Tag: receivership

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

HST REMITTANCE REVIEW: UNPAID HST & THE DIRECTOR’S JOINT BANK ACCOUNT

Introduction

I have previously written about joint bank accounts and joint credit cards. I recently read a decision of the Tax Court of Canada that will be of interest to every entrepreneur whose company may be behind in their HST remittance and who has a joint bank account with their spouse.

Joint bank account considerations

Opening a joint bank account is a relatively easy procedure. People who share a joint savings or chequing account can each make deposits and withdrawals from the account without the signature of the person they share the account with. As a matter of fact, any person listed on the joint account can close it using proper identification. Data held by a bank on the owners of the joint account, similar to any other account, consists of personal identifiers of the holders of the account, which enables anyone legally authorized to get that information.

I have written before on the dangers of a joint bank account. The dangers have nothing to do with the bank per se. They are more non-bank related. Examples of problems include:

  • Sometimes moms and dads will share an account with a small child. The reason is to begin providing the youngster with financial literacy education. However, if you share a bank account with your minor child and your spouse, you are taking a chance that your partner can access that joint bank account that you share with your child without your authorization.
  • There is a threat with a joint account between partners when you have a saver as well as a spender who each has access to the account without the other’s signature. It can trigger family, relationships or business problems.

I wanted to give this brief background information, but it is not what is of most interest to entrepreneurs. The following Tax Court of Canada decision which I will now describe is.

Tammy White and Her Majesty The Queen facts

This judgement was rendered on February 4, 2020, in the Tax Court of Canada in Vancouver, BC. Ms. White appealed an assessment by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) against her under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)) (Income Tax Act) and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. E-15) (Excise Tax Act). You will recall that last week, I spoke about the danger of receiving transfers of property from someone who owes money to CRA in my blog, DO YOU INHERIT DEBT IN CANADA: CRA SAYS YES TO PROPERTY TRANSFERS. That blog dealt with debt in death and the deceased Estate. This week, nobody died. You are probably wondering what this has to do with entrepreneurs and joint bank accounts. I will now tie it all together. I promise!

The appeal deals with the concern of whether the deposit of funds by a person into a joint account held with the entrepreneur’s partner comprises a transfer of property under subsection 160(1) of the Income Tax Act and subsection 325(1) of the Excise Tax Act.

The facts of the case are as follows:

  • On March 1, 2016, Mrs. White was assessed $49,962.45 under section 160 of the Income Tax Act and $90,886.35 under section 325 of the Excise Tax Act. She appealed both assessments to the Court. The assessments are a result of amounts that her husband, former business owner Andy White, apparently moved to his wife between March 15, 2013, and October 30, 2015.
  • On March 26, 2014, Andy filed a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA).
  • Department of Justice counsel on behalf of CRA at the hearing backed off part of the claim by agreeing that any kind of purported transfers made after the date of the consumer proposal is beyond the range of the assessments in concern in this appeal.
  • Tammy and Andy were married in 1984 and always held the same joint bank account.
  • For the last 35 years, Andy and Tammy have made use of the joint bank account to pay their personal expenditures and the costs of running their family household.
  • Andy was a part-owner of White & Davidson Logging Limited, a company he started working for from a very young age.
  • The company began to experience financial troubles in 2004 as a result of weak demand in the British Columbia forestry industry and also a government-mandated decrease in cutting rights. These troubles resulted in the business selling its assets in 2006 and discontinuing business. At the time the business stopped operating, it had not remitted all amounts it had held back as payroll source deductions. It also did not make the required payment of the amounts it owed as HST tax obligations. Accordingly, it was not current in its tax obligations and did not make its final payroll or HST remittance.
  • Andy was a Director of the defunct company and therefore was assessed by CRA personally for the company’s unremitted payroll source deductions and unpaid HST.
  • After a while, and after being assessed by CRA, Andy eventually found full-time employment and deposited his pay into the joint bank account he shared with Tammy.
  • Andy owed CRA almost $91,000 for the company’s unremitted HST.
  • Tammy was also employed in a retail store. In the late 1990s, she opened up a bank account only in her name. Her pay was deposited into that new account.
  • Tammy was the sole owner of the family’s home. She admitted under oath that she made payments out of the joint account to pay the mortgage, utilities, property taxes and any other costs of running the home.
  • Certain amounts were also transferred from the joint account into Tammy’s personal account.

The issues

The issues are fairly narrow. In last week’s blog, I went through the criteria a court must look at to determine if there was a transfer of property at a time when the transferor owed an amount to CRA. You can refresh yourself on the criteria by clicking here.

CRA’s position was that a transfer of property from Andy to Tammy took place the moment his pay was deposited into the joint bank account. They also stated that Tammy gave no consideration for this.

Tammy’s position was that no transfer could have taken place by merely depositing the funds into the joint bank account. Andy maintained full control of the money. CRA, or the Sheriff, acting on a valid judgement, could garnishee Andy’s share of the funds in the joint bank account.

At the time in question, Andy’s pay that was deposited into the joint bank account totalled $89,806.72.

The Court’s decision

The court did not agree with CRA. The Judge found that:

  • Just depositing the funds in a joint account does not comprise a transfer. Mr. White did not unload himself of the funds when they were deposited into the joint account. He continued to have complete access to the funds in the account. As a matter of fact, the evidence was that Andy, as he had done since 1984, used some of the funds to pay his personal expenses and specific costs of his household.
  • Andy did not defeat or whatsoever prevent the Minister of Revenue from collecting any tax he owed by placing his compensation in the joint account. CRA could have taken collection activity relative to funds in the joint account. In fact, part of the evidence before the court was that the joint bank account was garnished by a third party to repay one of Andy’s debts.
  • As soon as the funds were put in the joint bank account, Tammy had the ability to impact a transfer. Nonetheless, such transfer did not happen until the funds were removed from the joint account and placed into the account only in Tammy’s name.
  • The Judge was very critical of CRA. They did not properly identify funds taken out of the joint account and put into Tammy’s account. There was limited evidence before the court. So, the Judge had to “guesstimate” as best as possible from the scant evidence how much was transferred from the time Tammy opened up her sole account and the date of Andy filing a consumer proposal.
  • The Judge determined that the amount of property Andy transferred to Tammy during the relevant period for no consideration was the amount of $34,052.
  • Accordingly, the Judge allowed the appeal and vacated the assessment. He referred it back to the Minister of Revenue to reconsider a reassessment of Tammy in the amount of $34,052.

HST remittance and the entrepreneur

So what does this mean for the entrepreneur? It tells me that if you are:

  1. Director of an insolvent company that owes unremitted source deductions or unpaid HST;
  2. the company goes either into receivership or bankruptcy or otherwise has to shutdown;
  3. you are assessed personally by CRA because you were the Director; and
  4. you get another job and deposit your pay into a joint bank account you hold with a spouse or child.

Your spouse or child will not be liable under the property transfer laws of the Income Tax Act and/or the Excise Tax Act by the mere depositing of your money into the joint bank account. What it also tells me is, if you are in this situation and do not have a joint bank account, maybe you should! If so, go back to the “Joint bank account considerations” section of this blog to see if it is the right thing for you to do in your situation.

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this blog on HST remittance and joint bank accounts. The Ira Smith Team is available to help you at any time. We offer sound advice and a solid plan for Starting Over Starting Now so that you’ll be well on your way to a debt-free life in no time.

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

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

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

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

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

hst remittance

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

SEVERANCE PAY ONTARIO & BANKRUPTCY-BARRYMORE FURNITURE UNPAID WORKERS ANGRY

severance pay ontario

If you would prefer the audio version of this Brandon’s Blog or reading subtitles, please scroll to the bottom of this page and watch the picture at the bottom.

Introduction

On February 5, 2020, the Toronto Star wrote about the bankruptcy of Barrymore Furniture Co. Ltd. (Barrymore) titled “Barrymore Furniture has filed for bankruptcy — leaving a throng of angry, unpaid workers in its wake”. It talks about the sad story of this family-owned business going into bankruptcy. It also states that the workers will not receive termination pay, severance pay or benefits. For the record, my Firm is not involved in this bankruptcy file.

The purpose of this Brandon’s Blog is to describe the sad story of the Barrymore bankruptcy and what happens to severance pay Ontario (as well as other employee remuneration) when a company goes bankrupt. But first, a little primer.

Who is entitled to severance pay Ontario?

“Severance pay” is a settlement that is paid to a qualified employee who has their employment “severed.” When a long-term employee loses their job, it makes up an employee for losses (such as loss of standing) that happen.

Severance pay is not the same as termination pay. Termination pay is given instead of the called for notification of termination of work. Not everyone is entitled to severance pay.

A worker gets approved for severance pay if his/her employment is terminated and she or he:

  • has worked for the company for 5 or more years (whether continuous or not or active or otherwise) and
  • his/her employer:
    • has a payroll in Ontario of a minimum of $2.5 million; or
    • severed the employment of 50 or more workers in a six-month period because all or part of the company completely closed.

To determine the amount of severance pay Ontario a worker is entitled to receive, you multiply the employee’s normal wages for a normal week by the sum of:

  • the # of actual full years of employment; as well as
  • the # of completed months of employment divided by 12 for a year that is not finished.

The maximum amount of severance pay Ontario to be paid under the Employment Standards Act is 26 weeks.

The Barrymore bankruptcy

Barrymore was a Canadian producer, wholesaler and had a retail store of high-end furniture. It started in business in Toronto going back to 1919. On November 29, 2019, Barrymore tried a business restructuring by filing a Notice of Intention To Make A Proposal (NOI). On December 9, 2019, Barrymore sought and received, a Court Order enabling for an extension of time to submit a restructuring Proposal. Barrymore had until February 12, 2020, to submit its debt settlement plan and other necessary documents.

Barrymore failed to submit on time its cash flow statement, as called for by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). On January 17, 2020, Barrymore filed an Assignment in Bankruptcy.

Barrymore filed its NOI to try to accomplish a few things:

  1. Give it some breathing room from its creditors by invoking a stay of proceedings.
  2. Allow it to operate during the crucial holiday shopping season.
  3. Try to find a buyer for its business.

The post-NOI period

Once the NOI was filed, Barrymore began a sales process to try to find a buyer for the entire Barrymore business. Seventeen parties were identified as being potential purchasers. Only seven were interested in performing due diligence.

At the same time, the Proposal Trustee got proposals from two professional liquidators. They did that so in case no buyer closed a purchase of Barrymore, they could hit the ground running in liquidating the assets.

Unfortunately, nobody submitted an offer for Barrymore’s business. Hence, Barrymore’s bankruptcy.

Barrymore’s statement of affairs

The Barrymore sworn statement of affairs shows assets of $240,000. The assets are inventory ($200,000) and machinery and equipment ($40,000). Barrymore has 5 secured creditors for $4.3 million. The single largest secured creditor is its chartered bank with a claim of $3.7 million. Assuming the Bank’s security is good and in the first position, the estimated asset value of $240,000 won’t go very far!

The sworn statement of affairs also shows 118 unsecured creditors with claims of $3.2 million. So with total claims recorded in Barrymore’s books and records of $7.5 million and the books showing only $240,000 of assets, there is a huge imbalance. The family that owns the business is shown to be owed $1.7 million as an unsecured creditor. The former employees are also unsecured creditors.

With that financial imbalance, it is no wonder the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) in the Barrymore bankruptcy could not run the business. Instead, it received Court approval to enter into a liquidation agreement with one of the liquidators. The liquidation sale to the public has begun. Either the amount shown in the books for inventory value is too low, or, the liquidator has the authority to bring in new goods to put into the bankruptcy sale, or both. It is too much effort to go through for inventory worth so little compared to the Bank’s secured debt!

The employer went bankrupt did not pay employees

I don’t know what the real individual claims of each former employee might be, but it can include:

  1. Wages or salary
  2. Vacation pay
  3. Termination pay
  4. Severance pay
  5. Benefits

The Barrymore employees are members of the United Steelworkers Union. The Steelworkers Toronto Area Council represents the former Barrymore employees. Both the Union and the former employees are naturally quite upset over the bankruptcy.

“Once again, working people are victims of a rigged system that disregards their interests while giving priority to wealthy investors,” said Carolyn Egan, President of the Steelworkers Toronto Area Council. Her comment is understandable. However, based on the sworn statement of affairs, it does not look like any “wealthy investors” are getting paid.

Protecting employees from the bankrupt employer

The United Steelworkers and the Canadian labour movement as a whole have been lobbying for reforms to Canada’s bankruptcy and insolvency legislation for numerous years to give greater top priority to workers and pensioners.

I have written many blogs on the topic of how various federal politicians have put forward Bills to give workers and retirees more rights. Several bills proposing such reforms were provided previously in Parliament, but none made it into legislation by the Liberal federal government.

Rather, only some warm words and minor amendments relating to Director responsibilities were included in the last federal budget and passed. To put it bluntly, the Liberal federal government has rejected enacting legislation to protect workers and retirees when an employer enters insolvency proceedings.

The Liberal majority government showed no interest in any meaningful reform in the area of employee rights in bankruptcy or insolvency. Perhaps for their next budget, the minority government will be forced to look seriously at it.

What happens if my employer owes me money & goes bankrupt?

The BIA created a device for workers of a company that entered either bankruptcy or receivership and are owed money. It does not cover employees of a company trying to right-size itself through a restructuring proposal. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act (WEPPA) provides for wages or benefits, including termination and severance pay, accumulated in the 6 months prior to the business becoming bankrupt or placed right into receivership.

The WEPPA ended up being law due to the federal government’s previous concern that when employees experienced “the company went bankrupt and didn’t pay me wages” there was seldom an opportunity for employees to obtain any of their income owed. As discussed, shortly, there are limits to or caps on what employees may receive.

WEPPA calculation: Who cannot submit?

However, you do not qualify for WEPPA if, throughout the time for which amounts owed to you are past due, if you:

  • were a Director or Officer of the business;
  • had a management placement in the company; or
  • were management whose tasks included making financial decisions on the negotiation or non-payment of amounts owing.

WEPPA calculation Canada

You could qualify if:

  • your previous employer has really gone into bankruptcy or receivership; as well as
  • you have overdue wages, salary, vacation pay or unreimbursed costs from the firm throughout the 6 months prior to the date of bankruptcy or receivership.

The WEPPA gives funds to Canadian employees owed money when their employer enters into either bankruptcy or receivership. The WEPPA provides a punctual settlement of qualifying employee earnings. The quantity of the qualifying employee earnings is an amount equivalent to 7 times maximum regular insurable profits under the Employment Insurance Act. As of January 1, 2020, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $54,200. This means that the max amount a former employee can claim under WEPPA is $7,296.17 in 2020.

Receivers and bankruptcy trustees are required to tell employees of the WEPPA program and provide workers information regarding amounts owing. From the day of bankruptcy or receivership, trustees, as well as receivers, have 45 days to send out Trustee Information Forms revealing the amounts owing to each of the workers.

So payment under WEPPA is something, but may not fully compensate each former employee. Of the amount paid by Service Canada, who administers the employment insurance system, the amount of $2,000 per employee paid out is a super-priority against the current assets of the company. The balance of amounts paid to each employee, up to the maximum, are unsecured claims.

So, in Barrymore’s case, the total of all the individual first $2,000 amounts paid to each former employee will rank in first place against the inventory at the date of bankruptcy. This claim ranks ahead of all listed creditors, even the secured creditors.

Wrapup

Have you lost your job due to the fact that your employer entered into bankruptcy or receivership? Were you a Director of a company that went bankrupt or into receivership and now you are being chased for statutory personal liabilities? Is your company in financial trouble and you just don’t know how to save it? Is the pain, stress and anxiety of excessive debt currently negatively affecting your health?

We understand your pain. We will certainly ensure that no bill collectors call you. We will take all the migraines, stress and anxiety you are experiencing off of your shoulders and place it onto ours. We will repair things so that you can march forward in a healthy and balanced way, pain-free, debt-free and guilt-free.

It is not your fault that you remain in this scenario. You cannot fix it on your own since you have actually only been shown the old methods. The old ways do not work anymore. The Ira Smith Team makes use of brand-new ways which will return you promptly to a hassle-free life while getting rid of your debt.

Get in touch with the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades as well as generations of experience helping people and businesses seeking financial restructuring and debt relief. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only specialists certified and overseen by the Federal government to provide debt settlement and financial restructuring services.

We provide a totally no cost appointment to help you solve your issues. We understand your discomfort that your debt creates. We can also end that painful feeling right away from your life. This will certainly allow you to start afresh again. Call the Ira Smith Team today to ensure that we can begin assisting you as well as get you back into a healthy and balanced, stress-free life Starting Over Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TOP COURT APPOINTED RECEIVER SECRET: DETAILS MATTER

court appointed receiver

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

Introduction

I recently read an interesting case from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta involving a court appointed receiver. To me, it highlights that sometimes the simplest of things can provide major difficulty. I will explain, but first, I will go over some basic facts that will help you understand the issue in this case better.

What is a court appointed receiver?

When a borrower defaults on its borrowing agreement, typically by non-payment, the secured creditor needs to decide if it is required to enforce against its security. The most common method for a lender to use is receivership. There are 2 types of these procedures in Canada; 1) private appointed or; 2) court appointed.

Normally, the procedure begins with the secured creditor seeking advice from its legal counsel and the receiver it is thinking of using. If it is chosen that there should be a receiver appointed, the secured creditor, normally a financial institution, then makes a selection. They can either appoint the receiver by private letter of appointment or make an application to the Court for an Order designating the receiver (court-appointed).

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) requires that just a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) can work as a receiver. A privately appointed receiver acts on behalf of the selecting secured creditor. A court appointed receiver has a duty of care to all creditors.

1305402 Alberta Inc v 0774238 B.C. Ltd, 2019 ABQB 982

This case was an application by the court appointed receiver (as a British Columbia Court designated receiver of two individuals and also several companies) to have funds in the amount of $281,711.11 paid to it in its capacity as the receiver. The application on its face seemed simple.

The British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Securities Commission”) made considerable enforcement orders versus the individuals and the companies (the “Debtors”). The total fines exceeded $9 million in total. They arose from the Debtors having gotten from various parties real estate financial investments without a prospectus and various other violations.

The Securities Commission got a receivership court order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia on October 3, 2019, appointing a receiver (the Receivership Order). The Debtors are the named parties whose assets the Receivership Order covers.

This application in the Alberta Court was made by the court appointed receiver to take possession of surplus cash paid into the Alberta Court, available from the sale of a property located in the Province of Alberta.

The Court’s problems

On the face of the Receivership Order, it was difficult to tell which parties were originally served with notice of the case. The Receivership Order indicates that a list of those served was attached as Schedule A. Yet Schedule A was not the service list. Rather, it was an example of the Receiver’s Certificate to be utilized in securing financing of the receivership. There was also a Schedule B to the Receivership Order. Unfortunately, it also was of no help. Its only purpose was to list the legal description of the subject land.

Counsel for the applicant argued that certain findings in the original receivership application would decide the outcome of this case. As a result, the Master said that it would certainly have been handy to understand whether the objecting party to this application had any type of capacity to make any kind of argument now!

For example, was the matter in this application already decided in the original motion, or, are there any estoppel issues that would stop someone with notice of the original receivership application from objecting now? In the end, the Master decided that the documents now before the Alberta Court was not adequate to figure out those problems now.

Duties of a court appointed receiver

In addition to having a general duty of care to all stakeholders, the specific duties are spelled out in the Receivership Order. Like all such orders, this one gave the receiver the duty to take possession of all of the assets of the Debtors.

The funds in Court are surplus from a sale or foreclosure in Alberta known as the “Rocky View Lands”. There was a consent order for repossession in the foreclosure action giving the mortgagee title. It was not readily evident from the material before the Master just how surplus proceeds were generated. Nevertheless, the funds were being held by the Court and the receiver was applying to take possession of the cash under its Receivership Order powers and duties.

The receiver’s problem

The proceeds were paid into Court on the application of the previous authorized owner of the Rocky View Lands. Unfortunately, that owner was not one of the Debtors! Just to make matters worse, one of the individuals who were one of the Debtors, filed an affidavit that appended a purported Trust Agreement. The Trust Agreement stated that the owner of the Rocky View Lands was holding the property in trust for 19 different named investors who were opposing this application.

The Master held that the applicant did not adequately prove its case to its entitlement to the funds paid into the Court. The owner of the lands was not one of the Debtors. It was only the property of the Debtors the court appointed receiver had authority over.

So the Master decided that the parties could come back to Court for a full trial to figure out who really had an interest in the funds. This could only be decided after full argument by both the receiver and the opposing parties. It was too early to direct that the funds be paid to the court appointed receiver now.

The devil is in the details

From the Master’s decision, it is obvious that the court appointed receiver came to Court without knowing all the details. In addition, the details that it must have known about who was served with the original receivership application were missing. I am sure this receiver was not trying to pull a fast one over anybody – they were just sloppy.

A detail like whose property was the receiver trying to take possession of is not a small thing. A detail like was any party who was opposing the receiver’s request already stopped from raising such opposition is also not such a small thing. The Master was correct in not allowing the receiver’s application to take possession of the cash sitting in the Alberta Court. This receiver will have to do its homework for when it comes back to Court when a full hearing is conducted.

Summary

I hope you have seen why details matter. Not only for a Court but for a licensed insolvency trustee also. When someone comes to consult with me about their business or personal debts and financial situation, I need details too so that I can fully understand their situation.

Do you or your company have too much debt and in need of debt restructuring? Wouldn’t it be beautiful, though, if you could do a turnaround?

The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a debt 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 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.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

INSOLVENCY LAW CANADA AMENDMENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Insolvency Canada news

The Federal government published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 153, Number 18, its intention to amend Canadian insolvency law for intellectual property rights (IP). On November 1, 2019, those changes came into effect. This change was part of the Canadian 2019 Budget. In Brandon’s Blog, I will discuss what the changes are and why they were made.

Insolvency law amendments for IP in Canada

Amendments relating to how IP is treated under Canadian insolvency law were made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36) (CCAA) was made. The BIA controls liquidations and restructurings for people and companies, and the CCAA covers large company restructurings.

The changes are meant to shield IP user rights in cases where the IP licensor becomes insolvent.

The BIA, as well as CCAA changes in the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, are intended to improve retired life protection by making the insolvency procedure fairer and much more clear.

Previous Canadian IP insolvency law

Previously, Canadian insolvency law only explicitly dealt with IP in restructuring proceedings. Both the BIA and the CCAA allows for a debtor to disclaim or resiliate agreements. There are certain conditions that the debtor business must meet. This essentially boils down to being able to prove that the agreement in question is either so onerous and/or costly to the debtor business, that a successful restructuring is impossible if the debtor must continue honouring that agreement.

Specifically, as it relates to IP, the BIA, and CCAA if a debtor who is a licensor under an IP agreement disclaims the agreement, the licensee has rights. The licensee can continue to use the IP and gain all benefits it had bargained for, as long as the licensee continues to perform its responsibilities under the IP agreement concerning the use of that IP.

There was no such equivalent section for the receivership or bankruptcy of the debtor. So, if there was a liquidation, the licensee was not protected the same way they would be if the licensor debtor business disclaimed the agreement in financial restructuring.

Insolvency law reform

The amendments in Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 were done to protect copyright (IP) individual rights in situations where the IP licensor comes to be insolvent.

Effective for all filings beginning on November 1, 2019, or later, there are changes to the BIA and the CCAA, Canada’s main insolvency statutes. The November 1 amendments are done so that the rights of a licensee under an IP agreement where the licensor has disclaimed the agreement will be the same in a financial restructuring or a liquidation through either receivership or bankruptcy.

The following modifications accomplish the goal of safeguarding IP customer’s rights in instances where the IP licensor ends up being insolvent:

  1. Many times as part of a corporate restructuring, the Court authorizes the company that filed a Notice of Intention To Make a Proposal, or a Proposal, to sell assets. The new amendments now make it so that if the corporation being restructured is the licensor under an IP agreement and sells it, the licensee retains its rights to use the IP, as long as they are and stay current under the agreement.
  2. If a bankruptcy trustee (now called a licensed insolvency trustee) (Trustee) administering the bankruptcy (or receivership) of a licensor under an IP agreement sells the agreement, the licensee retains its rights under that agreement. Again, the licensee must be current in its obligations to continue enjoying the benefit of the IP agreement.
  3. The Trustee disclaims the debtor licensor’s interest in an IP agreement as part of a bankruptcy (or receivership) administration. The licensee will continue to enjoy the rights and benefits of the IP agreement as long as it is current in all of its responsibilities under that same agreement.
  4. If that IP is sold in a CCAA restructuring, the CCAA legislation has now been amended, for administrations that began after October 31, 2019, offers that an IP licensee in excellent standing can continue to utilize the IP.

Proposed BIA wording for IP insolvency proceedings

These are new amendments. There have not been any court decisions on these new amendments yet. The new legislation is not available yet as far as I know. However, my understanding is that the BIA will be amended, in part, to implement the changes concerning IP agreements as I have discussed, along the following lines:

“Intellectual property — sale or disposition

246.1 (1) If the insolvent person or the bankrupt is a party to an agreement that grants to another party a right to use intellectual property that is included in a sale or disposition by the receiver, that sale or disposition does not affect that other party’s right to use the intellectual property — including the other party’s right to enforce an exclusive use — during the term of the agreement, including any period for which the other party extends the agreement as of right, as long as the other party continues to perform its obligations under the agreement in relation to the use of the intellectual property.

Intellectual property — disclaimer or resiliation

(2) If the insolvent person or the bankrupt is a party to an agreement that grants to another party a right to use intellectual property, the disclaimer or resiliation of that agreement by the receiver does not affect that other party’s right to use the intellectual property — including the other party’s right to enforce an exclusive use — during the term of the agreement, including any period for which the other party extends the agreement as of right, as long as the other party continues to perform its obligations under the agreement in relation to the use of the intellectual property.”

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this Brandon’s Blog on the insolvency amendments effective November 1, 2019. 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 corporate restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur. You are worried because your company is facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being.

The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your company’s problems; financial and emotional. The way we deal with this problem and devise a corporate restructuring plan, we know that we can help you and your company too.

We know that companies 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 company restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain it is 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 your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

insolvency

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS RECEIVERSHIP – CAN YOU UNDO A PROVEN RECEIVERSHIP ORDER?

what is receivership
what is receivership

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

What is receivership: Introduction

Last spring I wrote about a Court of Appeal For Ontario decision. That decision confirmed that the time allowed to appeal a receivership Court order is 10 days under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

This Brandon’s Blog on what is receivership discusses a decision of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba which further sets out a framework for anyone wishing to appeal an order made in this court-appointed receivership legal process. Prior to discussing this Manitoba case, I ought to go over some receiver 101 facts.

What is receivership?

What is receivership? A receivership is a solution for secured lenders, such as a chartered bank. The bank loans the company money and the company agrees in the loan agreement to pledge the business assets as security for the loan. If the business defaults on its lending arrangement, generally by non-payment, the secured lender can enforce its security against the assets in receivership.

This is the lender using its enforcement rights to recover its secured debt. Other than for a government trust claim, the secured creditor’s debt ranks on a priority basis above all other creditor claims. Enforcement action is definitely a form of legal action. So receivership is a remedy for secured creditors.

There are 2 types of receivers in Canada; 1) a privately appointed receiver or; 2) a court-appointed receivership. A receiver gets its authority and powers from either the security documents in a private appointment or the Court Order in a court appointment. Once appointed, regardless of the type of appointment, the receiver has the power to take possession of all the assets of the company, including sending notices to all customers to advise that the receiver is now collecting the accounts receivable.

The BIA specifies that only a licensed insolvency trustee (previously called a bankruptcy trustee or also can be called a licensed insolvency practitioner) (LIT) can serve as a receiver. A receiver in a private appointment acts on behalf of the appointing secured creditor. A court-appointed receivership creates a responsibility to all creditors upon the court’s receiver, not just the applicant in the court process. This would include any unsecured creditor also. The BIA also requires the receiver to do file notice of its appointment with the Official Receiver at the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and to send the required statutory notice to all known creditors.

What is a company receivership?

Normally, the procedure starts with the secured creditor, who lent money to a company under a security agreement, talking to the insolvency trustee. The security document tends to secure all company assets, including accounts receivable.

When it is decided that there ought to be a receiver designated, the secured lender needs to decide if it will be a private appointment, or if the assistance of the Court is required. Each situation will dictate what is the best method for receivership. They can either appoint the receiver under an appointment letter (private appointed) or apply to the Court for an Order selecting the receiver (court-appointed receivership). So when considering what is receivership, you must look at all the circumstances and decide what kind of appointment is needed.

what is receivership
what is receivership

As a former employee, what am I entitled to? The Wage Earner Protection Program

Upon a company going into receivership (or bankruptcy), the LIT is obliged to inform workers of the Wage Earner Protection Program (WEPP) as well as offer former employees information about amounts owing to them. From the day of bankruptcy or receivership, trustees and also receivers have 45 days to send out Trustee Information Forms showing the amounts owing to workers. WEPP is administered by Service Canada.

Employees have 56 days to send their Service Canada WEPP application to the WEPP. The Service Canada handling time for a WEPP payment is within 35 days of receipt of a completed WEPP Canada application and Trustee Information Form.

The WEPP gives funds to Canadian former staff members owed money when their employer becomes either bankrupt or goes into receivership. The amount of employee earnings covered is an amount equivalent to 7 times maximum regular insurable earnings under the Employment Insurance Act.

As of January 1, 2020, the max yearly insurable earnings amount is $54,200. This means that the max amount a previous worker can assert under WEPP is $7,296.17 in 2020. A certain portion is a trust claim and the balance is an ordinary claim. Normally, the receiver makes at least the trust claim payment to the former employees. Service Canada will pay the balance.

So in what is receivership, if the receiver does not pay the trust claim, Service Canada will and bill it back to the receiver. This all takes time and will increase the cost of administration. That is why the receiver normally pays the trust portion directly.

What is receivership: Receivers and receiverships

In a private receivership, the receiver needs to get the approval of the party that made the secured loan and appointed the receiver prior to implementing its recommended action steps. In a court-appointed receivership, the receiver needs the authorization of the court for its activities and actions.

The receiver’s very first responsibility is to take possession and control of the assets, properties and undertaking of the company in receivership. In a private appointment, the receiver takes possession of the assets covered by the secured creditor’s security agreement. In a court-appointed receivership, the receiver takes possession of whatever assets it has authority over from the Court Order.

The receiver has to make a decision whether it can obtain a better value for the business asses if it runs the business. Conversely, the receiver might determine that the danger of running the business negates any potential upside in value. In that case, the receiver would not operate the business and merely liquidate the assets.

The receiver after that establishes a strategy for the sale of assets. The receiver also has to make sure that the assets are physically secured and insured. The what is receivership process is fairly complex and all-encompassing.

The receiver, whether in a private appointment or a court appointment, has wide powers to perform its duties.

What is receivership: Challenging a receivership appointment Court Order

On September 19, 2019, the Court of Appeal of Manitoba released its decision in 7451190 Manitoba Ltd v CWB Maxium Financial Inc et al, 2019 MBCA 95. On December 20, 2018, the Court made an Order appointing a receiver (Receivership Order) over the assets of 7451190 Manitoba Ltd. (Company). The Order was made upon the application to Court by the lender who made the secured loan.

On January 14, 2019, the Company launched an appeal to the Receivership Order. The secured lender opposed the appeal on 2 main grounds, being:

  • the company did not have an appeal as of right, rather, it requires to seek leave to appeal first (which should be declined); and
  • the appeal was statute-barred as it was not submitted within 10 days of the Appointment Order appealed from.

The issues the Appeal Court needed to consider were::

  • whether the nature of the Company’s appeal of the Appointment Order in what is receivership requires an application for leave or if it is a right under Section 193 of the BIA;
  • if the leave to appeal is necessary, should such leave be provided;
  • whether the Company should be given more time to submit its notice of appeal.

    what is receivership
    what is receivership

What is receivership: Appealing a business receivership Court Order

So the first issue the Court had to consider in what is receivership was whether or not the Company had an appeal of the receivership Order as a right, or if it needed to first apply to the Court with leave to appeal motion. The Court determined that the Company’s appeal of the receivership Appointment Order is not of right. Rather, leave to appeal needed to be made.

The things that the Appeal Court considered in making its determination included that:

  • The security documents entered into by the Company clearly outlined the lender’s remedy to appoint a receiver when there was an event of default.
  • The company was represented and made submissions against the appointment of a receiver at the initial hearing where the Appointment Order was made.
  • The Appointment Order contained the necessary “comeback clause”. No party made an application under this clause to amend the powers of the receiver under the Appointment Order.
  • Since appointed, the receiver has actually filed two reports with the Court. The reports notified all stakeholders and the Court of the decisions taken and choices made. The receiver also sought approval of different activities. The Company has actually not filed any type of motion challenging the actions taken by the receiver.

Should leave to appeal the appointment of the receiver-manager be granted?

Section 193 of the BIA allows that an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from any kind of order of a judge of the court in certain situations. The Court confirmed that the criteria to think about in making a decision whether to give leave to appeal under section 193(e) of the BIA are:

  • The suggested appeal raises an issue of general importance to the practice of bankruptcy/insolvency matters or to the administration of justice as a whole.
  • The issue raised is of relevance to the action itself.
  • The proposed appeal is prima facie meritorious.
  • Whether the suggested appeal will unduly hinder the progression of the bankruptcy/insolvency case.

The Court went on to say that, regardless of these criteria, the Court retains a residual discretion to grant leave to appeal in what is receivership where the refusal to do so would result in oppression.

When the Court considered these requirements, taking into consideration the whole context, the Court was not persuaded to grant the Company leave to appeal the receivership order.

The Court determined that in this case, the Company’s appeal should be denied. This Court of Appeal of Manitoba is consistent with the Court of Appeal for Ontario case that I mentioned at the top of this Brandon’s Blog and previously wrote about. It also provided additional detail and reasons as to why appealing a receivership order is not a right, but leave to appeal needs to be granted.

What is receivership: Summary

I hope you enjoyed this what is receivership Brandon’s Blog. Is your company in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex corporate restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the business owner entrepreneur. You are worried because your company is facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides an income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being.

The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. We look at your entire situation and devise a strategy that is as unique as you and your company’s problems; financial and emotional. The way we dealt with this problem and devised a corporate restructuring plan, we know that we can help you and your company too.

We know that companies 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 company restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain it is 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 your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

what is receivership

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CANADA INSOLVENCY CHANGES: FEDS PRESS RELEASE OFFERS FEW DETAILS

canada insolvency

If you would like to listen to the audio version of this Canada insolvency Brandon’s Blog, scroll to the bottom and click on the podcast

Introduction

On September 4, 2019, the Government of Canada department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, issued a press release. They announced that there would be changes coming to the Canada insolvency legislation.

I have previously written about the fallout from the Sears Canada insolvency. Specifically, about the plight of retired employees seeing their medical benefits eliminated and their pension entitlement slashed. After that, there have been several private member bills trying to fix the Canada insolvency laws.

Budget 2019

As I have written in previous Brandon’s Blogs, the concern is for retired people (and present employees) when a company enters into an insolvency proceeding. Like in the Sears case, the worry is associated with the staff member’s health benefits plan which could be gutted for retirees. An equally important concern, are underfunded pension plans when a firm enters into bankruptcy protection.

Insolvent employers have placed a moratorium on reimbursements to workers and especially retirees on valid medical claims. Also, the staff member pension plan payments can be cut for retirees because the insolvent firm has not made the called for contributions. The retirees are in the weakest position as they can never make up for what they are now losing.

Pension payments are postponed income. In an insolvency filing, there is generally absolutely nothing left for current (other than perhaps their WEPPA claim in bankruptcy or receivership) and retired employees.

The reality is that all politicians currently acknowledge simply exactly how unsecure pension plans and health plans may be in the case of insolvency, restructuring or bankruptcy.

The Liberals acknowledge that this is a significant issue. Nonetheless, in this budget, they chose to ignore the problem.

What the press release said

The Government of Canada said that it is dedicated to far better safeguarding the rights of pensioners, employees and others during insolvency procedures. They say they can guarantee all Canadians can have satisfaction when it pertains to retirement. They say they can do this while maintaining laws that continue to support growth, advancement and also great jobs in Canada.

The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada said, that beginning November 1, 2019, reforms to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) announced in Budget 2019 will be enacted. He said that this will be done to enhance retired life security by making the insolvency procedure fairer, much more clear and also easily accessible.

So what is being planned?

The press release was consistent with the wording in Budget 2019. The press release went on to say that the BIA and CCAA modifications pertaining to boosting retirement protection will:

  • call for participants in an insolvency process to act in good faith (isn’t that already enshrined in our legislation and enforced by our Courts?);
  • offer the possibility of court-ordered disclosure of a creditor’s real financial interest in an insolvent business (how does this help retirees?);
  • enforce director obligations in suitable cases for senior management compensation settlements in the lead-up to an insolvency proceeding (whatever appropriate means);
  • limit the choices that can be taken initially in a CCAA administration to measures necessary to avoid the immediate liquidation of an insolvent company, thus boosting participation of all players (does this mean the government plans to outlaw a liquidating CCAA?);
  • exclude assets held in registered disability savings plans from creditors’ claims in bankruptcy;
  • reforms to the BIA and CCAA to guarantee the safeguarding of intellectual property user rights in insolvency, announced in Budget 2018, will also be enacted for November 1.

The devil is in the details

The Minister stated:

“It is unacceptable that some pensioners face hardship because of their employer’s insolvency and underfunded pension plans. Our government believes that after a lifetime of hard work, Canadians deserve a secure and dignified retirement. With these reforms, we are protecting Canadians’ retirement security and the ability of businesses to invest, grow and create more good jobs.”

This sounds great, but what does it mean? I don’t see anything in Budget 2019 or this recent press release that actually provides specifics on how retirees will be helped. There are no words talking about the super-priority of the amount of underfunding of pension plans. There is also no language on directors’ liability for such underfunding when the company continues to pay dividends to shareholders or bonuses to executives while the pension plan is underfunded.

We will have to wait to see how the proposed legislation actually reads. The other issue is our upcoming Federal election. Insolvency legislation is not a hot topic that gets votes. Perhaps real protection for retirees does. The government had a chance to really lay out how they will protect retirees, but they failed to do so. They talk about many issues in the press release. However, I don’t see anything directly related to retiree protection.

So I hope that the current federal government will follow through with legislation that has real teeth to protect retirees. But the 2019 Canadian federal election is scheduled to happen on or before October 21, 2019. That means that campaigning will have to begin very soon. So when will there be time to introduce the required legislation to be effective on November 1?

The federal government must have a plan otherwise they would not have put out the November 1 date in the press release. So let us wait and see and cross our fingers that retiree protection will be for real.

Canada insolvency summary

Are you nearing retirement with too much debt? Is your employer’s employee pension plan underfunded? Are you worried about how you will make ends meet in retirement?

The stress you are under because of your money challenges is huge. I understand your pain. At no cost to you, I will look at your whole set of circumstances and develop a plan that is as special as your issues. I know that I can help you through this.

There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why I can develop a debt settlement plan for you 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 your company back on the road to healthy stress-free operations and recover from the pain points in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CREDIT COUNSELING: EVEN FREE MAY NOT GET YOU TO TALK

Introduction

In my May 3, 2017, Brandon’s Blog, DEBT SETTLEMENT OR CONSUMER PROPOSAL CANADA: REPORT SAYS CONSUMERS HARMED, I told you about a Government of Canada research study. On April 28, 2017, the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB), released its study. It revealed the OSB’s concerns about credit counseling services in Canada who were doing more than just counselling, be they for-profit or non-profit.

The concerns

The concern was that the consumer was being harmed. The main areas of concern for the OSB were:

  1. Consumers paid more money than required if they had first seen a licensed insolvency trustee (previously called a bankruptcy trustee) (LIT or Trustee) rather than the debt settlement company.
  2. Dishonest debt relief firms chatted customers right into expensive car loans under the scare tactic that they would not qualify once they filed either a consumer proposal or for bankruptcy so now was the time to improve their credit score.
  3. The debt negotiation firms had no accreditation or experience to provide the sort of financial advice they were offering.
  4. Creditors obtained much less than they would have received if the insolvent person went first to see the LIT.
  5. Debtors had no idea of their obligations under the insolvency process they ended up filing for. They were not offered the chance to experience one of the most essential facets of the Canadian bankruptcy system, economic recovery.

Public consultation

On November 24, 2017, the OSB sought public consultation on amending the process by which a LIT must perform credit counselling as part of the administration of consumer proposal filings. Changes were implemented and given time to see how they would work in practice.

On June 17, 2019, the OSB announced that it was seeking public consultation on a new Directive for LITs on credit counselling. These changes are meant to streamline the administrative structure for insolvency credit counseling.

All the changes are to better control the Trustees who receive referrals from debt settlement companies that charge the debtors for services that they really do not require before handing them over to a LIT to administer a consumer proposal.

Why not just go see a Trustee first?

It makes the most sense when you realize you are in financial trouble to see a LIT. A Trustee is only professional licensed, recognized and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to administer insolvency filings to eliminate debt problems. A restructuring proposal is a government and court approved debt settlement plan to do that. In a first consultation, a Trustee will listen to all the issues and then provide a debtor with all the available alternatives. The aim is to avoid bankruptcy. This first consultation is also free! No charge! Gratis!

So why don’t more people do so? I believe the answer is in a recent Angus Reid poll titled The Awkward Silences Survey 2019. The survey says one-in-five Canadians claimed they least like to talk about:

  1. Embarrassing health and wellness concerns – 20%
  2. Sex – 18%
  3. Finances – 17%
  4. Religious beliefs or politics 17%
  5. Small talk – 15%
  6. Family and relationships – 13%

The unwillingness to talk about humiliating health and wellness problems was more widespread amongst males (23%) than females (17%).

When asked which one money and finance subject people like discussing the very least, personal debt and bankruptcy led by a big margin with one-in-three stating it was off limits to discuss (34%). This number is significantly greater in Quebec (42%) and least in Ontario (28%).

The survey says Canadians said that in the money and finance area, the least favourite topics they like to talk about are:

  1. Personal debt or bankruptcy – 34%
  2. Assets, liabilities and net worth – 22%
  3. Their income – 16%
  4. How they spend their money – 12%
  5. Savings and investments – 11%
  6. Their mortgage – 5%

I don’t do government approved and free

I always knew that going to see a Trustee to talk about financial problems was not high on anyone’s list. This recent survey is the first time that I have seen it studied with anything other than anecdotal stories. This could explain why even though it makes the most sense, people avoid it for as long as they can. It also explains why people will search out companies that try to candy coat the topic and call it something nicer. Unfortunately, as the OSB studies have shown, consumers do so to their own detriment.

People would rather pay good money they can’t afford to be hoodwinked by an unscrupulous debt consultant until they realize they have no choice but to see a Trustee. At that point, most of their various options are no longer available and bankruptcy is more often than not inevitable.

Whether it is a business or a person, corporate or personal, it will help to talk about it to a Trustee. Sticking your head in the sand will not make things better. There are various options to look at depending on how early on you seek help.

Corporate financial problems

For corporate financial problems, the options may include:

Refinancing with a new lender who has not grown weary.

Sometimes relationships, including business relationships, just run their course and fatigue sets in. I was recently consulted by a company whose banker grew tired of their turnaround plan, that was working. By introducing this company and its senior management to a new lender, who saw the long term benefits of lending to a company that was successfully turning itself around, the company was able to refinance and continue their business.

Corporate restructuring.

Sometimes a more formal plan needs to be put into place using one of Canada’s two federal statutes: (i) Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA); or (ii) the proposal provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA). We have done many.

Receivership or bankruptcy proceedings to take assets from a sick company and get them into a healthy one to save jobs and the business.

Sometimes the corporate body is just too sick and weak and cannot continue. However, taking healthy assets and employees and transferring them to a new or different corporation can revitalize a business and save jobs. The old shareholders may or may not be associated with the new company. However, the highest value will be obtained for creditors, employees and all other stakeholders.

Personal financial problems

For personal financial problems, the options may include:

Credit counseling and budgeting.

Many people need help with items such as:

  • Budgeting
  • achieving financial goals
  • spending habits
  • responsible use of credit

Many times once this help is received, people can continue on themselves without any further problems.

Debt consolidation.

Debt consolidation is the process that permits you to roll your varied financial debts owing to many creditors into one single loan, leaving you with just one creditor. If you are starting to have troubles staying on top of your minimum month-to-month payments, and the amount of your debt is frustrating you, debt consolidation is a choice worth thinking about.

A consumer proposal and Division I Proposal.

A consumer proposal and a Division 1 proposal are options to filing bankruptcy. Although comparable in several aspects, there are some significant distinctions. Consumer proposals are offered to people whose financial debts aren’t more than $250,000, not including any debts registered against your personal house. Division 1 proposals are readily available to both companies and people whose financial obligations go beyond $250,000 (omitting mortgages registered on their primary home).

A consumer proposal is an official process under the BIA. Dealing with a Trustee you make a proposal to:

  • Pay your creditors a percentage of what you owe them over a specific amount of time
  • Extend the time you need to repay the debt
  • A mix of both

Repayments are made via the Trustee, who makes use of that money to distribute to each of your creditors. The agreed to a lesser amount of debt has to be repaid within 5 years.

Bankruptcy.

Sometimes when there are no other options, but the pain and stress of your debt load are just too much for you to handle, and you can’t see any other way, bankruptcy may be the only answer. The purpose of bankruptcy in Canada is to return the honest but unfortunate debtor back into society, so that they may be a productive member going forward.

Are you ready to talk about finances now and get some real credit counseling?

Don’t be like those people who took part in the Angus Reid survey. Take a positive step in the right direction to help your company and yourself.

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.

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.

credit counseling

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

MOVE FAST TO OBJECT TO AN ONTARIO RECEIVERSHIP COURT ORDER

What is a receiver in insolvency?

A recent case heard in the Court of Appeal for Ontario clarifies what the time limit is to object to an order made in a Court-appointed receivership of a company in Ontario. The bottom line is you better move fast. Before I describe this very interesting decision, I should first remind newer readers on some receiver 101 basics.

What is it?

A receivership is a remedy for secured creditors to enforce their security. In the event, the company defaults on its loan agreement, normally by non-payment, the secured creditor. There are two types of these proceedings in Canada; 1) privately appointed or; 2) court appointed. A receiver might additionally be selected in an investor dispute to complete a task, liquidate assets or market a business.

Typically, the process begins with the secured creditor consulting with a Receiver. If it is decided that there should be a receiver appointed, the secured creditor then makes a choice. They can either appoint the receiver by written appointment letter (privately appointed) or make a motion to the Court for an Order appointing the receiver (court-appointed).

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that only a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) can act as a receiver. A privately appointed receiver acts on behalf of the appointing secured creditor. A court-appointed receiver has a duty of care to all creditors.

What are the duties of a receiver?

The receiver’s first duty is to take possession and control of the assets covered by the secured creditor’s security in a private appointment, or all the assets indicated in the court order in a court appointment. The receiver must decide whether it can get a higher value for the assets if it operates the business. Alternatively, the receiver may decide that the risk of operating the business is not worth it in terms of any meaningful increase in the value of the assets.

The receiver then develops a plan to on the running of the business and for the eventual sale of the assets. The type of business and the nature of the assets will dictate what approach the receiver will take. In the meantime, the receiver must inventory all the assets, protect them and make sure there is adequate insurance in place for what the receiver wishes to do in terms of running the business and selling the assets.

In a private appointment, the receiver needs to get the approval of the secured creditor before embarking on the business and asset plan. In a court appointment, the receiver requires the approval of the court.

What happens when a company goes into receivership?

When the company goes into receivership, senior management and the Directors lose most of their authority for decision making. The Directors’ general corporate duty of maintaining corporate records continues, but any decision-making about the running of the business or its assets will not be effective. This is especially true in a court appointment. The subject of Director liability is too broad to start mentioning in this Brandon’s Blog. i am planning to soon write a blog on that topic.

Management’s and employees’ responsibilities about the business in a practical sense will stop upon the appointment of the receiver. Their advice and help are only required if requested by the receiver. They certainly will not be paid for any efforts unless the receiver agrees in writing to make money available for their pay.

Court of Appeal for Ontario says you better move fast

Why the confusion? Isn’t the process for an appeal of a court order straightforward? The confusion comes about because, in the standard model Appointment Order of the Commercial List of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the court-appointed receiver is appointed under two statutes:

  1. Section 101 of the provincial Ontario Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 (CJA).
  2. The federal BIA, section 243(1).

The applicant, in this case, was the purchaser of assets from a court-appointed receiver of a company. One of the standard provisions in the Appointment Order is that anyone wishing to take legal action against the receiver must first get the approval of the court to do so.

They brought an application for authorization to sue the receiver over a disagreement arising from the purchase of the assets from the receiver under the asset purchase agreement. On May 17, 2018, the lower court judge dismissed the application, finding that their allegations were not supported by the evidence. On November 8, 2018, the same judge refused their demand to resume the application based on new evidence.

The applicant filed appeals from both decisions. Its notices of appeal were on time under the provincial CJA, under which there is a 30-day time limit for commencing an appeal. They were late under the federal BIA, which imposes a 10-day time limit.

The lower court judge dismissed the appeals. He held that the BIA was the governing authority for the appeal, not the CJA. He stated that the origin of authority under which the receiver was appointed was section 243( 1) of the BIA and therefore appeals are governed by the BIA, not the CJA. He further went on to say that the appointment also under the CJA did not have the result of ousting the BIA as the source of authority. He further held that it also cannot supersede the federal BIA holds paramountcy over the provincial CJA.

receivership

Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd., 2019 ONCA 269

The Court of Appeal for Ontario decision was released on April 8, 2019. The appeal court found that this was a very narrow issue to decide so that it did not have to get into the merits of the case of the purchaser wanting to sue the receiver over a disagreement arising from the purchase of the assets from the receiver under the asset purchase agreement.

The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal and did not find that the chambers judge made any errors. They said that when the order sought to be appealed was made in reliance on jurisdiction under the BIA, the proper appeal path is the BIA.

The lower court, the Ontario Superior Court Justice Commercial List, rejected the purchaser’s demand to sue the receiver, which is the decision the applicant wishes to appeal. The requirement to get leave of the court to sue the receiver comes from the Appointment Order. The court’s authority to include that arrangement order comes from the statutory power to appoint a receiver under s. 243( 1) of the BIA.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the legal power to appoint a receiver is also found in s. 101 of the CJA. But considering that authority for the leave to take legal action against the receiver comes from the BIA in spite of that the receiver was appointed under both laws, the appeal is governed by the BIA as a matter of paramountcy.

Therefore the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the applicant’s appeal and awarded costs against them.

Does your company need to move fast?

Does your company have way too much debt? Is your company’s cash flow not enough to meet all of its financial obligations? Are you afraid that your company’s main secured creditor is about to demand repayment of its loan in full and you just can’t move fast enough to save your company?

If you answered yes, call the Ira Smith Team today so we can end the tension and anxiousness that these financial problems have triggered. We will develop a plan special for your company, to save it from extinction.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have years and generations of experience restructuring and saving companies looking for financial restructuring or a debt settlement approach. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals acknowledged, accredited and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice to save companies.

You can have a no-cost analysis to aid you so we can repair your company’s debt problems. Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will certainly allow you to get back to Starting Over Starting Now.

receivership

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO

administration of estates act canada

If you would rather hear an audio version of this administration of estates act Canada, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the podcast.

Administration of estates act Canada: Introduction

I want to discuss with you another provincial statute that is very important for the administration of estates act Canada; the Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22. It continues my series of blogs to show how it would be very natural to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I looked at some essential matters when it involves a deceased estate and why a LIT would be extremely knowledgable and competent to act as an estate trustee of a deceased estate with those basic requirements.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I explained why many times parents try doing the proper thing by appointing their children as estate trustees and how many times it just turns out all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the requirements and provisions of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. In fact, most of the duties required by the Estates Act are already performed in the insolvency context by a LIT.

In this and the next two blogs, I want to focus on the three more Ontario statutes that deal with the duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee of a deceased estate. The three statutes are:

  1. Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22;
  2. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23; and
  3. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26

As you have by now correctly guessed, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of the Estates Administration Act.

As always, since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Administration of estates act Canada: Things an estate trustee must be aware of

Payment of debts out of the residuary estate

Section 5 of the Estates Administration Act states that both the personal property and the real property (subject to the rights of mortgagees) is available to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and the costs of the estate trustee in administering the deceased estate. The LIT is familiar with such a provision.

Section 136(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) prioritizes the reasonable funeral and testamentary expenses incurred by the deceased’s legal representatives. In a bankruptcy, those costs are paid as a preferred unsecured claim, behind trust and secured claims but before payment of ordinary unsecured claims.

Vesting of real estate not disposed of within 3 years

Section 9(1) of the Estates Administration Act states that real property not disposed of or conveyed within three years after the date of death is automatically vested in the persons beneficially entitled to such real property. The exception is if the personal representative or estate trustee has registered a caution on the title, then the three-year period starts from the date the last caution was registered.

The purpose and intent of the BIA is that all property of the bankrupt, not subject to a valid trust claim, security interest or is otherwise exempt, will automatically vest in the bankruptcy trustee. Section 40(1) of the BIA establishes the rules a trustee must follow to return to the debtor any property that could not be realized upon, despite the LIT’s best efforts.

Powers of executors and administrators about selling and conveying real estate

Sections 16 and 17 of the Estates Administration Act gives the power to sell real estate to a personal representative or estate trustee. It also says that additional powers are not just for paying off the debts of the deceased, but also for distributing or dividing the estate among the beneficiaries.

A LIT, either in a receivership or bankruptcy, is very familiar with and experienced in the sale of real and personal property. The LIT also ensures that the creditors are paid in the proper priority.

Protection of purchasers from personal representatives and beneficiaries

Sections 19 and 21(1) of the Estates Administration Act protects a purchaser of real property in good faith and for value from a personal representative or estate trustee. The purchaser can hold the asset free and clear from any debts or liabilities of the deceased, or any claims of the beneficiaries. The only exception would be those claims secured by a specific charge on title against the real property, such as a mortgage.

In an insolvency context, and especially in a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy, a purchaser would be wise to insist on the receiver or bankruptcy trustee obtaining the approval of the Court and vesting Order. The purpose would be to have Court orders approving the sale to the purchaser and vesting the assets in the purchaser.

In this way, the purchaser gains protection against any claims to the assets. The vesting Order vests out the asset(s), replacing it with the cash paid by the purchaser. Those with claims against the asset(s) now have to prove their claim against the cash. A LIT is very familiar and experienced in this aspect of selling assets.

Powers of personal representative about leasing and mortgaging

Section 22(1) of the Estates Administration Act gives the power to the personal representative or estate trustee to lease out real property to provide the deceased’s estate with income. It also allows for the mortgaging of real property to pay off the debts of the deceased.

Section 30(1) of the BIA gives various powers to a bankruptcy trustee. The leasing out of the real property and borrowing money, including giving mortgage security against real property, are two such powers. A Court-appointed receiver would get the same powers from the Order appointing the Receiver. A privately appointed receiver could also, with the permission of the secured creditor who made the private appointment, does the same thing. Therefore, a LIT is very familiar and experienced in exercising these powers and making the necessary business decisions.

Administration of estates act Canada: Summary

I hope that in this blog I have shown you that the provisions of the Estates Administration Act outlining the responsibilities of an estate trustee tracks very closely what a LIT does in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of an estate trustee as described in the Estates Act Ontario.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Trustee Act and how a LIT is most familiar with them also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

Call a Trustee Now!