Tag: secured creditors

INHERITANCE DURING BANKRUPTCY: OUR BEST ANSWER TO HOW IS AN INHERITANCE TREATED IN A BANKRUPTCY?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date April 4, 2022

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Family situations

Your assets are considered yours in Canada. In other words, if during your bankruptcy you inherit money from a family member, the property belongs to the bankruptcy estate. Your property, including cash, will be distributed by your licensed insolvency trustee (“Trustee”) to your unsecured creditors.

Whenever an insolvent person comes to us for a free consultation, we always inquire whether or not the insolvent person is in line to inherit anything in the near future. Our recommendations will depend on the answer.

Many Canadians wonder whether the bankruptcy process will affect their inheritance. The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently reviewed a bankruptcy judge’s decision that bankruptcy would impact an estate in Richards (Re), 2022 ONCA 216 (CanLII).

This Brandon’s Blog examines this Court of Appeal decision about inheritance during bankruptcy. The case looks at would you lose your inheritance if you filed for bankruptcy, or can you use family situations to protect it from your creditors and eventually be able to get it back?

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Bankruptcy, winnings, gifts, inheritance property and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

Section 67 (1)(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA” ) sets out the bankruptcy law and the bankruptcy procedure regarding the property of the bankrupt as:

“all property wherever situated of the bankrupt at the date of the bankruptcy or that may be acquired by or devolve on the bankrupt before their discharge, including any refund owing to the bankrupt under the Income Tax Act in respect of the calendar year — or the fiscal year of the bankrupt if it is different from the calendar year — in which the bankrupt became a bankrupt…”

This includes any assets that you own as of the date you filed for bankruptcy, as well as any assets that you have acquired after filing for bankruptcy and before you get your bankruptcy discharge. Additionally, it includes assets that you were entitled to but hid or contracted out of.

There are two parts to that sentence that are simple, but the second part is more complicated. Gifts, lottery winnings, inheritance during bankruptcy, and any other unexpected financial gain are included in this category.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: What happens if I receive property, assets or an inheritance while I am bankrupt?

Receiving an inheritance or gift of a property while in bankruptcy can be a mixed blessing. A gift or inheritance can relieve financial stress by allowing you to pay off debts that would otherwise require you to file for bankruptcy. Receiving assets, property, or inheritances during bankruptcy will be for the benefit of creditors and will also affect how your bankruptcy file is handled including your discharge, as well as whether you were really qualified for bankruptcy at all. Of course, timing is everything.

The reason is the section of the BIA I quoted above. Your windfall could have paid off all your creditors without making an assignment in bankruptcy if it was large enough. In the event that it happens during your period of bankruptcy and before you apply for discharge, but the windfall is not large enough to pay off all your debts, it will affect the type of discharge from bankruptcy you may be able to get, whether it is an automatic discharge or a conditional discharge.

If it occurs after you have made your bankruptcy filing and is large enough to pay off all your debts, then perhaps you can apply to annul the bankruptcy. So all of these factors have to be taken into consideration when you experience an inheritance during bankruptcy or if you otherwise have a windfall.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Will I lose my Inheritance in a bankruptcy?

By now, you should know that you will lose whatever part of your inheritance during bankruptcy. It will be whatever portion is required to pay off your creditors in full (plus interest). But what happens to an inheritance during bankruptcy if you try to contract out of receiving your inheritance if you are an undischarged bankrupt? Can the Will or trust set up that provides you with the inheritance be used to stop you from losing it during your bankruptcy?

That is what the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision in Richards (Re), 2022 ONCA 216 (CanLII) is all about which I will now describe.

Michael Richards filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for Ontario on March 11, 2022, challenging the bankruptcy judge’s order from June 3, 2021. The issue at stake concerned the interpretation of a trust of which Mr. Richards was a beneficiary (the “Trust”).

A judgment against him was owed to The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) for $987,613 plus costs and interest. Mr. Richards was struggling financially. RBC filed a Bankruptcy Application against him on September 16, 2019. The Bankruptcy Order was issued the same day.

A trust set up by his father in 2001 gives Mr. Richards the right to either the property at 61 St. Clair Avenue West or the proceeds of its sale (the “Property”). His parents were able to live in the house during their lives, with a life interest in the Property. In 2010, his father died. His mother remained in the Property and she died in July 2020. The date of death of the second parent is called the “Time of Division” in the Trust.

Before his mother died, the trustees of the Trust sold the property with the net proceeds from the sale, totalling $1,172,120.90, held in trust. Trust funds had to be distributed to Mr. Richards if he was alive at the time of division. Obviously, he was.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: RBC and section 38 of the BIA

In October 2020, RBC obtained an order under s. 38 of the BIA (the “s. 38 order”). Section 38 allows one or more creditors to take an assignment of a claim or action that the Trustee may have if the Trustee is unable or unwilling to enforce that claim or action.

The s. 38 order gave RBC (in this case alone) an assignment of rights of the Trustee of the bankrupt estate to make a claim against the sale proceeds of the Property. The Trustee had not wanted to pursue the claim due to a lack of funding. RBC now stood in the shoes of the Trustee with respect to the sale proceeds of the Property.

RBC filed a motion to recoup the sale proceeds up to the amount owed to them (including the costs of the s. 38 action). They sought a declaration that Mr. Richards was the beneficiary of the Trust and had an interest in the Property under the terms of the Trust. RBC argued that the sale proceeds should go towards satisfying their outstanding debt because it was the property of the bankrupt.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: The undischarged bankrupt’s position

Mr. Richards responded that his interest in the Property was suspended while he is bankrupt, under the provisions of a different section of the document establishing the Trust. That very unusual provision reads as follows:

“Any right of a Beneficiary to receive any income or capital of the Trust Fund…. shall be enforceable only until such Beneficiary shall become bankrupt … whereupon… the Beneficiary’s Interest shall cease until the cause of the Beneficiary’s Interest becoming vested in or belonging to or being payable to a person other than such Beneficiary shall have ceased to exist … and then the Beneficiary’s Interest shall again be allocated to such Beneficiary as aforesaid unless and until a like or similar event shall happen whereupon the Beneficiary’s Interest of such Beneficiary shall again cease and so on from time to time.”

Mr. Richards submitted that his interest in the Property could not vest in his Trustee as he had no rights to the Property until such time as he was discharged from bankruptcy. He contended that, during his bankruptcy, any rights he had were suspended. It is only on his discharge from bankruptcy that the Property will vest in him and only then will he own it outright.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: The trial judge’s decision

The bankruptcy judge overseeing the bankruptcy case trial held that the Property vested in Mr. Richards at the Time of Division. This meant that the Property was his and vested in his Trustee upon becoming bankrupt. Since the Trustee had transferred its rights in the action against the Property to RBC, the bank was legally entitled to receive the proceeds of sale up to the amount owed.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: The Court of Appeal for Ontario decision

The Court of Appeal for Ontario made a very clear and concise decision. It said that Mr. Richards had not shown any mistakes in the bankruptcy judge’s decision. The appellate court ruled that her interpretation of the Trust document was entitled to deference on review, stating that it agreed with her interpretation. The court found that her interpretation was consistent with the plain wording of the relevant section and also consistent with the stated purpose of the Trust.

This case demonstrates that actions that violate the public policy underpinning the BIA by individuals trying to shield their assets from creditors are not tolerated.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Could the inheritance have been shielded from the creditors?

In the beginning, I want to make it clear that I am not a lawyer and I do not give advice to insolvent people on how to protect their assets from their secured creditors, preferred creditors or unsecured ordinary creditors. Instead, given these specific facts, can I think of a way the Trust could have been structured differently?

When the Trust was prepared, obviously his parents were concerned about their son’s financial situation and legal proceedings against him. Rather than having the Property transferred to him at the Time of Division, the Trust should have kept the cash from the sale of the real property invested and paid Mr. Richards a monthly allowance for life.

That monthly allowance could not have been treated directly as his property. Rather, it would be considered part of his income, subject to the surplus income rule. Mr. Richards may have very well may have had to make surplus income payments to his Trustee as part of getting his bankruptcy discharge, but the bulk of the inheritance could have been shielded from his creditors.

Inheritance during bankruptcy: With the right Trust personal bankruptcies can be avoided

If the Trust was worded as I suggest, only providing Mr. Richards with a lifetime allowance but never able to have the asset itself transferred to his ownership, Mr. Richards could have avoided bankruptcy altogether. He could have filed a Proposal.

If his financial situation was such that he owed $250,000 or less, he could have filed a consumer proposal. If he owed more than $250,000, it would be a Division I BIA restructuring proposal. Either way, he would have avoided filing for bankruptcy or having a Bankruptcy Order made against him.

Although the RBC judgement against him was an ordinary unsecured claim, without their vote in favour of his proposal, it could not have succeeded. However, with the differing approach for the Trust that I suggested, it would not give RBC access to the entire amount of cash. They would have been facing the reality that they would not have been able to collect in full on their judgement for a very long time. There wouldn’t be a pot of money to attack.

This is how Mr. Richards’s parents could have made sure that the inheritance was protected for him and shielded from his creditors.

Inheritance during bankruptcy

Inheritance during bankruptcy: Summary

In conclusion, the BIA allows a bankrupt’s assets to distribute property to creditors based on a “just and equitable” standard.

I hope you found this inheritance during bankruptcy Brandon’s Blog. Are you on the edge of insolvency? Are bill collectors hounding you? Are you ducking all your phone calls to the point where your voicemail box is always full?

If so, you need to call me today. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) we are the only professionals licensed, recognized as well as supervised by the federal government to give insolvency assistance. We are also the only authorized party in Canada to apply remedies under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). I can definitely help you to choose what is best for you to free you from your financial debt issues.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can get free you from the stress, anxiety, and discomfort that your cash issues have created. With the distinct roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will without delay return you right to a healthy and balanced problem-free life, Starting Over Starting Now.

Brandon Blog Post

BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY: SHOULD CANADA ADOPT A SATISFYING COMPLETE USA-STYLE PROCESS FOR SMALL BIZ RESTRUCTURING?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date February 21, 2022

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, we hope that you, your family, and your friends are safe, healthy, and secure. Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. is fully operational, and both Ira and Brandon Smith are readily available for phone or video consultations.

Business bankruptcy: Insolvency for business

Hundreds of thousands of small businesses around the world have been affected by the lockdowns caused by the Coronavirus pandemic. There have been many company closures, and others have been forced to restructure. Although restructuring may be painful, it is necessary if you want to come out from under crippling debt and grow your business.

Many businesses experiencing financial difficulties simply shut their doors rather than restructure. Most small businesses cannot reorganize their company debts under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) due to the high costs of administration. A small business owner does not benefit from spending money to have a business bankruptcy. It is therefore only possible to lock the door and give the key to one of the secured creditors, usually the bank or to the landlord.

Globally, small and medium-sized businesses play an important role. In 2019, I wrote a Brandon Blog post about business bankruptcy issues that US bankruptcy experts identified as problems for small business bankruptcy restructuring with Chapter 11 restructurings. This process was not working for these businesses. Chapter 11 restructurings are expensive, ineffective, and impractical. The US insolvency system therefore could not help many businesses in need of restructuring in the USA.

In this Brandon Blog, I provide an update on the successful experience and unanimous calls to extend the US subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, I revisit the question as to whether such a small business bankruptcy tool should exist in Canada.

Business bankruptcy and Insolvency at a glance

Congress passed the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) on July 23, 2019. On August 1, the Senate passed the bill. In August 2019, it became law.

SBRA makes business bankruptcy protection easier for small and medium-sized enterprises. Chapter 11, subchapter V of the US Bankruptcy Code (Title: Small Business Debtor Reorganization) is the result. Increasing its affordability will help save otherwise viable owner-managed businesses.

SBRA defines a small company as one with non-contingent debts of $2,725,625 or less, leaving out financial obligations to affiliates or parties not dealing at arm’s length, and which elects to be dealt with under the SBRA. A new subchapter V to Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code is included in the Act. In this new approach, small companies are able to restructure efficiently with greater ease and at a lower cost.

The primary purpose of this legal process is:

Secured creditors and unsecured creditors cannot lodge a Chapter 11 restructuring plan that it is prepared to support. Only businesses with debt problems can. In most cases, the company’s plan must be filed within 90 days of when it filed for bankruptcy protection.
To manage each case, trustees similar to those selected in a personal restructuring (Chapter 13) situation will be selected.

A creditors committee will not be established.
If the home loan/mortgage secured by the home was used to fund the business, the Chapter 11 plan can change the legal rights of the lender.
It is possible for a Court to approve a small business bankruptcy restructuring plan without the approval of any class of creditors. If the court is satisfied that all creditors are treated fairly and no creditor class is prejudiced, it will approve the restructuring plan,.
A restructuring plan must ensure that all earnings received during the restructuring will be available to fund the restructuring for a period of 3 to 5 years in order to be fair and equitable.

Consequently, it is the responsibility of the creditors to carefully review all cases filed under SBRA. The creditors should consult bankruptcy experts for guidance. Their role will be to ensure that restructuring cases are fairly examined by courts and that all creditors are treated equally. For those without the support of their creditors, this will be particularly true.

It will be very interesting to see if this new legislation accomplishes its goal of simplifying and reducing the costs associated with business bankruptcy restructuring for small businesses.

business bankruptcy

Business bankruptcy: The bottom line on the SBRA

This tool was successful in protecting small businesses from bankruptcy liquidation. Republicans and Democrats alike have embraced this obscure federal program that allows small-business owners to shed debt in bankruptcy protection so much, they are now considering extending it. Republican and Democratic agreement on anything is very rare these days.

In a Subchapter V bankruptcy, closely-held businesses can file for bankruptcy much more quickly and inexpensively than they would in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The government appoints a trustee with limited powers who assesses the company’s finances and helps reach a consensus with creditors. Rather than official creditor committees, there is only a trustee appointed by the government. Furthermore, company owners don’t risk losing control of their companies to creditors, a common outcome in bankruptcy.

When the pandemic ravaged thousands of small businesses, the government raised the debt threshold to qualify for Subchapter V to $7.5 million from $2.7 million and extended it an additional year. In the absence of another renewal, the higher limit will expire next month, shutting out thousands of companies that could benefit as they deal with new challenges such as supply chain issues and higher interest rates.

**The main benefits of the SBRA business bankruptcy protection**

Quick response

Since the program began, more than 2,800 cases have been filed. Restructuring advisers predict that number will rise as banks and landlords become more aggressive in collecting overdue loans and back rent.

Government assistance and eviction moratoriums have enabled small businesses to exist in limbo but that won’t last. Experts predict that more subchapter V filings will take place in 2022.

The American Bankruptcy Institute studies bankruptcy statistics. They state that the quick turnaround time of Subchapter V has attracted and will attract more filings.

Corporation envy

Some distressed corporations are so envious of Subchapter V that restructuring advisers are hunting in vain for strategies that might let their bigger clients qualify. For example, there was a company with 130 company-owned locations that filed for bankruptcy protection in 2020. It initially attempted to file individual brick-and-mortar locations under the program, before switching to a chapter 11 proceeding.

This business bankruptcy restructuring statute has proved to be a lifeline for smaller companies and should be extended.

business bankruptcy

The Canadian business bankruptcy and restructuring landscape

Canada lacks an equivalent streamlined corporate insolvency restructuring statute. There are two Canadian insolvency regimes: the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and the BIA. For large corporations, the CCAA applies. The process is heavily governed by the courts. In my opinion, it would not be possible to sufficiently streamline the CCAA for small businesses to have enough staying power during restructurings under the CCAA to survive.

A streamlined restructuring process is possible under the BIA for small and medium-sized businesses. There was a streamlined restructuring process for individuals so that consumer bankruptcies can be avoided. These consumer proposals are found in Part I Division II of the BIA. So why not a special restructuring proposal section for smaller companies? I called it a new Part I Division III of the BIA in my earlier Brandon blog I referred to above – a general scheme for small business proposals (SBP) section of the BIA. The aim is to provide small businesses with the opportunity to restructure business debts on a cost-effective basis rather than to make Canadian bankruptcies the only real option to consider.

In the US, using a streamlined restructuring model has been so successful. That’s why I am bringing back my idea from 2019. I won’t repeat everything, however. You can see what my recommendations were by reading my blog – BANKRUPTCY EXPERTS WEIGH IN ON US & CDN SMALL BIZ RESTRUCTURING.

Business bankruptcy: The debtor (owes money) not the creditors (are owed money) would control the reorganization

An insolvent corporation, sole proprietors, or partnership that is set up to conduct business should be able to access the new SBP. The total amount of their debt should not exceed $1.5 million. Such a number is not based on any scientific calculations.

In order to determine an appropriate debt level, Statistics Canada could assess the average debt load of Canadian businesses. In this discussion, I’ll use the $1.5 million amount.

Loans from affiliates or from people with a non-arm’s-length relationship would not be excluded as in US law. A Canadian company’s first funding is usually provided by its owners. Chartered banks require owners to make a commitment with their personal assets before they are willing to lend. To get the business off the ground, the owners sacrificed their own money. Because they had to finance the company that way, I would not exclude that debt from the calculation.

The Canadian business landscape differs from the American one. We tend to be smaller in size. For non-arm’s-length debt to be excluded, the debt threshold would have to be lowered. Keeping that debt threshold in mind, let us include all debt, whether it’s secured or unsecured, related, or arms’ length.

This new SBP would not be applicable to people who are not conducting business in their own name. Those people will fall into either Division I or Division II restructuring proposals which include two mandatory credit counselling sessions.

Restructuring proposals can currently only be administered by a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee). A licensed insolvency trustee is known as the Proposal Trustee under Division I Proposals. As part of Division II personal restructurings, they are known as the Administrator.

Therefore, I will call the Trustee the Small Business Administrator for the new SBP. As a result, it is obvious that it is the restructuring of a business that qualifies under Division III. The use of the word “administrator” is consistent with the words used by Parliament for consumer proposals. Again, this means that the Trustee is administering a streamlined restructuring for small businesses.

The main points I recommended in my earlier blog in a Canadian small business streamlined restructuring statute include:

Currently, it is possible for a company or person to begin the restructuring process by filing either a Notice of Intention to Make A Proposal (NOI) or a Proposal itself. Regardless of the filing method, there is a 10-day limitation period under which the debtor must submit a cash-flow statement that has been reviewed and approved by both the company or person and the Trustee. A company or individual filing an NOI then has an additional 20 days (30 days after the filing date of the NOI) to file a Proposal (unless the court extends the time).

I propose extending the deadline for filing a Proposal from 30 days to 90 days after the filing of an NOI, without the need to go to the Court for an extension. As a result, the business should have enough time to get all of its tax and corporate filings up to date and, hopefully, avoid the need to adjourn the meeting of creditors.

A creditor would file a proof of claim in the same way they do now in a BIA Proposal.
There is a concept of deemed creditor approval and deemed court approval in the current consumer proposal legislation. A creditors’ meeting is not necessary unless creditors holding 25% of the proven claims request it. In addition to the proof of claim process, creditors receive voting letters to cast their vote when they submit a proof of claim. If there is no obligation to convene a meeting, a consumer proposal is considered accepted.If a consumer proposal is either accepted or deemed accepted by the creditors, the Trustee Administrator will probably not need to seek approval from the Court. There are no deeming provisions in corporate restructuring, either for creditor acceptance or for court approval. The new SBP section should include similar provisions regarding creditor acceptance and court approval. This would save time and money, thus enhancing efficiency.
The Meeting of Creditors if required, would be held 21 days after the Trustee Administrator recognizes that the small business restructuring did not receive deemed approval.
When creditors fail to vote in favour of a Division I Proposal or when the court does not approve it, it is automatically deemed an assignment in bankruptcy. This does not apply to consumer proposals. Debtors return to their normal state without creditor protection after an unsuccessful consumer proposal attempt.For the new streamlined business restructuring proposal law, if creditors fail to accept or the court does not approve the restructuring plan, then that does not automatically mean there is a bankruptcy. The debtor small business would simply return to its normal unprotected insolvent state and must defend itself against creditors.A voluntary assignment into bankruptcy may result, but not automatically. A bankruptcy proceeding does not make sense in certain corporate situations. If a chartered bank holds security over all assets it will enforce its security through a receivership, this is especially true.

Business bankruptcy summary

A streamlined small business bankruptcy protection section is working in the US and both Republicans and Democrats want it extended and made to be able to handle even more bankruptcy cases. So why should we not have one in Canada too? I know that it could work.

I hope you found this business bankruptcy Brandon Blog informative. Although nothing is guaranteed, managing your debt in a way that will allow you or your company to be able to afford it, will lead to your financial success. It will also give you the best shot at having a financially stress-free life.

Are you or your company in financial distress and a debt crisis? Are you embroiled in costly litigation or a crushing debt load and need a time out in order to restructure? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due? Are your credit cards maxed out? Are you worried about what will happen to you? Do you need to search out easy-to-understand debt solutions and realistic ones for your family debt problems? Is your company in financial hot water?

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience assisting people looking for life-changing debt solutions through a debt settlement plan and AVOID the bankruptcy process.

As licensed insolvency professionals, we are the only people accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a Government of Canada-approved debt settlement plan to do that. It is an alternative to bankruptcy. We will help you decide on what is best for you between a consumer 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 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.

Tags 10-day limitation period, 130 company-owned locations, assignment into bankruptcy, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy proceeding, bankruptcy process, bankruptcy processes, bankruptcy protection, bankruptcy trustee, brick-and-mortar locations, business bankruptcy, business bankruptcy issues, business debts, business into bankruptcy, business owners, businesses with debt problems, Canadian bankruptcies, canadian insolvency regimes, class of creditors, consumer bankruptcies, consumer proposals, costs of administration, credit cards, credit counselling, creditor classes, easy-to-understand debt solutions, financial difficulties, insolvency trustee, insolvent corporation, legal proces, licensed insolvency trustee, personal assets, personal bankruptcy, restructuring process, restructuring proposal, secured creditors, sole proprietors, unsecured creditors, voluntary assignment

Brandon Blog Post

RECEIVER APPOINTED BY COURT: 16 KEY INGREDIENTS TO ENSURE COURT APPROVAL OF A RECEIVER

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date February 7, 2022

**A receiver appointed by court: What is a receiver in Canada?**

In the event that a company has financial difficulties, a Receiver may be appointed to take over its assets and manage them until its assets can be sold. The receivers are third parties appointed to supervise the liquidation process and remit the proceeds in accordance with legal priorities. A judge appoints a court-appointed receiver, and a secured creditor appoints a privately appointed receiver under a simple appointment letter. In Canada, for a court-appointed receivership, a receiver appointed by court must be a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee).

In this Brandon Blog, I focus on the factors to be considered by the Court when determining an application for a receiver appointed by court.

receiver appointed by court

**The receiver appointed by court: What happens when a receiver is appointed?**

The licensed trustee acting as receiver’s first duty is to take possession and control of the assets covered by the secured creditor’s security, or of all the assets identified in the court order in a court appointment. The receiver can decide if it can sell the assets for a higher price if it operates the business.

Senior management and the Board of Directors lose most of their decision-making authority when the company goes into receivership. Their advice and assistance are only needed if requested by the receiver.

The source of authority for the receiver appointed by court is appointed in Ontario under two statutes:

Section 101 of the provincial Ontario Courts of Justice Act; and
Section 243(1) of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

The receiver appointed privately has a duty of care to only the appointing secured creditor. Court-appointed receivers are responsible to all creditors.

receiver appointed by court

Receiver appointed by court: When can a court appoint a receiver?

Under Section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario), the court considers whether the appointment “is just or convenient” under the circumstances. When deciding the origin of authority on whether or not to appoint a receiver as the court-appointed officer, the court must consider a variety of factors. Among them leading to the authority for decision making when there is an application for authorization for the appointment of a receiver are:

in spite of not having to prove it, will there be irreparable harm if the court does not appoint a receiver?;
the risk to a secured creditor and the equity the company owns in the assets, while litigation continues;
types of assets that would be subject to possession with respect to the receiver’ acts in its appointment;
it is necessary to balance the interests of the parties and to consider their rights;the preservation and protection of the property through the receivership proceeding pending judicial determination;
under its security, the creditor has the right to appoint a receiver;
when a creditor expects that the debtor will resist the enforcement of its security agreement;
it is an extreme measure which should be authorized sparingly, but less so if the applicant is a secured creditor who has that right under its security document;
in order to allow the receiver to perform its duties more effectively, a court appointment is necessary;
effects of the receivership order on the various parties;
actions taken by the parties and the litigation against properties;
duration of the Court-Approved receivership;
the costs incurred by each party;
it is likely that the receiver appointed by the court will maximize the return to the parties when the assets are sold under a receivership asset purchase agreement with the purchaser of assets;
facilitating the receiver’s duties and activities for its asset plan by a court order; and
a secured creditor’s good faith, the commercial reasonableness of the proposed Court-Appointed receivership and any equity questions.

A decision will usually turn on whether it is necessary to incur the expense and formalities of naming the third party to exercise neutral, transparent, and accountable stewardship of the debtor’s assets, while interested parties argue about the merits of the dispute and the receiver, attempts to maximize the recovery under an asset purchase agreement.

The court will usually intervene if the parties’ dispute puts the business assets at risk or where realizing the debtor’s assets or indemnifying a private receiver could impair the secured creditor’s recovery options. Often, simple default on the secured debt will be sufficient to attract a receivership where the risk to the business is implicit in the nature of the business or the dispute between the creditor(s) and the debtor(s). However, as with all equitable remedies, context is everything and each case turns on its own facts.

receiver appointed by court

**A receiver appointed by court summary**

I hope you found this receiver appointed by court Brandon Blog informative. Although nothing is guaranteed, managing your debt in a way that will allow you or your company in a way to be able to afford it, will lead to your financial success. It will also give you the best shot at having a financially stress-free life.

Are you or your company in financial distress and a debt crisis? Are you embroiled in costly litigation or a crushing debt load and need a time out in order to restructure? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due? Are you worried about what will happen to you? Do you need to search out what your debt relief options and realistic debt relief solutions for your family debt are? Is your company in financial hot water?

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.

Brandon Blog Post

THE CANADIAN RECEIVERSHIP EASY BEGINNERS GUIDE

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date September 27, 2021

receivership

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

**What is Receivership?**

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

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

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

**What Does Going into Receivership Mean?**

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

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

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

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

**How Receivership Works**

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

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

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

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

Receivership: Notice and Statement of the Receiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is Receivership Different from Bankruptcy? Bankruptcy / receivership

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

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

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

What’s the Difference Between Receivership and Liquidation?

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

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

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

Employee Rights in Bankruptcy Protection and Bankruptcy⁄Receivership

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

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

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

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

You may qualify if:

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

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

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

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

Receivership summary

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

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

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

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

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

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as an alternative to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

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

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

Because of this, we can develop a new method for paying down your debt that will be built specifically for you. It will be as unique as the economic problems and discomfort you are experiencing. If any one of these seems familiar to you and you are serious about getting the solution you need to become debt-free, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Tags bankrupt estate, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy / receivership, bankruptcy and insolvency, bankruptcy and insolvency act canada, bankruptcy process, Bankruptcy vs. receivership, BIA, corporate debtor, corporate debtor defaults, court appointed receiver, court-appointed receiver vs. a privately appointed receiver, Court-appointed receivership, creditor pursuant, creditors, debtor company, debtor defaults, Employee Rights in Bankruptcy Protection and Bankruptcy⁄Receivership, How is Receivership Different from Bankruptcy, How Receivership Works, insolvency legislation, insolvency trustee, insolvent debtor, licensed insolvency trustee, Notice and Statement of the Receiver, Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, private receiver, Privately-appointed receivers, receiver, receiver manager, receivers, receivership, receivership process, section 244 notice, secured creditors, secured lender, secured lenders, secured loan, trustee, unsecured creditors, Wage Earner Protection Program Act, WEPPA, What Does Going into Receivership Mean, what is receivership, What's The Difference Between a Court-Appointed Receiver and a Privately Appointed Receiver, What's the Difference Between Receivership and Liquidation

Brandon Blog Post

WHAT IS THE POWERFUL CRA LIEN ON PROPERTY TOOL?

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date September 13, 2021

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

CRA lien on property: Canada Revenue Agency’s collection powers

The CRA (formerly known as Revenue Canada) assigns “collection officers” to taxpayers who fail to make timely payments or who do not pay in full. For the CRA to agree to a payment arrangement (usually monthly payments), the taxpayer must provide financial disclosure on a monthly basis (details of their expenses, their income, and their assets).

Tax debts that cannot be settled through a payment plan may be registered in Federal Court. Once the debt is certified, the certificate is equivalent to a judgment entered in court. This is called a memorial. If you own property, the CRA can create a lien on your property based on your judgment. A CRA lien on property against your interest in your home is the most common CRA lien on property they register.

This Brandon Blog discusses a recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court that confirms that the CRA lien on property becomes secured once they are registered.

CRA lien on property: CRA Super Priority Liens

I previously wrote a Brandon Blog about the legal case of Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank. By mentioning this case, I hope that my comments about the recent British Columbia Court decision below will be clearer.

Federal statutes give CRA a creditor powerful tools to collect debts. They can access avenues of collection significantly quicker than other types of creditors. It was not known to Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) that, as a sole proprietor operating a landscaping business, the borrower had collected GST in the amount of $67,854.

After selling his home, the borrower fully paid off his first mortgage with TD. TD did not lend to or deal with the proprietor’s business. Since there was no CRA lien on property against the house, TD was not aware of the outstanding GST.

The CRA has enhanced security, known as “super-priority”, over most of a tax debtor‘s real property and personal assets, by virtue of deemed trust provisions in the Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act (ETA). CRA has priority over substantially all secured creditors under the deemed trust concept, which means that the proceeds of the sale from the property subject to the deemed trust will go to CRA. A deemed trust claim is a CRA lien on property and is obtained without any registration.

A demand letter was subsequently sent to TD demanding that a portion of the proceeds be used to satisfy the GST debt. TD refused to pay since they believed their mortgage security ranked higher than CRA’s claim for unremitted GST. Court action was taken against TD by the CRA. The Crown argued that under section 222 of the ETA, the proceeds received by TD on the repayment of the mortgage and line of credit were subject to a deemed trust in favour of the Crown.

The Federal Court held that TD had an obligation to reimburse the CRA for the debt of $67,544, plus interest, owing by the Borrower to the CRA. Super-priority interests can be enforced by the CRA without notifying the secured creditor. TD was responsible for repaying CRA amounts received from a borrower with an outstanding GST/HST bill.

cra lien on property

FCA confirms CRA super-priority over secured creditors on a GST/HST debtors’ property

TD appealed the decision of the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA). According to the FCA ruling in Toronto-Dominion Bank v Canada, the FCA agreed with the lower Court that TD must pay the CRA proceeds of $67,854 for unremitted GST that it received from a borrower upon the discharge of its mortgage. CRA is considered to hold in trust amounts paid to a secured creditor from a debtor who owes Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) liabilities.

FCA affirmed the Federal Court’s finding that no triggering event was required and that the deemed trust operates continuously once GST is collected but not remitted. Further, the FCA noted that case law has distinguished between secured creditors and bona fide purchasers of value, such that the two categories are mutually exclusive.

It is best for secured creditors to review their current risk management practices and revise them both at the time of due diligence when vetting new borrowers as well as throughout the term of any secured credit agreement.

If we were talking about unremitted employee source deductions, the result would be the same.

CRA lien on property: Personal income tax debt collection

CRA is a powerful creditor when it comes to personal income tax debt collection. Above I discussed how they can get a CRA lien on property just by way of the statute for unremitted source deductions or unremitted GST/HST. But what about personal income taxes? CRA does not have an automatic lien for unpaid income taxes.

However, they can go to Federal Court and obtain a memorial and then register that CRA lien on property of the tax debtor who fell behind in their payment of taxes. Once they place that lien, they now turned their unsecured claim for unpaid taxes into a secured claim. As I already mentioned, the most common type of property they register against is real property, like the tax debtor‘s home.

If the CRA lien on property goes on the real property before the person who owes unpaid income taxes files either a consumer proposal or bankruptcy, then the CRA lien on property stays on. CRA will not try to go power of sale or foreclosure to throw the taxpayer out of their home based on this tax lien. Rather, they will just wait until the taxpayer either sells the home or tries to renew or refinance a mortgage.

In the case of a sale, they will get their tax lien paid out of the sale proceeds. In the case of a mortgage renewal or refinancing, mortgage lenders will not do a new mortgage loan or a refinancing with the CRA lien on property. This is how they get their money.

Keep in mind that the lien is only against the taxpayer’s interest in the home. So if the tax debtor is the sole owner, it is against 100% of the home. If the taxpayer owns the home jointly with say, a spouse, then the lien is only against the 50% interest.

cra lien on property

CRA lien on property: Can Canada Revenue Agency put a lien on my house?

You should now know that the answer to this question is yes. Licensed insolvency trustees know this. Nevertheless, in the British Columbia case I will describe now, the Trustee tried a novel, but an unsuccessful, approach to try to knock out CRA’s lien on property secured claim to collect taxes owed by the tax debtor. I am referring to Gidda (Re), 2021 BCSC 1460 (CanLII).

The licensed insolvency trustee appealed the decision of the Master as Bankruptcy Registrar dated February 3, 2020, reversing the Trustee’s rejection of a secured proof of claim filed by the federal Crown on behalf of the CRA in the bankruptcy. As well, the Trustee appealed the Master’s ruling that he is personally liable for the costs of the proceeding.

The CRA has taken out a memorial to attach a lien in favour of CRA to the taxpayer’s home due to unpaid income taxes. Then he filed for bankruptcy. So the lien against property holds as it came before the bankruptcy. A secured proof of claim for unpaid income tax was filed by the CRA in response to the memorial and registered tax lien. A secured claim was granted to CRA, which was not directly contested by the Trustee.

In my opinion, this claim, however, was handled by the Trustee in a novel way that wasn’t sustainable. It was so novel that the Judge took judicial notice of the submissions that such a case was never litigated before in Canada. There were also a number of judgments against the title of the property in addition to the memorial. There was no priority among the other judgments.

According to section 70(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA), bankruptcy takes precedence over judgments, garnishments, and any collection action. Furthermore, no judgment takes precedence over another.

A memorial is a judgment of the Federal Court, and since all judgments are treated equally as unsecured creditors, the Trustee disallowed CRA’s secured claim. Because the memorial and its registration against the title are secured claims under other federal statutes, it has powers not given to other simple money judgments. Therefore, I believe it is a losing argument. So did the Master.

In addition, the Master believed that the Trustee ought to have been aware of this when disallowing CRA’s secured claim and causing it to appeal the Trustee’s decision. Therefore, the Master awarded the Crown costs to be paid by the Trustee personally.

On both counts, the Trustee appealed the Master’s decision. The Judge who reviewed this found that the Master was correct in upholding the CRA secured claim and dismissed this portion of the Trustee’s appeal. The Judge did, however, let the Trustee off the hook by allowing the costs portion of the appeal. According to the Judge, the costs awarded by the Master will be paid by the bankruptcy estate and not by the Trustee personally.

CRA lien on property: Say goodbye to debt stress

I hope that you found this CRA lien on property Brandon Blog informative. Unpaid taxes and a heavy debt load do not mix well. If you have too much debt, you are considered insolvent. There are several insolvency processes available to you. It may not be necessary for you to file for bankruptcy.

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

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as an alternative to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

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

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

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

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

cra lien on property

Brandon Blog Post

A BANKRUPTCY DISCHARGED IS THE KEY TO HEARTWARMING DEBT ELIMINAT1ON

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date August 23, 2021

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

**Your Bankruptcy Discharged – But Wait**

Well, that took no time at all. Last week I told you about a bankruptcy discharge hearing I attended where the bankrupt person had his bankruptcy discharged by the Master in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice In Bankruptcy and Insolvency.

The Master’s decision was released on August 13, 2021. On August 20, 2021, we received the Notice of Motion of the opposing creditor appealing the Master’s decision to give this person his discharge from bankruptcy. That is their right.

In this Brandon Blog, I want to discuss the reasons for the opposition to the fact that this bankrupt had his bankruptcy discharged and my thoughts on one scenario of how this may play out. First, I just want to refresh your memory about the bankruptcy process and specifically how the discharge under bankruptcy law in Canada process works. Then I will get into this real-life story.

Bankruptcy is a roughly 9-month legal process to eliminate debt for the simplest of cases

Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) gives people the option of filing a debt management plan restructuring consumer proposal if they are unable to pay back all unsecured debt owing to their unsecured creditors. This option offers the consumer a way to maybe keep their home and car that is heavily financed, as long as they can maintain the payments to the secured creditors such as the financial institution who financed the purchase of the home by way of the mortgage, or the auto loan, and it makes sense in their budget.

A successful consumer proposal is also the way to avoid bankruptcy. Like bankruptcy, the process starts with a no-cost consultation for financial advice with a licensed insolvency trustee. A licensed trustee is the only party able to administer a consumer proposal in Canada (or a bankruptcy). The Trustee can help you lose your debt load.

A first-time bankrupt who fulfills all of their obligations, including attending 2 mandatory credit counselling sessions, is entitled to a discharge after 9 months from the date of bankruptcy.

A bankruptcy discharged: First and second bankruptcy (or more)

When an insolvent debtor files for bankruptcy for a second time, you cannot be discharged after a nine months bankruptcy period. When you don’t need to pay the Trustee any surplus income payments, a second bankruptcy lasts for a minimum of 24 months. A second-time bankruptcy filer with surplus income must make those payments for 36 months to qualify to get their bankruptcy discharged.

A third or subsequent bankruptcy follows the same timeline as a second bankruptcy. There is, however, a high probability that the Trustee or creditors will oppose the discharge. Where there is opposition, there must be a court bankruptcy discharge hearing and the court can impose any conditions it deems appropriate.

What does bankruptcy discharged mean in Canada?

It is a Canadian legal term used to describe the release of a consumer debtor or business proprietorship from their obligations, responsibilities, debts, and legal claims. “Bankruptcy” is a legal proceeding to protect the estate of a person or company. “Discharge” fulfills the requirement that a person is released from their obligations, responsibilities, debts, and legal claims through the bankruptcy process. There is no equivalent requirement for a company.

The insolvent debtor filing for bankruptcy merely invokes the legal protection to the person and puts a bankruptcy trustee in place to realize upon any available assets in the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of the creditors. Bankruptcy filings do not relieve the person of their debts. It is when the person is bankruptcy discharged, that they are released from their debts (other than for a select list of exceptions).

Bankruptcy discharged: Types of bankruptcy discharge

The licensed insolvency trustee can usually issue an automatic discharge when there is no trustee in bankruptcy opposition or creditor opposition to a bankrupt’s application for discharge, and the bankrupt has fulfilled all of their duties during bankruptcy.

In case of opposition or if the bankrupt meets one of the criteria that prevents automatic discharge (for example, the bankruptcy process finds the bankrupt to have a high tax debt situation), a discharge hearing in court is held, which is conducted by the Master of the Bankruptcy Court. There are four types of the bankruptcy discharge and a fifth outcome is also possible. Here they are:

Absolute discharge – An absolute discharge means that the bankrupt may obtain a discharge immediately. If the bankrupt has fulfilled all of their duties and there is no insolvency trustee or creditor opposition, this can be provided by the licensed insolvency trustee of the bankruptcy estate handling the bankruptcy administration;
Conditional discharge – can get discharged if certain conditions are met. Typically, to get bankruptcy discharged this way, conditions include payment to the licensed insolvency trustee;
Suspended – the bankruptcy discharge will be granted at a later date and may very well be combined with an absolute bankruptcy discharge or conditional bankruptcy discharge;
Refused– because the debtor has not made full disclosure or done other bankruptcy duties; or
“No order” – the insolvency trustee informs the court that the bankrupt has not fulfilled all of his or her obligations and has failed to respond to the Trustee’s demands for information despite the passing of time. The licensed insolvency trustee is at liberty to seek its discharge when the “no order” order is provided. When the bankrupt has actually complied with the court’s requirements, he or she may apply for a hearing for discharge. When the Trustee gets its discharge, the stay of proceedings preventing collection actions against the bankrupt disappears.

A bankruptcy discharged: The appeal just served upon us – a true story

To refresh your memory about the discharge hearing itself you can CLICK HERE. The appeal just served upon us seeks an Order setting aside the decision of the Master made on August 13, 2021. The grounds for the appeal can be described as throwing everything including the kitchen sink! The stated grounds are that the Learned Registrar erred:

by granting the bankrupt an absolute discharge from bankruptcy;
in holding that the Receiver’s interest in the discharge application is not firmly established and by not recognizing that should the Receiver be paid an amount in excess of the debt owed to the secured creditor, any surplus funds would be available for the other creditors of the
corporate bankruptcy estate;
in holding that the discharge hearing is not the proper forum in which to make determinations as to the propriety of the various transactions that the Receiver has raised;
in finding that the bankrupt has generally cooperated with me as his Trustee;
in declining to consider the bankrupt’s conduct in the corporate bankruptcy because that the trustee in the corporate bankruptcy had remedies available to it;
in finding that the failure of the company’s business was due to the loss of its 1 customer and pricing related to that arrangement;
in relying on her finding that the corporate trustee may be the only truly interested party on the discharge or would benefit most from the conditional order sought if the secured debt is otherwise repaid;
in exercising her discretion in finding that an order of discharge requiring payment of the significant amount proposed by the Receiver is not reasonable;
in finding that the bankrupt has no ability to pay and that his future prospects to pay are unknown;
in finding that an order for a conditional discharge of the magnitude sought would be tantamount to a refusal;
by omitting to consider relevant evidence or the absence thereof, in relying on irrelevant considerations, and/or giving improper weight to the evidence before the Court; and
anything else the lawyers may want to say.
bankruptcy discharged

Standard of review to getting a personal bankruptcy discharged

Such an appeal from a bankruptcy discharge hearing has a standard of review. According to BIA S. 192(1), the bankruptcy registrar can, among other things, grant orders of discharge. S. 192(4) of the BIA permits a party dissatisfied with a registrar’s order or decision to appeal it to a judge.

Registrars are exercising judicial discretion when granting discharges in bankruptcy cases. As long as the registrar acted reasonably, the judge should not set it aside or ignore it. Furthermore, if an appeal from a bankruptcy discharge order is based on alleged errors in factual findings, the court will not intervene if the findings of fact can be justified based on credible evidence. If the registrar has materially misinterpreted the law or made an error in respect of the facts underpinning his or her discretion, discretionary decisions can, of course, be overturned.

If the registrar decides that in order for the person to get their bankruptcy discharged, the court imposes conditions, those conditions must be realistic to allow the bankrupt to meet the requirements in a reasonable amount of time. If an amount ordered in order for the person to get their bankruptcy discharged is unrealistic and the discharge is conditional on making additional payments, the appellate court in such cases previously held that results in an error of law. The appellate judge can either substitute other conditions or refer the matter back to the registrar for reconsideration.

A bankruptcy discharged: What my gut is telling me

I normally am not in the prediction business. However, having been the insolvency trustee responsible for administering the consumer bankruptcy, having written the reports to the court on the bankrupt’s application for discharge, having attended the discharge hearing and having heard all the evidence, having read the Registrar’s decision and the Appeal documentation, I believe that the appeal should be dismissed.

You might recall that opposing the bankrupt getting bankruptcy discharged was the Receiver of the company previously operated by the bankrupt. As a result of complaints regarding the bankrupt and his family in relation to the company’s operations, the Receiver has filed lawsuits against several parties. The proceedings are still pending. According to previous court rulings, the court should not consider the issues raised in other proceedings when deciding whether to discharge the bankrupt. A discharge hearing is a summary proceeding. It is important to see how the debtor behaved during HIS bankruptcy.

As for the judge’s decision, only time will tell. I’ll keep you up to date as always.

Bankruptcy discharged summary

I hope that you found this bankruptcy discharged Brandon Blog helpful in telling this real-life story of an appeal to a person getting their bankruptcy discharged. Problems will arise when you are cash-starved and in debt. There are several insolvency processes available to a person or company with too much debt. You may not need to file for bankruptcy.

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

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Brandon Blog Post

TENANTS IN COMMON VS JOINT TENANCY IN ONTARIO: THE MODERN RULES OF A 1 CO-OWNER UNHAPPY BANKRUPTCY

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date August 4, 2021

tenants in common vs joint tenancy

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Tenants in common vs joint tenancy in Ontario: Shared ownership of property

There are two different types of property joint ownership: tenants in common vs joint tenancy. Whether you’re married or not, you still face the same problems. Having a co-owned home raises the issue of how the title should be held; tenants in common vs joint tenancy. Both are equally good. The answer really depends on the relationship between the co-owners and their estate planning needs.

A bankruptcy filing by one of the co-owners complicates matters further. A recent bankruptcy case decision in Ontario where only one of the joint owners filed for bankruptcy, highlights the problem, especially for non-bankrupt co-owner. This Brandon Blog discusses the recent bankruptcy case and what it means for both the bankrupt co-owner and the non-bankrupt co-owner regardless of the ownership choices between tenants in common vs joint tenancy.

Home ownership in Ontario: tenants in common vs joint tenants as co-owners

The word “tenants” is normally thought of with property rental. But both joint tenancy and tenants in common reference to a type of shared property ownership. As tenants in common, the ownership rights and all areas of an entire property are owned equally by all members of the group.

When one of the joint tenants dies, the deceased owner‘s share of the property passes to the surviving owner without going through the probate process. With tenants in common, in the event of death, this is not the case.. For asset protection and estate planning purposes, many married couples who want to hold title to the real property in a co-ownership structure, do so as joint tenants to avoid the probate process. Each joint tenant owns a 50% share ownership stake in the property.

Tenants in common may freely decide what ownership percentage of the property each owns. Each tenant in common does not need to own an equal percentage of the property; unequal ownership is fine as long as all co-owners agree on the ownership arrangements of unequal shares. The tenants in common can also transfer their share of the property through a Will, a real estate transfer, or even an arm’s length sale. Tenants in common are well advised to have a signed co-ownership agreement that spells everything out.

This is the primary difference between tenants in common vs joint tenancy in Ontario for the joint ownership of real property.

Property ownership part 2: tenants in common vs joint tenants in Ontario and the bankruptcy of 1 co-owner

When a co-owner becomes bankrupt, what happens? The Brandon Blog faithful knows that I have previously explained that upon bankruptcy of a person, the non-exempt assets of the bankrupt should be vested in the licensed insolvency trustee, subject to secured creditors‘ rights. For real estate ownership, the answer does not change whether title is held in tenants in common vs joint tenancy.

There is an exemption in Ontario for equity in one’s home of not more than $10,783. It is not an exemption for the first $10K, but rather if the total equity is below that amount. Therefore, we can consider the equity in a bankrupt person’s ownership interest in their home to belong to the Trustee for all practical purposes.

If the bankrupt has a 50% ownership stake due to a joint tenancy agreement, then it is the bankrupt’s equity in half the home. If the bankrupt’s ownership stake is under a tenants in common co-ownership agreement, then it is the equity in only the bankrupt’s co-ownership share. In either scenario, the ownership interest of the non-bankrupt owners are not directly affected. However, the other co-owners’ are affected one way or the other by the bankruptcy of a co-owner. The legal case I am about to tell you about is no exception.

Land Owner Transparency Registry: A Public Database

Upon the person’s bankruptcy, the bankrupt must disclose all assets to the Trustee. With computerization and the internet, it is easy for a Trustee to determine if the bankrupt has an ownership interest in the real estate where they reside. This is whether or not the bankrupt has disclosed such ownership interest.

The decision of the Honourable Justice Pattillo of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Bankruptcy and Insolvency dated July 28, 2021, in Re Johansen Bankruptcy, 2021 ONSC 5241 (CanLII) highlights the issues in the bankruptcy of a co-owner of real estate. In December 2016, Mr. Johansen filed a voluntary bankruptcy assignment. In his sworn statement of affairs, he listed no realizable assets and liabilities of $73,968 (unsecured) and $14,950 (secured). No mention is made of any ownership in real estate.

The Trustee learned of the bankrupt’s interest in the home he lived in with his mother in March 2017. In the period from April 2017 to October 2020, the Trustee wrote to the bankrupt and Mrs. Johansen as well as spoke to the bankrupt several times about his interest in the home and why it hadn’t been disclosed. The bankrupt did not provide any information other than denying interest in the property, and his mother did not respond.

A FedEx courier envelope containing a one-page statutory declaration purportedly signed by Mrs. Johansen on October 18, 2018, arrived at the Trustee on October 16, 2020. Her declaration stated, in part, that putting the 20% in the bankrupt’s name was intended to provide her son with an interest in her Estate over and above any other entitlements under her Will. According to her, the 20% was a gift to be realized only after her death.

In the Trustee’s view, the bankrupt and his mother are playing games with each other. The Trustee applied to the court for a declaration that the bankrupt held a 20% interest in the home at the time of bankruptcy, and that he could partition and sell it. Despite the Trustee having a lawyer, the bankrupt represented himself. It would have been better if he had gotten legal advice and been represented in court.

Tenants In Common vs Joint Tenancy: Can your 90-year-old mother be thrown out of her house?

The Judge determined that the bankrupt owned a 20% interest in the property based on the legal title, and hence, that 20% interest vested in the Trustee pursuant to s. 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

Mrs. Johansen’s statutory declaration to the effect that the bankrupt did not own the real estate and that the 20% was a gift that only passes to him on her death was not accepted by the Judge. The declaration was signed some two years after the bankruptcy when the Trustee’s ownership interest was well known. Despite repeated requests from the Trustee for information, it was not produced for another two years. In addition to what was noted by the Judge, his main concern was the way she characterized the bankrupt’s interest, given the evidence concerning the property they owned before this home, which Mrs. Johansen failed to mention.

Mrs. Johansen and the former marriage of the bankrupt’s wife, as well as the bankrupt, were the three parties on title to the home they purchased on January 30, 2007. They obtained a mortgage from TD Bank on January 30, 2007, which was discharged on February 21, 2007. Due to a marital split, the bankrupt’s wife was removed from the legal title on October 17, 2008, leaving just his mother Mrs. Johansen and himself as parties on the legal title. The bankrupt admitted that his ex-wife was paid for her interest in that home. On June 28, 2012, the bankrupt and his mother sold that home for $567,000, and the same day purchased the current home for $450,000.

The home was purchased in 2012. The title documents recorded at the time, its ownership is divided between 20% owned by the bankrupt and 80% owned by Mrs. Johansen. Mrs. Johansen and the bankrupt both signed the Land Transfer Tax affidavit showing as between tenants in common vs joint tenancy they chose to own the home as tenants in common. There are no mortgages recorded on the title.

All title searches, including a current title search, did not reveal the nature of the interests of each of Mrs. Johansen, the bankrupt or his ex-wife held in that previous home. However, it did show that each of them had an interest in it. The Judge determined that when Mrs. Johansen and the bankrupt bought the current home, it is a reasonable conclusion that the bankrupt had a 20% ownership interest in it. It was not intended to only pass on Mrs. Johansen’s death.

Justice Pattillo did not accept the bankrupt’s evidence that he has no interest in the property and had no knowledge that he was one of the parties on title. Given the history and the fact that he signed the affidavit of Land Transfer Tax at the time of purchase, Justice Pattillo held that the bankrupt was aware he had an interest in the legal title in the property.

Justice Pattillo found that the Trustee had the standing to bring the application for partition or sale of the property since he is a person with an interest in it. The Judge noted that Mrs. Johansen is 90 years old and does not wish to sell her home. Based on the evidence, however, he did not consider that to be of sufficient hardship to warrant refusing the requested remedy.

Tenants in common vs joint tenancy: The bankruptcy of 1 co-owner will affect the others

The Judge stayed his order for three months. He encouraged the bankrupt and through him his mother to seek professional advice so that this issue can be resolved with the Trustee before the sale process begins. The order will take effect if a resolution is not reached within that timeframe.

Now that the prospect of the sale of the entire home, not just the bankrupt’s co-ownership interest, was a reality, the bankrupt and his mother needed professional guidance. Their professional advice would be that the Trustee is only entitled to 20% of the bankrupt’s equity interest. So, if the mother from her own funds, or by getting a mortgage, can come up with the value of the 20% interest and pay it to the Trustee, then the house will not get sold. She will have bought the bankrupt son’s 20% interest, and the Trustee will have all the money he is entitled to.

If one co-owner goes bankrupt, the other co-owners are affected as well. It is the Trustee’s responsibility to convert the bankrupt’s equity into cash. One or more of the remaining co-owners are the natural buyers of the bankrupt co-owner’s interest. Sometimes non-bankrupt co-owners must sell, as is the case for Johansen if the mother cannot purchase the son’s equity from the Trustee, but most often someone will purchase the Trustee’s equity to maintain the status quo.

Had the choice of ownership interest as between tenants in common vs joint tenancy, this would not have changed the outcome of this case.

A lawyer can help you understand tenants in common vs joint tenancy in Ontario

I hope that you found the tenants in common vs joint tenancy Brandon Blog interesting. Problems will arise when you or your company are in financial distress, cash-starved and cannot repay debts. There are several insolvency processes available to a company or a person with too much debt.

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

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

The Ira Smith Team utilizes new modern-day ways to get you out of your debt difficulties with debt relief options as alternatives to bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve. Our professional advice will create for you a personalized debt-free plan for you or your company during our no-cost initial consultation.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

tenants in common vs joint tenancy

Brandon Blog Post

REVERSE VESTING ORDER: 1 REMARKABLE CREATIVE WAY TO DO FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date August 2, 2021

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

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

Vesting order and reverse vesting order

In a corporate insolvency case, a court may grant a vesting order, which authorizes the sale of a company’s assets to the buyer once the purchase price is paid. A vesting order vests ownership in the purchaser as a result of this court order. This is proof that the purchaser is entitled to transfer the assets into its name. No matter what insolvency process is used, this is the use of a vesting order.

In the past year or so, a new trend has emerged regarding the sale of the assets of insolvent companies as part of a restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). That new trend is the use of a reverse vesting order.

In this Brandon Blog, I explain what a reverse vesting order is and why I believe its use will be a significant feature of Canadian firm restructurings in 2021 and beyond.

Reverse vesting order – A powerful tool for maximizing recovery in complex insolvencies

A reverse vesting order can be very useful in complex insolvencies. A timely recovery can benefit creditors, and the process can maximize recoveries for all parties. Reverse vesting orders are a good solution for an insolvent debtor corporation when:

there are a large number of secured creditors, unsecured creditors and assets;
all of the assets do not have an immediate buyer;
the company is insolvent; and
the company must deal with unwanted assets and a group of creditors in a particular way.

It is best used in a large-scale CCAA corporate restructuring but is not limited to that.

reverse vesting order

Reverse vesting order as a third restructuring tool

There have traditionally been two insolvency processes available to licensed insolvency trustees, insolvency lawyers, and company stakeholders. The two are (i) liquidating assets; and (ii) reorganizing companies. In general, assets are liquidated through either receivership or bankruptcy. Incorporated companies can restructure either under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) or, for larger and more complex restructurings, under the CCAA. It is obvious that assets must be sold in order to liquidate them.

Sometimes, as part of a corporate restructuring, there are redundant and unwanted assets that can be sold to raise cash. The question is, what if the real value, especially a going-concern value of a company in a commercial insolvency case is not in its tangible assets. Rather, its real value lies in:

the ability to operate in a specific industry and such licenses cannot be sold by their very nature and wording – think of the cannabis and nursing home industries as two examples;
tax losses and tax attributes that can be monetized if the licensed insolvency trustee is also able to take over the shares; or
being listed on the stock exchange and thus as a public company having a greater market value than a private corporation.

As a result, it is extremely difficult to realize any value from such assets.

What is the importance of the reverse vesting order? How a reverse vesting order works will tell you all you need to know about why it is important as a third restructuring tool. Under a reverse vesting order, a newly incorporated residual corporation is added as a party to the CCAA proceedings.

As part of the CCAA restructuring, the operating debtor company transfers undesirable assets and liabilities to the newly incorporated non-operating company. With its assets and liabilities selected by the purchaser, the debtor company holds only the desirable assets and liabilities, which means its common shares can be sold rather than the company’s assets. As a result, valuable permits, contracts, tax losses, and statutory authority are preserved, which can otherwise be lost in a disposition of assets.

Why is reverse vesting order important?

A reverse vesting order is an alternative to the traditional CCAA plans of arrangement, particularly for companies operating in highly regulated environments or when there is no value remaining after the realization of secured debt and the parties intend to continue the running of the debtor company.

A reverse vesting order is an alternative to the traditional CCAA plans of arrangement, particularly for companies operating in highly regulated environments or when there is no value remaining after the realization of secured debt and the parties plan to continue operating the debtor company.

By using a reverse vesting order, existing corporations, which have been streamlined to become solvent through an innovative solution, are transferred to new investors instead of desirable assets being sold through a court-approved sale. The debtor corporation that initially filed for bankruptcy protection under the CCAA can now be removed from the restructuring proceedings. There are certain unwanted assets and unwanted liabilities that are transferred to the newly incorporated residual corporation. There can then be asset sales allowing for some sort of distribution to creditors (either in a plan of arrangement or in bankruptcy) in order to allow some creditor recovery.

A reverse vesting order may prove to be the most efficient approach to facilitate a going concern operation transfer through restructuring proceedings, letting businesses emerge from CCAA proceedings quickly without having filed a plan of arrangement, while preserving key attributes of the corporate entity and its existing corporate structure.

Legal challenges to the use of reverse vesting orders have been unsuccessful. I would like to discuss the case of Nemaska Lithium Inc.

Reverse vesting order issued by Québec Superior Court after first contested hearing

In December 2019, Nemaska Lithium Inc. and related companies (Nemaska Lithium or the Nemaska entities) commenced CCAA proceedings. A lithium mining project was developed in Quebec by them. A CCAA judge approved an uncontested sale or investment solicitation process (SISP) in January 2020 that led to the acceptance of a bid that was subject to the condition that a reverse vesting order is issued.

A proposed reverse vesting order provides that Nemaska entities will be acquired by the bidder free of the claims of the unsecured creditors, which will be transferred as part of a pre-closing reorganization to a newly incorporated non-operating company.

The reverse vesting order will allow the purchaser to continue to operate the Nemaska entities in a highly regulated environment by maintaining their existing permits, licences, authorizations, essential contracts, and fiscal attributes. In essence, it is a credit bid in which the shares of the Nemaska entities are acquired in exchange for the assumption of the secured debt.

A shareholder (who was also an alleged creditor) filed motions opposing the reverse vesting order issuance on multiple grounds, including:

a vesting order cannot be granted for anything other than a sale or disposition of assets through a vesting order for sales of assets;
the reverse vesting order is not permissible under the CCAA because it allows the Nemaska entities to exit CCAA protection outside of a plan of arrangement or plan of compromise;
this reverse vesting order contemplated a corporate reorganization that is not permitted by securities laws; and
in light of the proposed transaction, the directors and officers of Nemaska Lithium Inc. should not be released.

The Honourable Justice Gouin, J.S.C., reviewed and assessed:

the SISP process which led to the offer;
the lack of alternatives to the offer;
the potential harm to Nemaska Lithium‘s stakeholders, including its employees, creditors, suppliers, and the Cree community;
stopping the restructuring process to relaunch a SISP in the future following what was already a thorough examination of the market or, alternatively,
bankrupting the Nemaska entities.

In light of all these factors, the judge approved the reverse vesting order on October 15, 2020. Limiting the remedies available under the CCAA would unnecessarily hinder the development of innovative solutions for more complex commercial and social issues in Canadian insolvency matters.

The decision and formal recognition of reverse vesting order by the Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal the CCAA judge‘s decision was sought by the parties who objected to the reverse vesting order being made. The Appellate Court carefully considered the judge’s decision-making process and particularly that the Québec Superior Court judge relied extensively on the principles set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of 9354-9186 Quebec inc. c. Callidus Capital Corp., namely the:

development of CCAA proceedings and the role of the CCAA supervising judge;
remedial objectives of Canadian insolvency laws to provide timely, efficient, and impartial resolution of a debtor’s insolvency, secure fair and equitable treatment of creditors’ claims against a debtor, protect the public interest, and balance the costs and benefits of restructuring or liquidating the debtor company’s assets;
CCAA‘s goal of preventing social and economic losses from liquidating insolvent companies by facilitating their reorganization and survival as a going concern; and
CCAA judge‘s broad discretion under s. 11 of the CCAA in an effort to advance the CCAA’s remedial objectives while taking into account three fundamental factors that the debtor company application must prove: (1) the requested order is appropriate in the circumstances, and (2) good faith on the part of the applicant, and (3) the applicant has been acting with due diligence.

It was determined by the Court of Appeal judge that the risk of potential harm to stakeholders outweighed any legal merits of any arguments raised by the opposing parties. Therefore, the Quebec Court of Appeal denied the leave to appeal the decision of the CCAA judge.

Canada’s Supreme Court has denied leave to appeal. Having now established reverse vesting as an option for CCAA restructurings, the law is now set in stone.

The Nemaska case is the first reverse vesting order transaction to withstand judicial scrutiny in Canada and reaffirms the flexibility of CCAA proceedings for distressed M&A transactions of distressed businesses.

Reverse vesting order and distressed M&A opportunities

I hope that you found this reverse vesting order Brandon Blog interesting. Problems will arise when you or your company are in business distress, cash-starved and cannot repay debts. There are several insolvency processes available to a company or a person with too much debt.

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

It is not your fault that you remain in this way. You have actually been only shown the old ways to try to deal with financial issues. These old ways do not work anymore.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy and secure during this COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Tags 9354-9186 Quebec inc. c. Callidus Capital Corp., Appellate Court, Bankruptcy, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, Canadian insolvency, CCAA, CCAA judge, CCAA proceedings for distressed M&A transactions, CCAA supervising judge, commercial insolvency, Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, corporate insolvency, corporate reorganization, corporate restructuring, court-approved sale, covid-19 pandemic, debtor company, debtor corporation, distressed businesses, going-concern value, insolvency processes, insolvent, insolvent companies, Ira Smith Trustee, leave to appeal, Nemaska entities, Nemaska Lithium Inc., newly incorporated non-operating company, newly incorporated residual corporation, plan of arrangement, plan of compromise, plans of arrangement, receivership, remedial objectives, restructuring tool, reverse vesting order, Reverse vesting order as a third restructuring tool, Reverse vesting order issued by Québec Superior Court after first contested hearing, Reverse vesting order – A powerful tool for maximizing recovery in complex insolvencies, sale or investment solicitation process, secured creditors, SISP, Supreme Court of Canada, The decision and formal recognition of reverse vesting order, undesirable assets, unsecured creditors, unwanted assets, vesting order, vesting orders, Why is reverse vesting order important

Brandon Blog Post

CCAA CANADA: OUR EXTRAORDINARY GUIDE TO 2020 TROUBLED CANADIAN COMPANIES SEEKING BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date August 10, 2020

The Ira Smith Team is totally operational and both Ira and Brandon Smith are here for a telephone consultation, conference calls and virtual meetings.

Keep healthy and safe everybody.

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

CCAA Canada introduction

We are now about 5 months into this COVID-19 pandemic since the state of emergency was announced in Canada. There has also been a lot of media coverage of the many negative effects it has had on Canadians and the Canadian economy. I thought it might be interesting at this point to do some review on CCAA Canada. Now I am not talking about the Canadian Collegiate Athletic Association. Rather, I am going to look at the companies that have so far filed for creditor protection under one of Canada’s insolvency statutes. The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

When a company tries to reorganize under CCAA Canada – What does CCAA mean?

When Canadian companies who owe more than $5 million experience financial problems, they might go to court to seek creditor protection, filing under the CCAA Canada. That’s federal legislation that primarily offers a company time to try to work out its financial troubles with those to which it owes money.

As I have written before in various Brandon’s Blogs, if the company owes less than $5 million it can file under the Part III Division I reorganization section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). Although it is the other Canadian federal insolvency statute and some procedures are more streamlined and handled slightly differently, the net effect is the same as the matters I explain below about the CCAA Canada.

What does CCAA Canada protection mean? CCAA vs Chapter 11

“Bankruptcy protection” is a term closely associated with a US company filing under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. That term has been adopted into the Canadian insolvency dialogue. In Canada, it most likely means that the Canadian company has applied to a Canadian court to look for protection from their creditors by filing under CCAA Canada.

A firm files under CCAA Canada for consent to come up with a restructuring plan strategy that would certainly provide it time to rearrange its financial affairs to make sure that it can keep operating.

As long as a CCAA order continues to be in place, creditors are not allowed to start or continue any kind of action to recover money owed to them. They can’t try to confiscate the firm’s property or try to petition it into bankruptcy, without the prior approval of the court. This is called the CCAA stay of proceedings.

Considering that a CCAA Canada filing is made because a business is deeply in the red, the initial order of business is to strike some kind of satisfactory arrangement with its creditors. That includes secured creditors, unsecured creditors and shareholders.

Can CCAA Canada protection be extended?

Yes, under CCAA Canada, court-ordered protection can be extended. After Algoma Steel filed under CCAA Canada in April 2001, the firm had gotten eight extensions prior to emerging with a new ownership framework.

Who gets priority under a CCAA Canada filing?

Not all creditors are treated equally. There is a priority generally established for the ranking of creditors and the order in which they might be paid by a debtor.

First in a CCAA Canada restructuring, will be any government claims that rank as a priority deemed trust claim. Next will be any new charges ordered by the court as part of the restructuring. Examples of such court-ordered security charges are Key Employee Retention Plans, financing the company needs in order to survive during the restructuring period and the costs of the professionals involved in the restructuring for the company.

Secured creditors, including lenders and bondholders, usually head the list next when it concerns getting back their money. Secured creditors might hold security such as a general security agreement and/or a mortgage as security for their debt held.

Unsecured creditors follow next on the list of creditors. Unsecured creditors have supplied goods or services on credit to the company without being given any security. In the many retailer filings that have been in the news recently, even customers who have paid deposits for items not yet picked up or who have gift cards are also unsecured creditors. Last on the list are the shareholders.

What happens if the court doesn’t approve a CCAA Canada application or the sides can’t agree on how to restructure debt?

If a restructuring effort is not successful, or if the court does not approve it, a company can be placed right into receivership or bankruptcy. The main difference between a CCAA Canada filing and the options of receivership or bankruptcy, suggests that the company can no longer be a going concern and will be liquidated.

The choice between receivership or bankruptcy depends on the nature and extent of the creditors. If there is a major secured creditor who is owed more than the assets are worth, on a failed restructuring, the court will allow that secured creditor to appoint a receiver (or the court will appoint the receiver). The receiver will then liquidate the company’s assets and repay the secured creditor as much as possible. If there are no secured creditors (which is highly unusual), or there will be money left over from the liquidation after full repayment of the secured creditors, then there will be bankruptcy. The licensed insolvency trustee acting as the bankruptcy trustee will make a distribution to the unsecured creditors.

Sometimes the type of company or industry will require both receivership and bankruptcy. Retail liquidations are a good example. The reasons are outside the main topic of discussion for this CCAA Canada Brandon’s Blog, but, one day, I will do one on that topic.

What happens to shareholders in a CCAA Canada restructuring?

Holders of common stock generally come last. On a regular basis in a CCAA Canada restructuring, they tend to get wiped out. Their old shares come to be worthless. Usually, brand-new shares are issued in the restructured company.

Holders of preferred shares rank ahead of common shareholders (for this reason the title “preferred”) yet more often than not do not get back the full value of their shares.

Public company shares in a company if it enters CCAA Canada protection and all trading is halted

When a public company announces that it has filed under CCAA Canada, a trading halt is applied. The listing exchange notifies the marketplace that trading is not taking place. While the stop is in effect, brokers are forbidden from publishing quotations or signs of interest in trading. The listing exchange will end the trading stop by taking the actions called for by its rules. Generally, the marketplace is alerted that a trading halt is about to end either at the same time the halt finishes or a few minutes before.

When a company gets on the edge of bankruptcy, its stock value mirrors the danger of a CCAA Canada administration becoming liquidation. Purely as an example, a business that used to trade at $50 might trade at $2 per share as a result of the bankruptcy environment. After entering into a CCAA Canada filing, the company’s stock price might be up to $2.10. This value is composed of the potential amount that shareholders might get after liquidation and also the possibility that the firm might restructure and run effectively in the future. Investors can buy and sell these $2.10 shares in the market. The actual value does not reach zero unless the likelihood of restructuring is so low that liquidation becomes a certainty.

While the company is in a CCAA Canada restructuring, its stock will certainly still have some value, though it will likely plummet. The regulatory authorities will watch it very closely and shut down trading if any anomalies are encountered where investors could get hurt. This was recently seen in the United States in the Hertz Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection administration.

Nonetheless, if the business restructures and emerges from CCAA Canada reorganization as a solvent going-concern, its share price might start to rise again. How much will depend on the unique restructuring issues. If a business rises from its restructuring stronger than ever, investors can take advantage of the turnaround, as old stock may get cancelled during the insolvency process, and new shares issued.

List of CCAA filings under CCAA Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic so far?

There have been many media reports about companies filing under CCAA Canada during this coronavirus pandemic. I thought it would be useful to look at which companies have filed and what industries seem to be most affected between the calling for the state of emergency and the last date for which these statistics have been published, July 31, 2020. All of this information comes from statistics published by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Canada.

The number of companies and the industries that these companies engage in is allocated as follows:

Cannabis	6
Charity	1
Construction	4
Energy	4
Entertainment	1
Hospitality	1
Manufacturing	1
Media	1
Mining	2
Pulp and Paper	1
Real Estate	2
Retail	8
Technology	1
Travel	1

	34

The following chart shows the filings by the province in this same time frame:

ccaa canada graph

CCAA Canada summary

I hope you enjoyed this CCAA Canada Brandon’s Blog. The Ira Smith Team family hopes you and your family are staying safe, healthy and well-balanced. Our hearts go out to every person who has been affected either through inconvenience or personal family tragedy.

We are all citizens of Canada and we have to coordinate our efforts to stop the spread of the coronavirus. Social distancing and self-quarantining are sacrifices that are not optional. Family members are literally separated from each other. We look forward to the time when things can return to something close to normal and we can all be together again physically.

Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. has always employed clean and safe habits in our professional practice and continues to do so.

Revenue and cash flow shortages are critical issues facing entrepreneurs and their companies and businesses. Should you take advantage of the CEBA? I say a resounding YES!. I just wanted to highlight all of the issues that you should consider.

If anyone needs our assistance, 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 totally operational and both Ira and Brandon Smith are here for a telephone consultation, conference calls and virtual meetings.

Keep healthy and safe everybody.

Brandon Blog Post

CANADA REVENUE AGENCY FOR INDIVIDUALS: 4 KILLER WAYS TO FULL LOAN RECOVERY

Post author By Brandon Smith
Post date May 13, 2020

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

Stay healthy, well balanced and safe and secure everyone.

Introduction

On July 4, 2018, my Brandon’s Blog MORTGAGE LENDING CRITERIA SELF EMPLOYED: BIGGEST MYTH MAY BE RIGHT, I described the case of Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2018 FC 538 (CanLII) which was heard in Federal Court. I described where the Federal Court ruled in favour of the claim of Canada Revenue Agency for individuals running an unincorporated business either as a proprietorship or in partnerships.

The Bank appealed the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The case was heard on October 8, 2019, in Toronto. The judgment was released at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 29, 2020. I want to remind you about the facts of the case, what was decided and provide my 4 killer ways that mortgage lenders to people who also run an unincorporated business, but you don’t lend to the business, can protect themselves.

The original Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank case

The original case was very simple. A man had a landscape design business he ran as a sole proprietor. In 2007 and 2008, prior to becoming a customer of the Bank, he collected GST that he did not pay over totalling $67,854.

In 2010, the Bank advanced both a mortgage loan and a home equity line of credit (HELOC) loan to the man. Security for both loans was registered against the man’s home. It was the Bank’s standard from mortgage and HELOC security documents. At the time, the Bank had no knowledge of the man’s Canada Revenue Agency for individuals’ liability for unremitted GST. There was no registration by the government against the man’s home for this outstanding tax amount either.

In late 2011, the man sold the home. His real estate lawyer issued two trust cheques to the Bank from the house sale. One paid off the mortgage and the other cheque paid off the HELOC. In return, the Bank discharged its mortgage and HELOC security charges and the house sale was completed.

In 2013 and 2015, the Canada Revenue Agency made deemed trust claims against the Bank under Section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (ETA) for the amount of the man’s collected and unremitted GST. GST or HST under the ETA and employee source deductions (amounts withheld by employers from salaries and wages paid to employees on account of income tax, the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance) under the Income Tax Act, that is collected but not remitted, forms a deemed trust claim against the assets of the business.

If the business is not a company, that is unincorporated, then there is no difference between the proprietor’s or partner’s personal assets and business assets. They are just assets of the person.

Canada Revenue Agency argued that the Bank was in possession of funds from the sale of the man’s property. The Crown also submitted that when the man sold his home, he was obliged to pay his GST obligation out of the sale proceeds. He did not do that. Rather, he used part of the money from the sale to pay the Bank off. Keep in mind the Bank was a secured creditor. The Crown further argued that under this scenario, the Bank had a statutory responsibility to pay the GST tax debt out of the money it received.

The Bank argued on its behalf that the repayment of the money only applied if there was an event that triggered other events leading to the repayment, such as a secured creditor enforcing its security.

The Federal Court disagreed and ruled in favour of the taxman.

The Canada Revenue Agency for individuals claim to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal

The Bank appealed the lower Court’s decision. The Bank’s appeal rested on three issues where they claimed that the Federal Court judge erred:

By finding that the deemed trust does not need an event that creates the crystallization around the assets.
In finding that secured creditors cannot avail themselves of the bona fide purchaser for value defence.
Ignored the fact that the Bank’s loans to the man had nothing to do with his business.

The Federal Court of Appeal judges went through a detailed analysis of cases and legislation. In the end, the Federal Court of Appeal did not find that the lower court judge erred in any way and dismissed the Bank’s appeal on all three grounds.

Triggering event – The Bank argued that the concept of priority can only be determined when there is an event that triggers competing claims to the priority over the assets. Since the right to a priority is essentially remedial in nature, it develops upon the enforcement action initiated by one or more creditors. When there is a competition between claimants, and it is obvious there will be a shortfall, that is when the Crown is able to assert its priority. Here, the Bank was not a secured lender at the time the Crown asserted its priority.

The appeal court decided that the lower court was correct. The relevant section of the Excise Tax Act creates a trust when there is unremitted GST or HST where the property is beneficially owned by Her Majesty in spite of any security interest in the property or in the sales proceeds thereof.

So the Bank was unsuccessful in this part of its argument.

Bona fide purchaser for value defence – This argument by the Bank is that it is a bona fide buyer for value of the cash paid to it by the debtor. Because the considered trust fund provisions of the Act do not extend to such buyers for the value the Bank submits that it is entitled to keep the funds provided in payment of the borrower’s HELOC and mortgage.

The appeal court ruled against this argument on the basis that if the bona fide purchaser for value defence was available to secured creditors who got paid off, it would render the deemed trust provision useless in probably every situation. The Court stated this was not Parliament’s intention.

The loans to the man had nothing to do with his business – This argument is that the court should distinguish between the taxpayer acting in his capacity as a business distinct from the tax debtor acting in a personal capacity. Further, it was argued that the Bank had no knowledge of the man’s business affairs.

The Court rejected this argument for two reasons. First, the statute that establishes the deemed trust states “…every person…”. It does not differentiate between different types of persons. Second, there was nothing in the evidence before the lower court that indicated what knowledge the Bank had about the man’s business.

4 killer ways to full loan recovery

So how can someone who lends money by way of a property mortgage on a personal residence of a self-employed person who runs an unincorporated business protect themselves? Here are our 4 killer ways:

The mortgagee needs to ask the question on the mortgage application to determine if the person is self-employed.
The proposed mortgagee must get a true copy of a statement from CRA showing that there are no amounts owing by the person on account of either unremitted HST/GST or source deductions as the employer of others. This condition should be in the term sheet for the loan being offered. The statement should be given before the lender advances the funds.
Lenders should add language to their term sheet, loan and security documents and discharge or other documents issued when the loan is repaid. The new language would be an attestation by the borrower that there are no amounts owing to any government authority that would be regarded to be a deemed trust claim.
Even more, the language would have to make it clear that in the event there were any kind of such claims, even if the mortgage loan was totally repaid, the borrower is still responsible to pay that additional amount to the lender. The lender would then pass on the deemed trust amount to Canada Revenue Agency for individuals.

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ira Smith Team is fully functional and Ira, together with Brandon Smith, is readily available for a telephone or video meeting no-cost strategy session.

Continue to be healthy, well balanced and protected everybody.

Tags Canada Pension Plan, Canada Revenue Agency, canada revenue agency for individuals, Canada v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, cra deemed trust claim, deemed trust, excise tax act, GST, heloc, home equity line of credit, hst, income tax act, Ira Smith Trustee, mortgage, partnership, proprietor, secured creditors, self employed, toronto-dominion bank