Categories
Brandon Blog Post

UNLOCKING REAL ESTATE IN RECEIVERSHIP: TOP CHALLENGES & PROVEN SOLUTIONS

Overview of In Receivership

I have just read a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealing with an important aspect of real estate in receivership in Canada. The case is about when the Debtor/real estate owner does not believe that the court-appointed receiver has made proper decisions about the listing of the property for sale and the sale of a commercial property in receivership.

It also deals with the role of receivers and how they interact with the debtor, secured lenders and unsecured creditors.

In this Brandon’s Blog, I first provide some background of being in receivership in Canada. Then I discuss and highlight the issues found in the case of Rathcliffe Properties Inc. v. 2184698 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONSC 5077 (CanLII).

A receivership is a legal process available to secured creditors, whereby a company’s affairs, business and property are entrusted to a receiver to manage and eventually sell the assets. Secured lenders may enforce their security to recover loans when the borrower defaults in its payment obligations relating to the secured debt. This remedy available to secured creditors is known as receivership, while the debtor is said to be “in receivership“.

If a business debtor does not make payments or otherwise defaults on a secured loan, the secured creditor would have the right to appoint a receiver to collect the money owed. Before appointing a receiver, a secured creditor must first issue a “Section 244” notice of intention to enforce security. This is a notification that secured creditors must send to defaulting debtors before appointing a receiver. Section 244 refers to that section number in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

The notice states that the security covers certain assets, that the company in default owes a specified amount to the secured creditor, and that the creditor may enforce the security after 10 days. The company in default may waive the notice period and consent to the appointment of the receiver.

Under the BIA, only a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) can be a receiver. No other party is licensed to administer the receivership process in Canada.in receivership

Types of Receivers In Receiverships

There are two types of receivers in receivership in Canada: (i) privately-appointed receivers; and (ii) Court-appointed receivers.

Privately-Appointed Receivers

A privately-appointed receiver is a licensed trustee who is appointed by a contract between the insolvency trustee and the secured creditor. A private receiver is typically used when there is no dispute to ranking among secured creditors or various claims to ownership of the company’s assets. The powers of a receiver listed in the security document give the privately appointed receiver more limited powers than a court-appointed receiver gets under a court order.

Court-Appointed Receivers

A receiver is court-appointed when the secured creditor makes an application to the court for the appointment of a receiver with more expanded powers. Like a privately-appointed receiver, a court-appointed receiver takes control of a company’s property because of financial distress and when there is a dispute among secured creditors and others regarding the ranking of secured claims and ownership of property.

Both kinds of receivers are tasked with protecting and preserving the value of the company or property and are certainly given broader powers by the court.

Duties and Responsibilities of a Receiver In Receivership

A Receiver is a licensed insolvency trustee appointed to manage and control the assets, property, or business of another person or entity, typically in a situation where the person or entity cannot manage their affairs due to financial difficulties, bankruptcy, or other reasons. In receivership in Ontario, a Receiver can be appointed either privately or through a court order.

Private Appointment

When a Receiver is appointed privately, it is typically done so through a contractual agreement between the Receiver and the secured creditor requiring the Receiver’s services. The Receiver’s duties and responsibilities may include:

  1. Managing and controlling the assets, property, or business of the person or entity.
  2. Collecting and managing debts, accounts receivable, and other financial obligations.
  3. Paying bills, expenses, and other financial obligations.
  4. Managing and overseeing the day-to-day operations of the business or property.
  5. Identifying and realizing assets to convert them into cash.
  6. Negotiating with creditors, suppliers, and other stakeholders to resolve disputes and improve the financial situation.
  7. Preparing and submitting financial reports and statements to the appointing creditor and other stakeholders.
  8. Providing advice and guidance primarily to the appointing creditor.

A privately appointed receiver needs to consult with and get approval from the appointing creditor for its proposed actions and activities. In a private appointment, the Receiver’s duty of care is mainly to the appointing creditor.

Court-Appointment

When in receivership a Receiver is appointed through a court order, many of the court-appointed receiver’s duties are the same as for a privately-appointed Receiver. The main differences though are that in receivership supervised by the Court, the court-appointed receiver:

  1. Owes a duty of care to all parties.
  2. Must obtain the approval of the Court for its actions and activities.in receivership

Stakeholder Considerations in Receivership

Stakeholder considerations in receivership leads us perfectly into discussing the case of Rathcliffe Properties Inc. v. 2184698 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONSC 5077 (CanLII).

This case was heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice involving a court-appointed receiver appointed to sell real property. The Debtor (2184698 Ontario Inc.) challenged the Receiver’s real estate receivership process, alleging that it was not conducted in a commercially reasonable manner and was biased towards the lender (Rathcliffe Properties Inc.).

The Debtor’s Argument

The Debtor, being the property owner, claimed the Receiver breached its duty under s. 247 of the BIA to act in good faith and in a “commercially reasonable manner.” They alleged the Receiver set a low listing price for the real property ($4,500,000) potentially based on “liquidation basis” appraisals rather than “fair market value.” They also argued that the court-appointed receiver showed favouritism by consulting only the Lender about the realtor and listing price, denying the Debtor crucial information.

Finally, they argued that the Receiver withheld crucial information by not sharing its appraisals with the Debtor.

Receiver and Lender’s argument

They argued:

  • The Receiver acted properly by basing the listing price for the property in question on professional advice and independent appraisals.
  • Choosing not to share appraisals to avoid giving the Debtor an unfair advantage in the sale was proper.
  • Consulting the Lender due to their expertise and potential buyer network, while the Debtor lacked relevant information and consistently overestimated the property’s value, was also appropriate.

The Court’s Findings

The Court found it more efficient to address the substance of the motion, providing clarity and avoiding further delays. The Court dismissed the Debtor’s claims of a breach of the BIA, stating:

  • The Receiver was not obligated to share appraisals.
  • The listing price, based on professional advice from professinoals working in this kind of real estate market, did not breach the court-appointed receiver’s duties or the BIA.
  • Consulting the Lender was justifiable, aiming for the best interests of all stakeholders.
  • The Court considered the motion premature, stating concerns about the sale process can be raised at the Sale Motion, where a complete evidentiary record would be available.

Since the Court found no evidence of a breach of the BIA and dismissed the Debtor’s motion in this real estate receivership, the Court ordered the Debtor to pay costs to both the Receiver and the Lender. The Court also lifted an interim injunction the Debtor obtained stopping the Receiver from continuing the sales process.

Clashing Interests in Receivership: Lender vs. Stakeholders

The receiver’s duty to act in the best interests of all stakeholders can clash with the specific needs of the lender because the lender prioritizes recovering the debt owed to them, even if it means selling the property for a lower price. Conversely, the receiver must consider the interests of all stakeholders, including the debtor, and aim for the highest possible sale price, even if it takes longer.

Here’s how this tension plays out in this case:

  • The Lender’s Interest: The lender (Rathcliffe Properties Ltd.) wants to recover the $2.9 million loan it provided to the debtor (2184698 Ontario Inc.) as quickly as possible. They likely see the receivership and subsequent sale of the property as the most expedient way to recoup their investment.
  • The Receiver’s Dilemma: The court-appointed receiver has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of all stakeholders, not just the lender. This means they must strive to obtain the highest possible price for the property, under the circumstances, even if it delays the Lender’s recovery.
  • Conflicting Approaches: The debtor argued that the receiver’s listing price of $4,500,000 was too low and favoured a quick sale to satisfy the Lender’s debt. However, the court found no evidence of this, highlighting that the Receiver based the listing price on professional advice and appraisals. The court emphasized that the market ultimately determines the property’s value, not just the initial listing price.

This case demonstrates the inherent tension in receivership scenarios. While the Lender’s primary concern is recovering their debt, the receiver must balance this against the interests of all stakeholders, including maximizing the sale price for the benefit of all parties involved.

Key Takeaways From This In Receivership Case

This situation highlights the conflicting priorities often found in receivership proceedings. On one hand, financial institutions lenders are focused on getting back their money, while on the other, the Receiver has to consider the needs of all stakeholders involved, aiming to achieve the highest possible sale price to benefit everyone.

In Receivership: Conclusion

We experience these same issues whenever we act as a real estate receiver. We rely on real estate experts both for appraisals and for the receiver sale of real estate. We must rely on real estate professionals in order to show that we properly handled our duties as a real estate receiver.

I hope you enjoyed this real estate receiver in receivership Brandon’s Blog. Do you or your company have too much debt? Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring due to distressed real estate or other reasons? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur or someone with 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 plan, we know that we can help you.

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

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

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

The information provided in this Brandon’s Blog is intended for educational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Readers are encouraged to seek professional advice regarding their specific situations. The content of this Brandon’s Blog should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional guidance or consultation. The author, Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. as well as any contributors to this Brandon’s Blog, do not assume any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the information provided herein.in receivership

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

RECEIVERSHIP IN CANADA: THE COMPLETE STORY OF WHOSE HAPPY RECEIVER IS IT ANYWAY?

Receivership in Canada: What does receivership mean?

I have just read a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Commerical List dealing with an important aspect of receivership in Canada. The case is concerned with what happens when two equally applicable provincial laws appear to be working at cross purposes in the context of the receivership in Canada process.

I will explain the case and the process of company receivership in Canada. By understanding the process, the case will make more sense.

Secured lenders may enforce their security to recover loans from borrowers who have defaulted. This remedy available to secured creditors when a borrower, usually a company defaults, is known as receivership.

What does going into receivership in Canada mean?

A receivership is a legal process available to secured creditors, whereby a company’s affairs, business and property are entrusted to a receiver to manage and eventually sell the assets. Secured lenders may enforce their security to recover loans from borrowers who have defaulted. This remedy available to secured creditors is known as receivership.

If a business debtor does not make payments or otherwise defaults on a secured loan, the secured creditor would have the right to appoint a receiver to collect the money owed. Before appointing a receiver, a secured creditor must first issue a “Section 244” notice of intention to enforce security. This is a notification that secured creditors must send to defaulting debtors before appointing a receiver. Section 244 refers to that section number in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

The notice states that the security covers certain assets, that the company in default owes a specified amount to the secured creditor, and that the creditor may enforce the security after 10 days. The company in default may waive the notice period and consent to the appointment of the receiver.

Under the BIA, only a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) can be a receiver. No other party is licensed to administer a receivership in Canada.

receivership in canada
receivership in canada

Receivership in Canada: What is the difference between a court-appointed receiver and a privately appointed receiver?

A privately-appointed receiver is a licensed trustee who is appointed by a contract between the insolvency trustee and the secured creditor. A private receiver is typically used when there is no dispute to ranking among secured creditors or various claims to ownership of the company’s assets. The powers of a receiver listed in the security document give the privately appointed receiver more limited powers than a court-appointed receiver gets under a court order.

A receiver is court-appointed when the secured creditor makes an application to the court for the appointment of a receiver with more expanded powers. Like a privately-appointed receiver, a court-appointed receiver takes control of a company’s property because of financial distress and when there is a dispute among secured creditors and others as to the ranking of secured claims and ownership of property.

Both kinds of receivers are tasked with protecting and preserving the value of the company or property and are certainly given broader powers by the court to do so.

How is receivership in Canada different from bankruptcy proceedings?

Many people mistakenly use the terms “receivership” and “bankruptcy” interchangeably. However, bankruptcy and receivership are two distinct legal proceedings with different implications.

Bankruptcy vs. receivership can be confusing, but once you understand the key differences between the two, it is fairly straightforward. Whether it is a private appointment or a court-appointed receiver, the differences between bankruptcy and receivership in Canada are the same.

A receivership is a legal remedy available to secured creditors to enforce their security rights against a defaulting debtor. A receiver is appointed to manage the debtor’s property and assets and sell them under a properly run and fair sales process.

The Canadian bankruptcy process is a distinct legal process. An insolvency trustee does not represent secured creditors in bankruptcy proceedings. Instead, under the bankruptcy regime, they represent the unsecured creditors of the bankrupt estate. A corporate debtor may be subject to both bankruptcy and receivership proceedings simultaneously.

One of the major differences has to do with the creditors. In a bankruptcy administration, the bankruptcy trustee must call a meeting of creditors. This is where the insolvency trustee provides its report on the affairs and conduct of the bankrupt debtor and unsecured creditors get to vote on any matters of importance. In receivership, there is no such requirement to hold a meeting of creditors.

receivership in canada
receivership in canada

What are the key distinctions between receivership in Canada and liquidation?

So you know what receivership is by now. The federal BIA doesn’t govern liquidation, that’s done under the provincial Business Corporations Act or Wind-Up Act.

A liquidation is for a solvent company where the shareholders, Officers and directors decide to cease business operations. The company puts up its assets for sale and uses the proceeds to pay off its creditors with cash. Any funds left over are then distributed to the shareholders.

A liquidator can be appointed either privately by the company’s directors or by a court order. Liquidation is therefore different from both bankruptcy and receivership in Canada.

Can individuals be placed into receivership in Canada?

The answer is yes. When a secured creditor wishes to take enforcement action upon the security agreement they have against a debtor’s property, as indicated above, they have the remedy of receivership in Canada. This remedy allows them to collect as much of their secured debt as possible.

There are no restrictions as to who can go into receivership in Canada. One of our more famous (infamous?) receivership cases over the years has been the receivership of the assets, property and undertaking of Norma and Ronauld Walton.

receivership in canada
receivership in canada

Receivership in Canada: Whose receiver is it anyway?

Now for the court case where two different provincial laws caused a fight amongst secured creditors over the appointment of a receiver. The case is Canadian Equipment Finance and Leasing Inc. v. The Hypoint Company Limited, 2618905 Ontario Limited, 2618909 Ontario Limited, Beverley Rockliffe and Chantal Bock, 2022 ONSC 6186. The two competing provincial statutes are the Mortgages Act and the Personal Property Security Act.

The business is conducted through two affiliated entities. One owns the property and the other operates the business. This is quite a typical arrangement.

One creditor funded the purchase of equipment and took PPSA security over it. Another creditor funded the acquisition of the real property and has a traditional mortgage security. The security agreements extend over different assets, and the outcome is usually uncomplicated.

However, when equipment that has been purchased is attached to real property, there is disagreement about whether and how it can be removed, and whether such removal will negatively affect the value of both the equipment and the real property. The question is now more complicated: which creditor’s rights should take priority over this matter?

Both the equipment lender and the mortgagee are seeking to enforce their security. The equipment lender has filed a motion with the court to appoint a receiver over both the operating company (Opco) that owns the pledged equipment and the holding company (Holdco) that owns the real estate. This would allow the receiver to manage and sell the assets of both companies in order to repay the outstanding debt.

In this case, Opco was a commercial marijuana operation that was unable to get off the ground due to its heavy debt load and startup problems.

Although the mortgagee began power of sale enforcement proceedings, they do not object to a receiver being appointed over the equipment only. The mortgagee wishes to continue its power of sale proceedings and opposes the receiver being appointed over the building. The mortgagee in possession is of the opinion that the equipment is attached to the building and cannot be removed.

The mortgagee concurred that the court has the power to assign a receiver over the property of both Opco and Holdco according to section 101 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act. They stated that, if a receiver is appointed, the receiver needs to be a firm chosen by them.

Both the licensed insolvency trustee firm preferred by the mortgagee and the firm nominated by the equipment lender filed a consent to act with the court.

What are the conditions under which a receiver may be appointed?

The court looked at numerous factors in order to make a decision on whether or not to appoint a receiver, and if so, which one, including those that have historically in receivership in Canada cases been taken into account in such determinations:

  1. Although it is not essential for a creditor to establish irreparable harm if a receiver is not appointed where the appointment is authorized by the security documentation, the court considered if no order is made, will irreparable harm be caused?
  2. The size of the debtor company’s equity in the assets and the need for protection or safeguarding of assets during litigation are important factors to consider when assessing the risk to the security holder.
  3. The kind of property it is.
  4. The potential for the assets to be wasted or dissipated.
  5. The need to safeguard the property until a legal ruling is made.
  6. The parties’ respective balance of convenience needs to be considered when making the decision.
  7. Pursuant to the loan documentation, the creditor has the right to an appointment.
  8. Enforcing the security instrument when the security holder experiences or anticipates difficulties with the debtor.
  9. The principle of appointing a receiver should be approached with caution.
  10. The court will determine whether appointing a receiver is necessary to enable the receiver to carry out its duties efficiently.
  11. The effect a receivership order will have on the parties.
  12. The parties’ conduct.
  13. How long a receivership may last.
  14. The financial impact on the parties.
  15. The likelihood of maximizing return to the parties is increased.
  16. The goal of ensuring the smooth running of the receiver’s duties.

As everyone agreed that all assets of both Opco and Holdco should be sold to maximize recovery for all creditors, but cannot agree on the process by which that should be undertaken, resulting in the entire process being stalled, the judge was satisfied that it is just and convenient to appoint a receiver.

The court found that either proposed receiver was acceptable and decided that the receiver nominated by the mortgagee would be appointed by the court to administer all assets. The receiver would eventually come back to court with a sales plan to maximize the value of all the assets subject to the security of all stakeholders.

receivership in canada
receivership in canada

How the entrepreneur can avoid receivership in Canada

As a business owner, the way to avoid the receivership process is long before financial difficulties ever become serious financial problems. Here are a few tips on how to do just that:

  • Keep a close eye on your finances. This means regularly reviewing your income and expenses, and making sure you have a good handle on your cash flow.
  • Stay current on your bills. This includes not only making timely payments but also staying on top of any changes in your billing terms or amounts.
  • Keep good records. This means having up-to-date financial statements and documentation for all of your income and expenses.
  • Make a plan. If you do find yourself in a financial bind, have a plan in place for how you’ll get out of it. This may include negotiating with creditors, seeking new financing, or making cuts to your expenses.
  • Seek professional help from a licensed insolvency trustee with commercial insolvency experience. If your business is viable and you seek help early enough, there may be many options. The most common ones are refinancing with or without financial restructuring. Reviewing your business allows us to make restructuring recommendations allowing your viable company to become healthy and profitable once again.

Receivership in Canada summary & speak with a licensed insolvency trustee

I hope you enjoyed this receivership in Canada Brandon’s Blog.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. Are you now worried about just how you or your business are going to survive? Those concerns are obviously on your mind. Coming out of the pandemic, we are now worried about its economic effects of inflation and a potential recession.

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 have helped many entrepreneurs and their insolvent companies who thought that consulting with a trustee and receiver meant their company would go bankrupt. On the contrary. We helped turn their companies around through financial restructuring.

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.

receivership in canada
receivership in canada

 

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

STALKING HORSE CREDIT BID: WE NEED COURT APPROVAL BEFORE STARTING A COURT SUPERVISED SALES PROCESS

2

Stalking horse credit bid: Introduction

In last week’s vlog, “STALKING HORSE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT: THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY GALLOPS INTO A COURT SUPERVISED SALES PROCESS“, I described what a stalking horse asset purchase agreement is. I also defined and described the proposed stalking horse credit bid process of The Weinstein Company. That process was approved last Friday by a Delaware bankruptcy judge. The Court delayed the court sales auction by a couple of business days to May 4, 2018.

Stalking horse credit bid: Our earlier case studies

Over the last few weeks, I have provided some case studies from our files for both personal and corporate insolvency matters. As a refresher, these case study vlogs are:

Stalking horse credit bid: Our stalking horse sales process case study

This is the last vlog along our case study theme. The purpose is to show the decision making that the Court goes through in being asked to approve a stalking horse credit bid and a stalking horse sales process in a corporate insolvency file.

We were Court-appointed as Receiver and Manager of a club operating a golf course, restaurant and party function business. The first secured creditor filed its motion to appoint us. We were appointed very close to Christmas that year. Obviously, the golf course was not operating at the time of our appointment. The food and beverage facilities only had one remaining Christmas party and the annual club New Year’s party. No parties were booked yet into the New Year.

We did the normal things a Receiver does such as:

  • taking physical possession of the premises and the books and records;
  • identifying if there were any assets located off premises; and
  • arranging for property and liability insurance.

We were able to use the time to understand the business and the nature and extent of the assets.

There was already a purchaser ready to give an offer to purchase the Receiver’s right, title and interest in the operating assets comprising the club’s businesses. We arranged for an appraisal of the assets and business. We received and reviewed the appraisal. The secured creditor told us the form of offer they would support.

Armed with the appraisal information and the secured creditor information, we entered into a conversation with the potential purchaser. The amount this purchaser told us it was willing to pay was far more than appraised value and above the minimum threshold for acceptance from the secured creditor.

Stalking horse credit bid: Our stalking horse offer

We decided that a stalking horse bid process would be ideal. We doubted that any party would bid higher than the value this potential purchaser was discussing. It made sense to also have the court supervised sales process completed prior to April, so that it would be the purchaser opening up and preparing the course for play and running the food and beverage business, rather than the Court appointed Receiver.

The potential purchaser agreed to become a stalking horse bidder and to the timeline. We and our legal counsel worked with the potential purchaser and its legal counsel to prepare a draft stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The purchase price was the amount this now stalking horse purchaser was always discussing.

Stalking horse credit bid: We galloped off to Court

We filed our motion for approval of our activities to date, requested permission to enter into the proposed stalking horse agreement and sought approval for our proposed stalking horse sales process. The Court had no problem with our activities to date, or the stalking horse agreement, but did not like our truncated stalking horse sales process. We were not able to be in Court until February and we wished to complete the sale by March 31. The Court felt that was not enough time to run a sales process that was fair to all potential bidders. Our legal counsel attempted to persuade the Judge that comparing the appraisal (which the Court saw but our purchaser did not see) and the value of the stalking horse offer, we did not feel that there would be any other bidders.

We could not persuade the Court. The Judge approved everything, but he amended the timeline so that we would run a process that would last at least 5 weeks from the time we ran our advertisement for this business opportunity.

The Court considers various factors when asked to approve a receivership or bankruptcy sales transaction. The basis for this comes from a 1991 Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA). In no particular order, the Court is concerned with:

  1. Whether the Receiver has made enough effort to get the best price and has not acted improvidently.
  2. Considering the interests of all parties.
  3. The efficacy and integrity of the process used to get offers.
  4. If there has been unfairness in the working out of the process.

In the Judge’s opinion, a 5 week sales process would ease any concerns he had.

ISI 4
stalking horse credit bid

Stalking horse credit bid: The outcome

We amended our sales process in accordance with the Judge’s instructions. We then:

  • ran the advertisement and issued our preliminary “teaser” sales document to all those that requested it; and
  • set up our online data room of pertinent business and other information about the assets and business operations.

Anyone who wished to do due diligence signed our confidentiality agreement. Everyone who signed our confidentiality agreement was then provided with a unique password to enter the online data room.

The due diligence period ended and since everyone knows the amount of the stalking horse offer, no other potential bidders submitted an offer. Nobody wanted to bid more.

We went back to Court to tell of the results and obtained Court approval to complete the transaction of the stalking horse bidder whose asset purchase agreement was already approved by the Court.

In the meantime, spring had arrived. We hired the necessary golf course superintendent and other maintenance and operating staff and opened up the golf course. We ran the golf club until the sale was completed near the end of June that same year. In the eyes of the Court fairness was achieved, we operated the golf club and the secured creditor was happy with the result of the sale.

Stalking horse credit bid: Is your business facing financial problems?

This case study shows how we were able to satisfy all stakeholders in a Court supervised sales process, to transfer the assets to a new business, remit funds to the secured creditor on a basis acceptable to them and meet the requirements of the Court.

Is your business facing financial problems? Perhaps your company is in need of a restructuring. The Ira Smith Team can develop a restructuring plan which may or may not include the need to file for bankruptcy protection.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. Team understands the pain you are going through trying to keep your company alive while trying to negotiate with potential purchasers. We understand that you are playing beat the clock, and the pain and stress you are feeling thinking that you may just run out of time. The bankruptcy protection process can ease this stress and provide a level playing field so that no potential purchaser takes advantage of you.

The Ira Smith Team has a great deal of experience in running a stalking horse stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. Call the Ira Smith Team today for your free consultation. We can end your pain and put your company back on a healthy profitable path, Starting Over, Starting Now.

stalking horse credit bid 0
stalking horse credit bid
Categories
Brandon Blog Post

STALKING HORSE ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT: THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY GALLOPS INTO A COURT SUPERVISED SALES PROCESS

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: Introduction

In my July 2015 blog, “STALKING HORSE BID: DO YOU REALLY WANT TO STALK YOUR HORSE ANYWAY?”, I defined and described the stalking horse bid process in the Canadian insolvency context. In my November 2017 vlog, “FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION: THE WEINSTEIN COMPANY RETAINS ATTORNEYS FOR POSSIBLE BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION FILING”, I described the (then) financial condition of The Weinstein Company (TWC) and correctly predicted that it would have no choice but to ultimately file for bankruptcy protection. The purpose of today’s vlog is to provide an update on TWC’s bankruptcy protection filing. My expectation that on April 6, 2018, the US Bankruptcy Court will approve a stalking horse asset purchase agreement.

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: Stalking horse agreement definition

As a refresher, the stalking horse bid process is, an effort by a company to look at the marketplace ahead of an auction. The intent is to make the most of the value of its assets. This is done as part of normally what is a court supervised public auction sale. It is common to being used in a bankruptcy case.stalking horse bidder

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: How a stalking horse bid works

The insolvent company in bankruptcy protection, canvasses the marketplace. It comes up with what it determines to be, under the circumstances, the best possible offer. The insolvent company and the potential purchaser, enter into a stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The potential purchaser allows its stalking horse bid to go public.

While entering a stalking horse asset purchase agreement, the company can use bidding process protections. An example is breakup charges. This protects the stalking horse bidder prior to the public auction sale. These incentives improve the worth of the offering for the stalking horse buyer. This process may bring about a far better offer before the public auction starts. This greater deal is currently the beginning deal for the public auction. The aim is to produce the best possible offer.

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: How did the stalking horse offer process get its name?

This type of bidding process gets its name from the use of a stalking horse in hunting. The hunter uses a horse, or a screen made in the shape of a horse. The hunter stays concealed when stalking prey.

The stalking horse bid becomes “the stalking horse”; the “animal” used to attract the “prey”, being other bidders.

The terms of the sales process would show by what minimum amount any other bid must beat the stalking horse bid. That minimum amount would have to be at least the amount of the break fee. The break fee is compensation for stalking horse bidder. It attempts to compensate for due diligence time and costs if they don’t win the deal.stalking horse bidder

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: TWC bankruptcy case

In the evening of March 19, 2018, TWC filed for bankruptcy protection in a Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The reasons for the filing were twofold: (i) TWC had canvassed the marketplace and had obtained an offer to purchase its assets by a stalking horse buyer, Lantern Capital; and (ii) to have a Court supervised forum so that both a sale and transfer of the assets can take place and all claimants can make a claim against the resulting cash. TWC announced that anyone subject to a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) was now released. No doubt this will lead to more allegations and claims.

ISI 4
stalking horse asset purchase agreement

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: The stalking horse purchase agreement

Variety reported that Lantern Capital, a Dallas based private equity firm, entered into the stalking horse asset purchase agreement with TWC. Variety stated Lantern’s bid offers $310 million in cash, plus assuming up to $114.5 million in liabilities connected with TV and film projects, for a total stalking horse bid of $424.5 million.

If approved by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, this will serve as the floor for other bidders. There is a hearing scheduled for April 6 in Delaware, at which time the Bankruptcy Court is expected to approve this stalking horse bid and the entire stalking horse process. As currently drafted, all other bids must be submitted by April 30. The bids will then be vetted, discussions will take place and TWC will then appear again in Bankruptcy Court to recommend which offer is deemed to be the best and be approved and completed. No further information is available at this time.

Stalking horse asset purchase agreement: Does your company have a buyer but might need a Court-supervised process to finish a sale?

In next week’s vlog, I will provide a case study of how we used a stalking horse asset purchase agreement Bankruptcy Court supervised process to sell the assets of an insolvent company. The successful sale also continued employment for many people.

Is your company facing financial hardship, yet its assets are attractive to multiple potential purchasers? Perhaps you need to be thinking of using bankruptcy protection to maximize the value of the company’s assets through a sale. This process can also continue employment for both you the entrepreneur owner and for many of your current employees.

The Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. Team understands the pain you are going through trying to keep your company alive while trying to negotiate with potential purchasers. We understand that you are playing beat the clock, and the pain and stress you are feeling thinking that you may just run out of time. The bankruptcy protection process can ease this stress and provide a level playing field so that no potential purchaser takes advantage of you.

The Ira Smith Team has a great deal of experience in running a stalking horse stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The stress placed upon you due to your company’s financial challenges is enormous. We understand your pain points. Call the Ira Smith Team today for your free consultation. We can end your pain and put your company back on a healthy profitable path, Starting Over, Starting Now.stalking horse bidder

Call a Trustee Now!