make informed choices to manage their debt difficulties. A bankruptcy trustee is the only expert licensed to carry out government-regulated insolvency proceedings such as:

  • privately-appointed or court-appointed receiver or receiver and manager to administer receiverships Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act Canada (BIA).
  • assisting people to restructure through consumer insolvency using a consumer proposal.
  • helping people who owe more than $250,000 (not including debts registered against their principal residence) and companies by making a proposal to creditors as alternatives to bankruptcy.
  • bankruptcy trustee/licensed insolvency trustee in a bankruptcy administration when a person or company is filing for bankruptcy.

As licensed insolvency trustees, we’re here to help: How do I become an insolvency trustee?

A person who wishes to acquire an individual licence may complete and file an application with the OSB. The following are required for the issuance of a personal licence under the BIA:

  • successfully passed the following, which is administered by the Canadian Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Professionals (CAIRP):
  • the Canadian Insolvency and Restructuring Professional (CIRP) Qualification Program (CQP) unless otherwise exempted;
  • the CIRP National Insolvency Exam; and
  • the insolvency counselling course;
  • paid the required fee;
  • the applicant shall be solvent;
  • the applicant must be of good character and reputation; and
  • passed the oral board of examination run by the OSB.

You need to pass the educational program run by CAIRP. In order to register, you need to be sponsored by a bankruptcy trustee. That LIT will most certainly be your employer. When you pass the final CQP exam, you are awarded the CIRP designation and then able to apply to sit before the OSB’s oral board of examiners.

bankruptcy trustee
bankruptcy trustee

Trustees in Bankruptcy near you: How to find a bankruptcy trustee in Canada

If you are looking for a trustee in bankruptcy near you, there are three good ways to find one.

The best way to find a bankruptcy trustee is a referral from friends or family members. Although they themselves may have never filed for bankruptcy, perhaps they know someone who did. Or, maybe they know a lawyer they trust who can provide them with a name or two that could be passed on to you. A personal reference is the best way to go.

The second way is through the OSB. They maintain a searchable database of all LITs in Canada. You can look for a bankruptcy trustee located near you. The directory includes the office locations of all LITs. You can browse either by name, city or province.

The third way is to look for bankruptcy information online. Type into your favourite search engine a phrase like “ bankruptcy trustee”, “bankruptcy trustee near me”, bankruptcy trustee Vaughan ” or “ trustee in bankruptcy Toronto ” and start searching websites. Then call the one whose website seems to speak to you. You can make an appointment for a no-cost consultation to get all your questions answered. You may even want to try two or three so that you can compare approaches. Then you can select the bankruptcy trustee that you feel you could work best with.

The fee of a bankruptcy trustee in a summary administration bankruptcy – The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act

A personal bankruptcy administration is called a “summary” bankruptcy administration when the realizable assets are estimated at $15,000 or less. This kind of filing for bankruptcy is many times referred to as “no assets, no income”.

Rule 128 of the BIA General Rules dictates the fee and disbursements of a bankruptcy trustee in a summary administration personal bankruptcy. The fee is fixed and is called a tariff. It is calculated as follows:

“128 (1) The fees of the trustee for services performed in a summary administration are calculated on the total receipts remaining after deducting necessary disbursements relating directly to the realization of the property of the bankrupt, and the payments to secured creditors, according to the following percentages:

(a) 100 percent on the first $975 or less of receipts;

(b) 35 percent on the portion of the receipts exceeding $975 but not exceeding $2,000; and (c) 50 percent on the portion of the receipts exceeding $2,000.

(2) A trustee in a summary administration may claim, in addition to the amount set out in subsection (1), (a) the costs of counselling referred to in subsection 131(2);

(b) the fee for filing an assignment referred to in paragraph 132(a);

(c) the fee payable to the registrar under paragraph 1(a) of Part II of the schedule;

(d) the amount of applicable federal and provincial taxes for goods and services; and (e) a lump sum of $100 in respect of administrative disbursements.” If there are no assets or surplus income that will provide cash in the bankruptcy administration, then the debtor, in order to retain the services of the bankruptcy trustee, needs someone to either guarantee the fee and disbursements or post a cash retainer with the LIT in order to file for bankruptcy.

The fees of the bankruptcy trustee in an ordinary bankruptcy

A bankruptcy is called an “ordinary” bankruptcy when the realizable assets are estimated at $15,000 or greater in personal bankruptcy. Every corporate bankruptcy is an ordinary administration.

In an ordinary administration, the trustee is entitled to the remuneration voted by the inspectors in the bankruptcy case. The inspectors are representatives of the creditors who were voted in at the First Meeting of Creditors. The fee must also be approved by the court.

The fee will be affected by the complexity of the bankruptcy case, how much work the LIT had to do to preserve and sell the assets and did the LIT obtain verifiable results that can be described as extraordinary. The time spent and the hourly rates of the bankruptcy trustee staff involved are the basis for calculating the fee in an ordinary administration.

The disbursements incurred are to be added to the fee and must also be taxed. If the bankruptcy trustee is unsure at the outset if there will be any realizable assets, the LIT will ask a third party to provide either a guarantee or cash retainer.

bankruptcy trustee
bankruptcy trustee

The consumer proposal fee for a bankruptcy trustee acting as administrator of a consumer proposal – The Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act

Rule 129 sets out how to calculate the tariff fee in a consumer proposal. As I stated above, one of the roles a bankruptcy trustee is licensed for is to act as the administrator of a consumer proposal This rule states:

“129 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 66.12(6)(b) of the Act, the fees and expenses of the administrator of a consumer proposal that must be provided for in a consumer proposal are as follows:

(a) $750, payable on filing a copy of the consumer proposal with the official receiver;

(b) $750, payable on the approval or deemed approval of the consumer proposal by the court;

(c) 20 percent of the moneys distributed to creditors under the consumer proposal, payable on the distribution of the moneys;

(d) the costs of counselling referred to in subsection 131(1);

(e) the fee for filing a consumer proposal referred to in paragraph 132(c);

(f) the fee payable to the registrar under paragraph 3(b) of Part II of the schedule; and (g) the amount of applicable federal and provincial taxes for goods and services.

Our regular readers of Brandon’s Blog will recall that in previous blogs that I wrote, I described what the BIA minimum requirements are for calculating how much a debtor should offer its creditors as a proposal fund in a consumer proposal. That calculation has nothing to do with what fee the licensed trustee acting as the administrator may be entitled to.

That is why any debtor thinking about filing a consumer proposal in order to avoid bankruptcy need not be concerned with how much they have to pay as a fee. The calculation as to what a reasonable proposal fund will be has zero relation to what the administrator’s fee will be. In this way, the fee of the bankruptcy trustee acting as administrator is no-cost!

The fee of the bankruptcy trustee for the administration of a Division I proposal

Readers of the Brandon Blog will remember that a consumer proposal is available for any individual who has $250,000 of debt or less, not including any debts secured against their personal residence. A Part III Divison I of the BIA proposal is available to all companies and to any person whose debts are too large to do a consumer proposal. Both are alternatives to bankruptcy Under either administration, a proposal is a debt relief plan sanctioned by the BIA. It is the only debt settlement plan authorized by the Government of Canada. Above I described how the fee and disbursements of a bankruptcy trustee in an ordinary bankruptcy administration must be approved by the inspectors and the court.

The same is true for the fee of the bankruptcy trustee acting as the licensed trustee in a Divison I proposal. The calculation of the fee will be very similar to an ordinary bankruptcy administration also. The only difference will be as required by the difference between a proposal and bankruptcy.

A proposal is a great alternative to bankruptcy.

Only a bankruptcy trustee can act as a receiver

Section 243(4) of the BIA states that only a bankruptcy trustee can be appointed as a receiver. It does not matter whether the receiver will be privately or court-appointed. The calculation of the receiver’s fee is based on the hours worked and the hourly rate charged by the respected staff working on the file.

In a private appointment, the fee must be approved by the appointing secured creditor. In a court appointment, the fee must be approved by the court.

bankruptcy trustee
bankruptcy trustee

Bankruptcy trustee summary

I hope you have enjoyed this bankruptcy trustee Brandon’s Blog. Hopefully, you have better insight now into the many roles played by a LIT. As part of any bankruptcy or proposal administration, there are two mandatory credit counselling sessions also. So, the LIT also acts as a credit counsellor.

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

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

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

We know that people facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing.

If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious about finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation.

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

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

bankruptcy trustee
bankruptcy trustee
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY ACT: ANTI-DEPRIVATION RULE COMPLETELY VALID IN INSOLVENCY

insolvency and bankruptcy act
insolvency and bankruptcy act

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

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

Insolvency and bankruptcy act introduction

On October 2, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) rendered its decision in Chandos Construction Ltd. v. Deloitte Restructuring Inc., 2020 SCC 25 (Chandos decision). This decision upheld the idea that the anti-deprivation rule is completely valid when it pertains to both personal and business insolvency and bankruptcy act cases.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I describe the Chandos case and what it stands for.

The definition of the word deprive and the insolvency and bankruptcy act context

The Merriam-Webster dictionary states the definition of the word deprive is:

  • 1: to take something away from; and
  • : to withhold something from.

In the Chandos Construction Ltd. (Chandos) insolvency and bankruptcy act case, the SCC was asked to rule on contract clauses that if upheld, would deprive the bankruptcy estate and therefore the unsecured creditors of money that would otherwise be available. This deprivation of funds, which may make total sense as between contracting parties, is not enforceable in bankruptcy.

The anti-deprivation rule in the Canadian insolvency and bankruptcy act matters

Neither the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) nor the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) stops non-defaulting parties to a contract, from relying upon agreement provisions that create an inevitable result when a debtor declares bankruptcy. The common law becomes pertinent in these situations.

Canadian courts still refer to these anti-deprivation provisions as “ipso facto” provisions and also this idea as the fraud upon the bankruptcy law concept. In more current times, this has been described as the anti-deprivation rule.

The SCC has recognized the anti-deprivation rule since the 1890s. However, the contemporary application of this principle in Canadian law greatly originates from an Ontario court decision in 1995 – Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Bramalea Inc., 1995 CanLII 7262 (ON SC) (Bramalea decision).

This is a decision from the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). Canadian courts have thought about and decided upon the anti-deprivation rule in many insolvency and bankruptcy act cases since then.

The Bramalea case and its relevance of insolvency and bankruptcy act matters

Luckily for me, Ira Smith was the receiver responsible for the file that involved the Bramalea decision. So, I have a bird’s-eye view of that case which started it all leading to the SCC Chandos decision.

In the Bramalea insolvency and bankruptcy act case, a group of companies, including Bramalea Inc. (Bramalea) was in a partnership agreement to develop and operate a shopping mall in Markham, Ontario called Shoppes on Steeles. In 1995, Bramalea was placed into receivership and bankruptcy. Bramalea’s partners included Sears Canada and a private real estate development company.

Amongst the different provisions of the partnership agreement was a specific provision in the contract which considers insolvency. It said that, in case of the insolvency of any of the partners, the non-insolvent partner(s) (given it does not waive the event of insolvency) can buy the interest of the financially troubled partner at the lesser of book value or fair market value.

The paradox of this case was that the large company partners at the time of the drafting of the partnership contract were concerned about what happens if the private property developer one day became insolvent? None of the partners ever believed that it would be that private company that would be the only one that was not insolvent. We all know what happened to Sears Canada!

The moving parties sought to exercise that right by serving a notification to buy the Bramalea passion at book value, approximated to be around $200,000. This was opposed by the receiver and also other stakeholders.

The receiver gave evidence that the fair market price surpassed book value by as much as $2 million to $3 million. The moving parties acknowledged that the fair market value of Bramalea’s stake in the partnership was more than book value. They did not agree with the receiver’s evidence regarding the amount of that difference. They additionally did not submit their own fair market valuation.

The Bramalea insolvency and bankruptcy act decision

Based on the evidence, the court took the view that the specific spread between book value and fair market value was not trivial. The court was satisfied that the distinction is greater than marginal, and enough to properly draw the interest of the receiver and the creditors.

The receiver’s position was that there is a higher principle in play and that the concern is not one of hindering the freedom of contract. Rather it was just one of whether or not that part of the partnership contract is void as being contrary to the public interest.

The receiver submitted that while the arrangement might quite possibly stand as between the contracting parties, it is void as against the receiver and also the bankruptcy trustee in the Bramalea insolvency and bankruptcy act proceedings.

The court agreed with the receiver’s position in this insolvency and bankruptcy act case. The court decided that it was clear from the provisions of the partnership agreement itself that the parties contemplated a transfer to one of the partners of the other partner’s partnership interest, only in case of insolvency, at a price less than what could be acquired for that interest on the open market.

The court specified that this stipulation made perfect sense, as between the contracting parties. It made total sense in regards to maintaining their partnership and their respective interests. Nevertheless, the court likewise specified that the clause cannot survive through the scrutiny of the “fraud on the bankruptcy law” principle.

The receiver ended up selling Bramalea’s partnership interest to the other partners for fair market value.

insolvency and bankruptcy act
insolvency and bankruptcy act

The Chandos Alberta court case and the anti-deprivation rule for insolvency and bankruptcy act matters

Chandos was the general contractor for a condo project contracted with Capital Steel to give $1.3 million worth of steelwork. In the subcontract, Capital Steel agreed that if it became insolvent, Chandos was entitled to all costs arising from the suspension of the contract and it would forfeit 10% of the total subcontract price as an inconvenience fee. Capital Steel performed the majority of its commitments, nevertheless, it filed an assignment in bankruptcy before completing full performance.

As a result, Chandos was forced to finish the contract at an estimated expense of $22,800. Up until that point, Chandos owed Capital Steel $149,618 in outstanding invoices for the job it had performed.

Chandos relied upon the agreement and said that it was qualified to deduct its cost of finishing the job plus 10% of the total contract cost from the amount owing. Given the price of the subcontract, the 10% deduction eliminated Chandos’ balance owing plus an extra amount of $10,511. Chandos declared that gave them a provable claim in the Capital Steel insolvency and bankruptcy act case.

The Trustee’s application to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench

On March 6, 2017, the Trustee applied to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench seeking advice and directions on whether Chandos was entitled to rely on the provision in the contract or was it void pursuant to the anti-deprivation rule in common-law.

The chambers judge acknowledged that the common law anti-deprivation rule stops parties from contracting out of insolvency and bankruptcy act regulations. The judge stated that if that provision was a liquidating damages provision as opposed to a penalty, it would not violate the rule.

The chambers judge ruled that the condition was an authentic pre-estimate of costs, which imposed liquidated damages and not a penalty. He additionally held that the provision represented a bona fide commercial arrangement that did not have as its predominant objective the deprivation of Capital Steel’s property. Consequently, the chambers judge decided that Chandos can implement the clause against the Trustee.

Trustee appeals the Chandos insolvency and bankruptcy act decision to the Court of Appeal for Alberta

The Trustee appealed the Chandos decision to the Court of Appeal for Alberta. The appellate court reviewed the lower court decision in this insolvency and bankruptcy act case and decided that:

  • The chambers court properly determined the presence and application of the fraud on the bankruptcy law principle in Canada.
  • In describing the scope of the anti-deprivation rule, however, the chambers judge erred.
  • The lower court embraced the purpose-based technique set out by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
  • The appropriate technique is to check out the impact of the provision. Its purpose is a different analysis.
  • Chandos certainly had a genuine commercial interest it was looking to protect.
  • However, the clause conflicts with the BIA‘s scheme of distribution. The common law anti-deprivation rule revokes the clause and Chandos cannot count on it to defend its claim against the Trustee.

Chandos appeals to the SCC in this insolvency and bankruptcy act anti-deprivation rule case

One of the key goals of the insolvency and bankruptcy act law is to make certain there is a fair distribution among creditors. In order to fulfill the objective, the legislation restricts specific contractual stipulations that trigger when one of the parties goes into insolvency proceedings (ipso facto clauses).

As seen in the Bramalea situation, one of these limitations is the anti-deprivation rule. It holds that ipso facto conditions that rob the debtor’s creditors of assets they are qualified to receive in insolvency and bankruptcy act matters are void. This is likewise what the Court of Appeal for Alberta decided. Chandos appealed that decision to the SCC.

The Chandos appeal was heard on January 20, 2020. The SCC split decision was released on October 2, 2020. On the facts of Chandos, the SCC dismissed the Chandos appeal. The SCC refused to promote a contractual stipulation that the subcontractor Capital Steel waive 10 percent of the agreed price if Capital Steel became insolvent or bankrupt.

The SCC majority maintained that the test for application of the contractual provision is effects-based and not purpose-based. The SCC majority confirmed that the anti-deprivation rule stands under Canadian common law and it has not been eliminated in dismissing the appeal in this corporate insolvency and bankruptcy act case.

insolvency and bankruptcy act
insolvency and bankruptcy act

Insolvency and bankruptcy act summary

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

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

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

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

We know that people facing financial problems need realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team.

That is why we can develop a restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain you are facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

Call us now for a free consultation.

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

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

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

THE TORONTO CORONAVIRUS EXTRAORDINARY PLAN TO BUSINESS RECOVERY

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

Stay healthy, well balanced and safe and secure everyone.

Introduction

For businesses having a hard time enduring the Toronto coronavirus pandemic, insolvency may very well be the outcome. General insolvency filings were down in April, this is mainly because everyone has a built-in stay of proceedings right now.

Banks, credit card companies and collection agencies are not making a name for themselves right now during the Toronto coronavirus lockdown by harassing people who cannot afford to pay their regular monthly payment. However, that will not last too long.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I discuss options available to the entrepreneur if the Toronto coronavirus lockdown and quarantine wreaks havoc on your business.

Telltale signs from the United States

We have already seen the variety of companies that submitted to Chapter 11 insolvency. They did so in order to attempt to reorganize their financial obligations while trying to stay in business. This has been especially true for the large retail business sector. Their business problems were not caused by COVID-19. However, the pandemic merely accelerated where they were heading anyway.

The American Bankruptcy Institute reported that Chapter 11 filings in April 2020 represent a 26% boost from April 2019.

I have previously written about Modell’s Sporting Goods and Pier 1. Now we can add Neiman Marcus, JCPenney and J.Crew. Outside of the retail sector, Hertz Car Rental, Gold’s Gym, Foodora and Virgin Australia are also recent restructuring filings. I also really believe that it won’t be long before the floodgates open up to subject an excess of small firms looking for relief from their financial problems, in North America and the rest of the world. That is probably obvious to you, it really can’t be called a Toronto coronavirus news update!

Entrepreneurs are doing whatever they can

I have definitely noticed an uptick in telephone calls from people scared about their personal situation and from worried business owners in the past 4 weeks. They aren’t all set to throw in the towel right now. They are attempting to do whatever they can through the shutdown to stabilize their company. So for now, they are trying to take advantage of various federal government programs to help them stay afloat. The programs include:

However, the people I am talking to are also realists. They all understand that if what they are doing now doesn’t work, they will either have to try to restructure the company or have it go bankrupt. So for now, there is somewhat of a pause in remedies such as distraints, repossessions, terminations of leases and financial institution collections.

The moratorium won’t last forever

Right now the Canadian federal government is taking the lead. They have extended timelines for filing income tax and HST returns and paying amounts owing. They have also extended certain relief programs from their original expiration date of June 30. Right now, subject to a further extension, of course, it looks like the feds are shooting for September 30 to end the COVID-19 assistance programs.

Ultimately, the patience for non-payment being shown right now by landlords and creditors won’t last permanently. I expect business bankruptcy protection and bankruptcy filings to climb after the “all clear” is sounded on this Toronto coronavirus state of emergency and the government assistance ends. The pent up collection activity will go into full flight.

The floodgates will open. I expect one of the worst offenders to be the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). There will be so many companies in default of their tax payment obligations. The government is spending trillions of dollars to prop up the Canadian economy. Those programs will have to be paid for and all the IOU’s will be called in.

It seems that everybody I have spoken with is simply waiting until this Toronto coronavirus period quiets down. The pool of business problems is overflowing right now.

Corporate bankruptcy is not the only option for a company battling its financial demons. There are going to be three categories of insolvent companies:

  1. Those who are too small and it just does not make sense for them to do anything other than paying the employees their final salary, wages and vacation pay. Then file their final corporate and income tax files. Then, turn the key in the door and walk away.
  2. A company that has just a few creditors and all or some of the business operations remains viable. They can negotiate with their creditors for a reduction in each amount owing on a creditor by creditor basis. The reason this does not work if there is a large group of creditors is because of human nature. Everyone is worried that the next person is getting a better deal. By the time you get the last person to say yes, the first person may have changed their mind. There is no way to independently satisfy all the creditors that nobody is getting a better deal. In reality, some are getting a better arrangement than others. It will be based on the negotiation ability of the creditor and how essential maintaining the supply of their product or service from them is.
  3. Businesses where all or some of their operations remain viable. However, the company can only survive if it can chop off the sick parts and eliminate however much debt they need to so that the newly restructured company is solvent.
  4. Companies with complex issues needing to assign their assets to a licensed insolvency trustee through a bankruptcy or whose secured creditor will enforce on their security by appointing a receiver, either a private receiver or court-appointed receiver.

Toronto coronavirus induced restructuring

If you anticipate your entire business or certain business units will remain viable but require relief from its creditors and debts, the first look at restructuring. This route enables a company to stay functioning while renegotiating its financial obligations. This process includes looking critically at all business units and determining how operations can be made more efficient in order to improve profitability. Many hard decisions will have to be made.

Companies have two choices in Canada for restructuring. For the larger restructurings, the kind that you read in the newspaper, the restructuring statute is the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). In order to qualify for restructuring under the CCAA, the company has to owe its creditors at least $5 million.

All other companies restructure under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) restructuring provisions. It is called Part III Division I of the BIA. Regular readers of Brandon’s Blog will know that I have written several blogs before on aspects of both the CCAA and restructuring under the BIA.

In my blog, BANKRUPTCY EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON US & CDN SMALL BIZ RESTRUCTURING, I lamented the fact that the Canadian insolvency system does not have a streamlined restructuring process for smaller companies. We have the consumer proposal restructuring under the BIA for smaller personal insolvent debtors trying to restructure.

The United States has the Small Company Reorganization Act (SBRA) of 2019, also known as “Subchapter 5”. The SBRA is aimed at simplifying restructuring procedures for small companies by boosting efficiency, lowering costs, and easing the restructuring plan confirmation process. I believe this would be a great addition to the Canadian insolvency system. It may very well move some companies from my #1 category listed above into #3.

There is no sense dwelling any longer on what we don’t have. The Toronto coronavirus news today has affected so many companies. Many will just not survive. Others will be able to come out of the other side of this Toronto coronavirus pandemic but will need major surgery to stay alive.

The first step for any entrepreneur is to get professional advice in order to strategize and make a decision on what plan to put into place. You should speak either to a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) (Trustee) or a lawyer who has experience in insolvency matters.

Most licensed insolvency trustees will provide a one-hour no-cost strategy session.

You need to understand whether or not you have a viable business and company. Then, you need to have a sensible plan to increase your chances of success based on the viability analysis.

Both Ira and I have been doing many such strategy sessions over the telephone and video meeting since the Toronto coronavirus self-quarantine lockdown came into effect. I know that we will be doing many more as the city and the province begin to open up.

The goals of the entrepreneur have to be the driving force. For example, if the entrepreneur is adamant about staying in business, then you have to hope that business viability can be proven so that the likelihood of a successful restructuring is enhanced. On the other hand, if you can prove business viability but the entrepreneur has had enough and wants out, then you look at the restructuring and sale of the viable business parts.

Once viability is established, then a restructuring plan can be developed. The restructuring will take place either under the BIA or CCAA. Depending on the circumstances and the goals of the entrepreneur, either a refinancing of the restructured company of a sale of the business is part of any restructuring plan.

Business not viable

If the business is not viable, then pure restructuring is not possible. However, that does not mean that the assets that form the business unit cannot be used by someone else to efficiently run the business. I am not just talking about hard assets. Things such as patents, trademarks, processes, experienced workforce and the customer base before they go off to find a new supplier are all valuable parts of a business.

Perhaps the tangible and intangible assets can be sold to someone that can bring them into their existing operation and run the business profitably. Jobs can be saved also if this were to happen.

When this is the case, then you are into some form of liquidation. A secured creditor will move for the appointment of a receiver. As I have written before on this topic, the appointment can either be by way of a private appointment or an application to the court for a court-appointed receiver.

If there are no secured creditors, the security taken is invalid, or there are other factors that make a bankruptcy necessary, then the company can assign itself to bankruptcy. It isn’t every day you find this, but in a recent corporate bankruptcy filing that I am administering, I found that the security of the purported secured creditor was invalid as against us as Trustee.

Then either the receiver or Trustee can take possession of the assets, run a well-advertised and managed sales process and hopefully find a buyer for the assets to comprise all or many parts of the operating business. If such a buyer does not exist, then it will be a straight liquidation of individual assets. Obviously, higher values can be achieved when selling what amounts to a business rather than just individual assets in a liquidation.

Personal guarantees and director liabilities

In any corporate or business insolvency, the exposure of the directors has to be taken into consideration. This is not Toronto coronavirus news. It is normal for entrepreneurs to have to give a personal guarantee to a lender in addition to the security taken. Such a guarantee can be backed up by specific personal assets as collateral, or be an unsecured guarantee. Or, an entrepreneur has to indemnify the landlord as part of the corporation leasing premises.

Directors also have certain liabilities under provincial or federal law. Generally, directors will have personal liability for:

The exposure of directors must be recognized and taken into account in any restructuring attempt.

Toronto Coronavirus Summary

Businesses all over will look different due to the Toronto coronavirus pandemic and lockdown. The current environment is unprecedented and is teaching all of us things we have never seen before.

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.

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. During this Toronto coronavirus state of emergency, we are doing telephone consultations and/or virtual conferences that are readily available for anyone feeling the need to discuss their personal or company situation.

 

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

Stay healthy, well balanced and safe and secure everyone.

toronto coronavirus

 

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

REDWATER ALBERTA NEWS: $1.7B TO CLEAN UP ORPHANED WELLS DUE TO COVID-19

redwater albertaThe 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 prefer to listen to the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom of this page and click on the podcast

Introduction

When it went insolvent in 2015, Redwater Energy Corp. (Redwater Alberta or Redwater) might have been a small business, with only 19 generating wells and 90 dormant wells. However, a relatively small oil producer was responsible for a huge Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision.

Basically, the SCC decided in the Redwater Acase, that if a business goes belly up, its environmental obligation needs to be paid before secured creditors. I have written before on the Alberta Courts’ decisions and the SCC decision. As a result of COVID-19, the Canadian government just announced a $1.7 billion fund to create jobs in the Canadian oil patch.

Redwater Alberta history of cases

In my previous blogs, I described the Alberta court decisions. The Alberta Courts concurred with the receiver and held that the regulator’s enforcement activities to force Redwater’s adherence to its previously agreed requirements to clean up and permanently cap its oil site, in bankruptcy was not enforceable.

The Courts stated that given the bankruptcy of the company (in addition to a receivership), the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) took paramountcy over the provincial law. The provincial Courts said that the BIA took paramountcy because:

  1. Allowed the receiver protection from the promises of Redwater Alberta as the licensee in connection with the Redwater properties disclaimed by the receiver/trustee, according to s. 14.06(4) of the BIA.
  2. The priority for the distribution of a bankrupt’s assets is regulated under the BIA, not provincial legislation. If the provable claim of the Regulator, an unsecured creditor, was paid in advance of the claims of Redwater’s secured creditors, that would not be the regime laid out in the BIA.

The SCC decision

In the SCC 5 to 2 judgment in the Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. case, the SCC ruled that financially troubled companies like Redwater can no longer disclaim or merely bow out of properties they don’t want. In this situation, non-producing oil wells, when abandoned or orphaned, leave the resulting ecological cleaning to Alberta’s Orphan Well Association. It is a non-profit operating for the Alberta Energy Regulator.

What the SCC decision in the case of the Redwater Alberta receivership means is that the costs of properly and permanently sealing an oil well that is to be abandoned is a first ranking charge against the producer’s assets. In the Redwater case, the receiver had to turn over the proceeds (about $600,000) from the asset sales to the Alberta regulator. There was absolutely nothing left for any other creditor, either secured or unsecured.

This case was obviously difficult and contentious, given that it was a 5-2 decision and not unanimous. The majority decision stated that:

  • The regulator’s use of its provincial powers is not in conflict with the BIA to trigger the doctrine of federal paramountcy.
  • Section 14.06(4) of the BIA deals with the personal liability of receivers and trustees and does not let a trustee ignore the environmental liabilities of the estate.
  • The regulator is not asserting any claims provable in the bankruptcy.
  • There is no attempt by the regulator to upset the scheme of priorities stipulated by the BIA.
  • There is not a conflict by the regulator tagging the Redwater receiver as a licensee under Alberta legislation.

The Supreme Court decision goes on to say that the rules cannot be ignored just because there is a bankruptcy. Insolvency professionals must abide by valid provincial laws in administering corporate bankruptcy. It also found that receivers and trustees must:

  • conform with non-financial requirements the insolvent company must still adhere to that do not create a provable claim in the insolvency administration; and
  • Adhere to the parts of the provincial legislation that does not go against the BIA, notwithstanding that it might prove harmful to the position of one or more groups of creditors.

COVID-19 and orphaned wells

Near the end of March 2020, Finance Minister Bill Morneau said that help for the oil and gas industry would be announced. This industry has been hit by two different factors:

  1. Reduced demand due to people self-quarantining because of COVID-19 and therefore there is less demand for oil and gas.
  2. The price battle between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Oil on the world market is at an all-time low. At one point, a barrel of Canadian oil was selling for less than $5. The industry cannot operate with oil prices that low.

As a result, there have been massive job losses in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta oil patches. As well, the regulators do not have the money to reclaim and permanently seal off the abandoned orphaned wells. It is currently estimated that the total cost could be in the $8 billion range.

On Friday, April 17, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the federal government will invest at least $1.7 billion to the orphaned well cleanup. The money is to be used to create oil patch jobs to allow for the environmental cleanup.

So COVID-19 or coronavirus, has forced the Canadian government to create this support for the Canadian oil and gas industry. It will create jobs badly needed and allow for the cleanup of some orphaned oil wells.

Details of the support package have not been released. Presumably, the legislation will have to be drafted and passed in the House of Commons. No doubt, more information will come out in the coming days or weeks.

Summary

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 are all citizens of Canada and we need to coordinate our initiatives 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 use clean, safe and secure routines 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.

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.

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.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CORONAVIRUS SAFETY AND READINESS TIPS FOR YOU – VIDEO ***

coronavirus safety and readiness tips for you

I hope the coronavirus information in this video is helpful to you. During these difficult times, everyone is doing their part to limit the spread of this dangerous virus. Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has always employed clean and safe habits in our professional practice and continues to do so.

If anyone needs our assistance and is unable to go out, either through self-quarantine measures or just general precautions, rest assured that Ira or Brandon can still help you. Telephone consultations and/or virtual meetings are available for anyone wanting to discuss their personal or corporate situation.

So hopefully these coronavirus safety tips are helpful to you. We are available to be of assistance to you.

Stay healthy my friends.

coronavirus safety and readiness tips for you

 

Coronavirus safety and readiness tips for you

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WILLS AND ESTATES: SELLING DECEASED ESTATE PROPERTY

wills and estates

If you would like to hear the audio version of this wills and estates Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

Earlier this year, I wrote several blogs dealing with the administration of wills and estates. As I previously wrote, Ira Smith and I got very interested in this area. The reason was that we saw that the skill set required and the activities undertaken by an executor of a deceased estate, were quite similar. In Ontario, the executor of a deceased estate is called an estate trustee.

My series of blogs on the administration of a deceased estate in Ontario, in no particular order, were:

  1. DYING WITHOUT A WILL IN ONTARIO: DISTRIBUTION TO HEIRS NOT EASY
  2. TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS
  3. TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?
  4. ESTATE TRUSTEE ONTARIO REMOVAL ISSUES
  5. SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OPPORTUNITIES FROM A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE
  6. TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE
  7. ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO
  8. ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET
  9. PROBATE IN ONTARIO – SMITH ESTATE TRUSTEE ONTARIO BEGINS

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to review a very interesting recent Court of Appeal for Ontario decision appealing a lower Court’s ruling in an estate matter. The appeal was launched by the Estate Trustee who felt the lower court judge erred in approving a sale of an estate asset for a lower price than the Estate Trustee thought was proper. The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the lower court’s decision.

This could very well happen to a receiver or trustee in an insolvency file. Again, another similarity between the role we take on in an insolvency file administration and the role Smith Estate Trustee Ontario takes on as Estate Trustee in the administration of a deceased estate.

Wills and estates definition

First some basics. An estate is the property that an individual owns or has a lawful controlling interest in. The term is usually made use of to define the assets and liabilities left by a person after death. A will is a document that states your final wishes. It is a document that becomes operative after your death. It will appoint one or more people to act as an estate trustee. It will also provide for how you want your assets to be divided up amongst your beneficiary or beneficiaries.

On December 6, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario released its decision in the legal case Loran v. Weissmann, 2019 ONCA 962 (CanLII). As I mentioned, the Estate Trustee appealed the lower court’s decision released in January 2019. The issue was one that could easily come up in other wills and estates. Since the issue being appealed was the lower court’s decision on a sales price for an asset, this issue also can arise in insolvency files. Just a different context.

Wills and estates Ontario: What was the issue?

This appeal by the estate trustee occurred out of a disagreement regarding a provision in the will concerning the sale of the business owned by the deceased. Unfortunately, this happens all too frequently. The provision in dispute was regarding the sales price of the business.

The will stated that the respondent, a long-time employee of the business, could purchase the business. The purchase price stated in the will was “…the lesser of $1.75 million or “the price determined by multiplying the earnings of…(averaged over the last three fiscal periods) by a factor of 5.5”.

The will also stated that the price paid by the respondent will be provided by way of a promissory note, with interest payable at 5% per year. There will be an annual repayment to the estate of not less than $180,000, to be made in month-to-month payments. The promissory note was to be secured by a general security agreement against the assets of the business and by the registration of a mortgage against the respondent’s house.

So far it sounds pretty simple, or so you would think.

They couldn’t reach a deal

The long-time employee tried to purchase the business, but the estate trustee and the employee could not agree on the purchase price. That is how they ended up in court.

The lower court judge hearing the evidence ruled that the sales price will be $529,611. He calculated this as $716,921, using the formula in the will, minus $187,310. This latter amount was an amount the Judge ruled was improperly paid by the company to the estate. The Judge also ruled that the employee was not required to provide the collateral mortgage. The estate trustee felt that this went against the will.

The appeal by the estate trustee

The appellant submitted that the application judge made the following mistakes:

  • he treated the respondent as a beneficiary as opposed to a favoured buyer;
  • he ignored the need of a collateral mortgage;
  • he approved the respondent’s evidence about the amount to be attributed to the deceased owner’s wages for the purposes of computing the earnings of the company; as well as
  • he incorrectly subtracted from the sales price the $187,310 paid out of the company to the estate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario did not agree with any of these grounds for appeal.

The reasons were given by the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Beneficiary vs favoured buyer – The appellate court did not find any error in the lower court ruling on this. The Court of Appeal for Ontario noted that the will did not try to maximize the value of the business. It did not state that the estate trustee had to run a marketing effort to obtain the best price under the circumstances.

You would expect this to be the case in any sale by either an estate trustee or a receiver or licensed insolvency trustee. The appeal court noted this absence of intention. Rather, they agreed with the lower court that the intention was for the long-time employee to buy the business under the formula in the will.

Collateral mortgage – The evidence before the lower court was that at the time the will was written, the long-time employee did not own a home. The will also did not have any language about what minimum amount of equity the long term employee’s home had to have to provide for the collateral mortgage security. There was no argument that the lower court judge had the right to apply commercially reasonable terms. So, since the will was so unclear on what wording and real value the collateral mortgage security had to have, the lower court judge ruled that it would be meaningless and was unnecessary in the circumstances. The Court of Appeal for Ontario agreed again with the lower court judge.

The owner’s salary adds back to normalize earnings – The evidence was that at trial, both the appellant and respondent provided expert witness reports on this issue. The lower court judge preferred the respondent’s expert evidence. The appellant took issue with this. The Court of Appeal found that the lower court judge had the right to rely on one or the other of the expert’s reports and made a judgment call. There was nothing in that decision to be overturned.

Payment of $187,310 – The appellant’s position was that this payment would one day be rectified by the company recording this payment as a dividend. The appellant stated that the company had the right to pay dividends, which it had in the past. The lower court judge agreed that, as long as the payment of dividends did not render the company insolvent, it could do so.

The lower court judge also found that in the past the company had paid a dividend. However, it did not characterize this payment as a dividend, but rather, just payment to the estate. The lower court judge ruled that the purchaser should get the benefit of those funds having been stripped out of the company by a reduction in the purchase price of that same amount.

It turned out that the estate trustee caused the company to make that payment to the estate so that the estate could then pay out those funds to support the deceased’s widow. The company did not record that payment as a dividend or as salary to the widow. The lower court drew a distinction between dividends and gratuitous payments from the company’s bank account. The appeal court found that decision was within his discretion and there is no basis to interfere with the lower court judge’s finding.

So, the appeal court dismissed the appeal entirely and ordered that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $10,000.

Summary

As I stated at the beginning, there are a lot of similarities between acting as an estate trustee and administering an insolvency file. Disputes normally arise in insolvency files. As this case shows, disputes also arise regularly in the administration of a deceased estate.

As a result of the similarities, we started this year Smith Estate Trustee Ontario. We currently have several estate trustee administrations underway. Our mix of empathy, experience and impartiality provides us with a distinct viewpoint. We have the capability to appropriately administer a deceased estate. Through our efforts, we minimize problems and accomplish outcomes for all stakeholders in an economical way.

We provide a full range of services to provide solutions for the complex Estate issues to end the pain and frustration the stakeholders are experiencing. We apply our expertise and creative thinking to take care of all details to end your pain and achieve the goals of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders. Contact Smith Estate Trustee Ontario today for your free consultation. Get our no cost full-scale analysis of your issues and our recommended options to solve your problems allowing you to move forward confidently. Check out our website by clicking HERE.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS A CREDITOR IN BUSINESS LAW NOT TO DO?

What is a creditor introduction

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

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

Vaughan Crossings Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

The business consultant

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

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

The court case

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

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

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

The analysis

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

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

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

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

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

So what is a creditor not to do?

What you should not do is:

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

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

What is a creditor?

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

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

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

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

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

what is a creditor

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY CANADA NEW EVENTS (2019)

Introduction

There has been two recent bankruptcy Canada new events that I believe are important to discuss. I believe you will hear more about it over the next few months. The two are unrelated.

One deals with the insolvency of oil and gas companies. The other with the rights of retired people and their company pensions and health benefits when their former employer goes into insolvency proceedings.

Bankruptcy Canada – The Redwater decision fallout

I have previously written about the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Redwater Energy Corporation matter. On January 31, 2019, the top Federal Court released its decision in the case of Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. The Supreme Court reversed 2 Alberta lower Court decisions. It is now the law of the land that, prior to lenders or creditors getting any type of repayment, the receiver or trustee will need to invest the funds from the sale of assets on the environmental remediation costs on all orphaned wells, that provincial legislation may need.

The decision made it clear that the receiver or trustee does not need to spend cash it does not have from the sale of assets or other recoveries. However, whatever amount it recoups from the sale of assets, on a net basis, will initially need to go to provincially mandated clean-up costs of the financially troubled company’s wells. This is before secured or unsecured creditors see a penny.

Trident Exploration Corp.

Now for the fallout. Natural gas producer Trident Exploration Corp. (Trident) ceased operations on April 30, 2019. On May 3 on application to the Court by the Alberta Energy Regulator’s Orphan Well Association, Trident was placed in receivership.

Its staff and contractors have been terminated and its 3,600+ wells are being transitioned to the Alberta regulator.

The company claimed it had functioned openly and collaboratively with its lenders and the regulator since February. It further reported that it was unable to see that a successful restructuring could be accomplished in a timely fashion. Therefore, Trident’s lender stopped supporting the business. Due to this, Trident does not have the funds to run its infrastructure or enter into insolvency proceedings. Consequently, they have determined to walk away, leaving greater than 3,600 sites, a number of them active, without an operator.

The regulator then issued its order for the sites to be properly decommissioned and capped off. On April 30, Trident, without replying to the regulator’s order or addressing their environmental obligations, the Directors ceased operations, terminated its staff and contractors. The Board then resigned. Trident’s wells will soon be transferred to the Orphan Well Association.

The Redwater effect

Trident blamed the recent Redwater Supreme Court decision which ruled that capping of orphan oil and gas wells and environmental remediation should take priority over lenders when a business goes bankrupt and leaves behind orphan wells.

Trident also said that the Redwater decision, regulatory uncertainty and current low pricing has developed a treacherous setting for energy companies that dare to risk their capital in Canada.

Trident estimates that its total abandonment and improvement obligations are about $329 million. They estimate that with those costs, any recovery by secured lenders is unsure and there would be no funds for either unsecured creditors or shareholders.

The Redwater effect is that the Court’s decision has had the unintended result of increasing Trident’s financial distress and accelerating the abandonment of its wells, has it had no funds to live up to its obligations.

Only time will tell if other insolvent energy producers take the route of Trident by just shutting down and abandoning its business and leaving its wells for the regulator to deal with.

Bankruptcy Canada – Retiree pension and health benefit rights protection in insolvency proceedings

Another topic I have previously written about is the lack of protection for retirees for pension and health benefit payments when the former employer enters insolvency proceedings. Rank-and-file members of the United Steelworkers (USW) from across Canada were on Parliament Hill to consult with MPs and requesting a commitment to legislate protection for retired workers. The USW very much want to make this a 2019 federal election issue.

The 2019 federal budget plan was very quiet on any type of commitment to shield workers and retirees by treating them as protected or priority creditors in our insolvency laws.

As a result of high-profile cases such as Nortel in Ottawa, Stelco in Hamilton and Sears, the USW is committed to campaigning for retirees to have a safe future.

Retirees understand just how unsecure their pension plans and benefits might be if a firm gets into restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or any proceeding under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Pensions are delayed earnings and, by the time financial institutions as well as various other creditors are paid, there is nothing left for workers for any shortfall or benefit payments. The USW feels that all Canadians ought to be outraged by the treatment of retired Canadians in corporate insolvency matters.

This is why they met with MPs Senators. They want to focus on a collection of recent Bills presently before the House of Commons and the Senate. Two are before the House of Commons but they have not progressed. One is sponsored by the New Democratic Party, and the other by the Bloc Québecois. They are focused on reforming the CCAA and the BIA to offer top priority to claims by workers arising out of an underfunded pension plan and the removal of benefits.

An additional Bill, presented in the Senate late last year by now-retired Senator Art Eggleton, likewise aims to grant secured standing for pension claims.

It will be interesting to see if the Conservative Party picks up on this important debate and turns it into an election issue. The Liberal Party had promised to deal with this issue in the last four years, but alas, they have not delivered.

Bankruptcy Canada – Summary

Corporations that cannot afford to properly shut down their business and retirees losing out on benefits they worked their whole life for are important issues in insolvency. Does your company not have enough cash to continue its operations? Did you not receive all amounts you are entitled to and now are facing personal financial problems?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people and companies trying to find financial restructuring or a financial debt negotiation strategy. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to supply insolvency advice and carry out strategies to aid you to stay clear of personal bankruptcy.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so you can cut the stress, anxiousness and pain from your life that your financial issues have caused. With the special roadmap, we establish just for you, we will immediately return you right into a healthy and hassle-free life.

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

 

bankruptcy canada

 

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

PRIVACY BREACH LAWSUIT AGAINST LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE FAILS

privacy breach lawsuitPrivacy breach lawsuit: Introduction

A licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) and a Court appointed Receiver are both officers of the Court. As such, they have a duty of care to all stakeholders and parties. A decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released in late 2018 deals with an application to begin a class action privacy breach lawsuit against a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or Trustee).

The case I am referring to is Netlink Computer System Inc. (re),2018 BCSC2309. Netlink Computer System Inc. (Netlink) was a British Columbia-based business that marketed computers and associated software solutions. In late 2017, Netlink went bankrupt.

Privacy breach lawsuit: The request to go ahead

As is required under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA), any party wishing to initiate litigation against a bankruptcy trustee must first get the permission of the Court to do so.

In the Netlink case, a former Netlink customer wanted to start a class action lawsuit against the Trustee. The customer claimed that the Trustee breached the personal privacy of Netlink’s customers by permitting their personal details to be revealed. The unproven claim was that the Trustee sold to or, otherwise, allowed 3rd parties to get personal information of the Netlink customers.

This particular customer wished to start an action versus the Trustee for breach of privacy. If leave is approved, this customer would then seek certification of his case as a class action lawsuit.

Privacy breach lawsuit: The issue in requesting the leave of the Court

The Court’s task was to figure out whether to exercise its discretion to allow the claim to go ahead. The Court had to look at the nature and scope of the proposed claim taking into account the evidence. Leave is rarely given. If leave was granted in this case, it would be the first time in Canada a bankruptcy Trustee has been taken legal action against in a potential class action proceeding.

The BIA does not give any type of specific advice about the elements the Court ought to take into consideration in thinking about an application for leave to start an action against a LIT. These have just been developed through case-law analyzing and using s. 215 of the BIA.

For almost 150 years, Courts and legal scholars have been of the view that the bar for approving the commencement of litigation I versus a Court-appointed receiver or Trustee is not a high one. It is designed to protect the receiver or LIT against only frivolous or vexatious actions which have no basis.

The leading cases on the issue of leave to go ahead with litigation against either a Court-appointed receiver or LIT can be summarized as follows;

  • Leave to take such legal action should not be given if the action is frivolous or vexatious. Manifestly unmeritorious claims need to not be allowed to continue
  • Actions need to not be allowed to continue if the evidence submitted on behalf of the action, does not show a cause of action against the Trustee.
  • The court is not required to make a final evaluation of the benefits of the claim prior to granting leave.

This threshold tries to strike the ideal balance between the security of bankruptcy trustees and Court appointed receivers from the interruption of an insolvency administration from unimportant or simply tactical suits and preserving to the maximum degree possible the legal rights of creditors and other stakeholders.

In this privacy breach lawsuit case, the claimant states that his affidavit evidence provides proof reveals a real case against the Trustee. The Trustee says that the proposed claim and the evidence on its behalf does not satisfy the relatively reduced threshold called for to prove leave.

The claimant described in his materials, his potential claim. . He also discloses that he has already begun a claim against the auction company who sold the bankruptcy company’s assets, Netlink and Netlink’s landlord. (The action versus Netlink has remained stayed due to the fact that Netlink is in bankruptcy). The proposed claim against the LIT is exactly the same and consists of practically the same phrasing as the action already started. There is no separate accusation that the Trustee did anything different from the auctioneer, Netlink, or the landlord.

The proposed claimant’s main points were:

  1. He purchased a product from Netlink and provided personal information, including, his name, address and credit card details.
  2. The Trustee contracted with the auctioneer to sell the assets.
  3. During that process, the Trustee allowed customers’ private information, including addresses, credit card numbers, and various other sensitive information (the “Private Information”) to be exposed and offered to or otherwise acquired by 3rd parties, including criminals.
  4. The Trustee provided the auctioneer computers and Netlink servers and other records containing the Private Information.
  5. Criminals that obtained the Netlink servers offered the information to other criminals, consisting of cybercriminals and identity thieves.
  6. The trustee knew that customer details are often included in the property of such bankrupt’s estates and it took no steps to safeguard the information when taking guardianship of Netflix’s property.
  7. The Trustee’s choice to offer the Private Information, or at a minimum, the Netlink servers including the Private Information, was intended and deliberate and was made knowing that Netlink customers had not consented to their details being shared.
  8. Customers have suffered damages.

Privacy breach lawsuit: This evidence

The Court examined the claims and the evidence. Unfortunately, the claimant did not have first-hand knowledge of what the Trustee did or did not do. Rather, the claimant submitted two sworn affidavits of what he believed took place. The information contained in the two affidavits was derived mainly from blog posts and YouTube videos that the claimant believed to be true.

The Trustee submitted 2 sworn affidavits of the LIT responsible for the Netlink file. The Trustee’s evidence was mainly why the relatively low threshold for allowing a claim against a Trustee or Court appointed receiver were not met. It did not provide much information about what the Trustee actually did (or did not do).

The Court had no choice but to rule that the claimant’s evidence was mainly hearsay and not admissible. With no real evidence before the Court to support the accusations, the Court dismissed the application and leave to begin the action against the Trustee was denied.

Privacy breach lawsuit: My take

Based on my reading of this case, I believe the Trustee was very lucky that there was no real evidence against it. There is no information indicating what steps the Trustee took to make sure that all Private Information was protected prior to the assets being sold. It is imperative that privacy breaches do not take place. Once a Trustee or Court appointed receiver to take possession of assets that may contain private or sensitive information, steps must be taken to ensure that the information does not fall into the hands of 3rd parties who have no right to that information. It does not matter whether the information is stored on computer hard drives, in the cloud, or physically in books or on paper.

The claimant still has its action against the auctioneer and the landlord. My understanding is that the landlord is involved because once the auction sale was completed and the auctioneer left the premises, there were still books, records and papers that contained some or all the Private Information. The landlord disposed of such papers in a way that did not protect the Private Information.

My Firm’s standard practice is to remove hard drives that contain Private Information so that computers would be sold minus a hard drive. With respect to physical records, any documents not required that would contain Private Information, we have shredded. We do not just throw it into a dumpster intact for someone to find. These are minimum steps required to protect Private Information.

Unfortunately, in the Netlink case, the Court’s Reasons for Decision does not include any information indicating the Trustee took such steps.

Privacy breach lawsuit: What does it all mean?

What it all means is that in any insolvency assignment, the LIT needs to know what it is he or she has taken possession and control of. Decisions must be made that protect the interests of all stakeholders, as best possible. There are always competing interests. The LIT must balance them all carefully when making decisions.

Do you have too much debt because you are a victim of identity theft? Does your company have too much debt and is in danger of shutting down? Is the pain and stress of too much debt now negatively affecting your health?

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

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

Call a Trustee Now!