Tag: stay of proceedings

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY FACING INSOLVENCY MAKES STARTLING CCAA NEWS FILING FOR CREDITOR PROTECTION

We hope that you and your family are safe, healthy, and secure during this coronavirus 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 bottom and click play on the podcast.

laurentian university

UPDATE MAY 5, 2021: SEE OUR UPDATED BLOG PUBLISHED TODAY ON THE LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY INSOLVENCY CREDITOR PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS STATUS – CLICK HERE FOR THE UPDATE

Laurentian University introduction

Laurentian University is facing a cash crisis and has filed for creditor protection. The Ontario university states that the application under the federal Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) is intended to permit the university to continue running day-to-day operations during restructuring.

The Sudbury, Ontario school is not shutting down and will continue to provide services for students. It states it will keep normal operations and keep classes running. In this Brandon Blog, I talk about what creditor protection in the Canadian context is and why Laurentian University did so.

Laurentian University: What is creditor protection?

In its simplest terms, creditor protection is the protection you get when you start a proceeding with a filing under either the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) or the CCAA. Under the BIA, an individual or company gets that protection in either a consumer or corporate bankruptcy. This safeguard is also obtained by filing under the restructuring proposal provisions of the BIA. A company safeguards itself when it files for restructuring under the CCAA.

Once a filing is done, without getting special permission from the court, none of your creditors can start or continue legal action against the person or the company for the repayment of a debt or for any enforcement action against its assets.

Laurentian University, therefore, received its sheltering once it made its filing under the CCAA. When using this statute, it can also be called CCAA protection.

Below is the section titled “How the Laurentian University restructuring story begins”. I discuss its particular issues leading up to the need to file.

Laurentian University: What is a stay period?

The “time out” that a person or business gets from its creditors is called a stay period (Stay of Proceedings). Upon the agreement of the court to the initial filing, the result is that the court will issue an Order giving the company an initial 30 days of protection from creditors to allow for the preparation of the restructuring proposal called a Plan of Arrangement.

This initial stay can be extended by the court, as long as the judge is convinced that the company is acting in good faith and working expeditiously in sorting through the myriad of issues stopping it from putting together its Plan of Arrangement.

Laurentian University: What does CCAA mean

The CCAA is a Canadian federal law that helps companies in financial difficulties emerge from its difficulties. The company begins its reorganization proceeding with its application to the court and files for creditor protection to avail itself of the process for a company and its creditors to come to an agreement on how to reorganize the company’s debt, while the company continues to operate normally and pay amongst other things, wages to its employees.

One of the biggest advantages of the CCAA is that it allows a business to “hold the fort” while the creditors and the company work out an agreement that will hopefully get the company back on its feet. While operating in this fashion, company management remains in control of running the business. The company does not hand over its assets to a licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee). Rather, the Trustee is appointed by the court to act as Monitor.

As the title sounds, the role of the Monitor is that of the neutral court officer working with the company. The duties of the Monitor include:

  • overseeing and providing supervision of the company’s affairs;
  • assisting in the negotiations with creditors;
  • helping with the drafting of the Plan of Arrangement for describing what the restructuring process will be;
  • report regularly to the court on the progress and details of the restructuring administration, and ultimately,
  • conducting the meetings of the various classes of creditors where voting on the Plan of Arrangement takes place.

Although the CCAA is unique to the country of Canada, other countries have similar restructuring legislation. The most famous is probably Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. This is when you normally hear the term “bankruptcy protection“.

laurentian university

Laurentian University files to reorganize university finances

Last Fall, Laurentian University recognized it was in financial trouble. On October 1, 2020, it issued a press release advising that it has financial challenges brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic and its pre-existing structural deficit. It also announced at that time that it hired Ernst & Young as financial advisors to assist in a further review of its detailed financial results, budgets, and our various initiatives to help identify and analyze any additional opportunities for cost savings or improvement.

On February 1, 2021, facing insolvency, Laurentian University took the step to begin its insolvency proceeding under the CCAA in order to come up with a formal restructuring plan. Since it is in the early stages of the insolvency administration, the actual plan has not yet been developed as Laurentian University needs time to come up with the proper plan. It will be one of many future events I will keep my eye on for you.

From my review of the filing documents, I can tell you what the story is so far.

How the Laurentian University restructuring story begins

“We are working with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth process for students,” said Peter Baxter, the university’s provost and vice-president, academic.”

Who would’ve thought that universities, which are supposed to be institutions of higher learning, would actually run into financial problems and put their stakeholders at risk? But that’s exactly what happened and is the current situation with the Laurentian University insolvency in Sudbury, Ontario. I guess the place was not run by any of the finance profs! It is obviously a stressful time for all students, staff, faculty, and creditors.

Dr. Robert Haché, the President and Vice-Chancellor of the Laurentian University of Sudbury, swore the necessary affidavit on January 30, 2021, in support of Laurentian’s court application for an Initial Order to commence CCAA proceedings. In his affidavit, Dr. Haché stated:

  • Laurentian’s financial issues were first determined as early as 2008-09 when a prior administration gave a budget to the Board that would not be balanced for the 2008-2009 academic year and showed little to no improvement for the future financial prospects of the university absent any revised processes. The budget was approved, but the Board expected the financial situation to be fixed as a top priority item.
  • A Plan for Regaining Sustainability at Laurentian was presented to the school’s Board on December 18, 2008, and again on February 20, 2009. The Board approved the implementation of the plan, expecting to regain financial health over a three-year period.
  • Starting in 2014, Laurentian undertook a $64 million Campus Modernization Project for the construction of approximately 250,000 sq. ft. of classrooms, research, study as well as a public area.
  • The Campus Modernization Project involved Laurentian incurring a substantial amount of long-term debt (approximately $40 million) to pay for the construction of buildings and facilities to modernize the campus in order to accommodate its historical growth and fuel the projected enrolment growth. The university elected to defer repayment of the principal amounts borrowed until after construction was completed, leading to the accrual of further interest.
  • When the Board approved the 2016-17 operating budget, LU forecasted operational deficits continuing through 2021-22 leading to an accumulated operational deficit of greater than $43 million.
  • With the exception of the modest growth experienced in 2020, enrolment has declined each year from 2015 to 2018 and tuition fees remain low, while labour and debt servicing costs have grown substantially.
  • The 10% tuition reduction and tuition freeze ordered by the Province of Ontario beginning in 2019.
  • Laurentian’s academic costs are generally higher as a percentage of total costs than other Ontario universities.
  • Not re-evaluating over the last decade its programs to make sure it is focusing on those the marketplace of students deem relevant and required.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic has made all these issues worse.

From reading his sworn affidavit, I would use one simple word to describe what has led to the Laurentian University insolvency – MISMANAGEMENT! Dr. Haché joined Laurentian University in July 2019. So he has only been involved in this mess for the last 19 months.

What Laurentian University reports its immediate plans are by making this CCAA filing

Laurentian University reported that as at April 30, 2020, it had $358.5 million in assets based on generally accepted accounting principles. Of that total, only $33.2 million is either liquid or near-liquid. As at the same date, its liabilities are:

  • Line of credit $14.4 million
  • Short-term loan $1.4 million
  • Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $22.4 million
  • Accrued vacation pay $1.8 million
  • Deferred revenue $1.0 million
  • Current portion of long-term debt $2.7 million
  • Long-term debt $89 million
  • Employee future benefits liabilities $20.8 million
  • Deferred contributions $38.6 million
  • Deferred capital contributions $129.9 million

This adds up to $322 million. The balance sheet balances because the remainder represents either restricted capital or special purpose endowments.

Laurentian University advised the court that it intends to come back requesting an Amended and Restated Initial Order. Right now, Laurentian has the benefit of the Stay of Proceedings and will not be making any payments on any outstanding amounts owing as of February 1, 2021.

Among other things, the motion in respect of the Amended and Restated Initial Order will seek the following additional relief:

  • extending the Stay of Proceedings to April 30, 2021;
  • suspending Laurentian’s requirement to make certain special payments in respect of its defined benefit pension plan, pending further Order of the Court;
  • suspending Laurentian’s need to reply to requests for information received under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Ontario) during the Stay of Proceedings, nunc pro tunc to February 1, 2021;
  • the appointment of a mediator, as an officer of the Court and a neutral third party to undertake a mediation of various issues under the supervision of this Court, on an urgent basis;
  • approving Laurentian’s request for a debtor-in-possession credit facility (the “DIP Facility”) borrowing authority up to the principal amount of $25 million to finance its working capital requirements and other general corporate purposes, post-filing expenses and costs during the Stay of Proceedings.

The court has now declared that Laurentian University is insolvent. I will be following this CCAA administration and will write more blogs on material points of special interest as this restructuring winds its way through the court.

Laurentian University summary

I hope you enjoyed the Laurentian University Brandon Blog post. If you are concerned because you or your business are dealing with substantial debt challenges 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 while avoiding bankruptcy. We can get you the relief you need and so deserve.

The tension put upon you in such a time of uncertainty 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 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. We help many people and companies stay clear of 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, Contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. group today.

Call us now for a no-cost consultation.

We will get you or your business back up driving to healthy and balanced trouble-free operations and get rid of the discomfort factors in your life, Starting Over, Starting Now.

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

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

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

HOW BANKRUPTCIES WORK IN CANADA: 5 NEW CANADIAN INSOLVENCY LAW AMENDMENTS

how bankruptcies work in canada

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this how bankruptcies work in Canada Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on the podcast

Canadian bankruptcies laws

Last week I wrote about amendments to Canadian insolvency law for intellectual property rights in my Brandon’s Blog INSOLVENCY LAW CANADA AMENDMENTS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS In addition to the intellectual property rights amendments, other amendments affecting how bankruptcies work in Canada. They were enacted as of November 1, 2019. They too were part of the changes announced in the Canadian 2019 Budget.

Corporate bankruptcies Canada

Most of the amendments affect not just corporate bankruptcies. Receiverships and corporate financial restructuring are likewise affected. Even the operation of solvent companies is also affected. The amendments were made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36) (CCAA) and the Canada Business Corporations Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-44). I will focus on the changes to the BIA and CCAA.

The BIA and the CCAA modifications in the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1, are planned to boost retired life protection by making the insolvency treatment fairer and much more clear. In the legislation, the amendments fall under the heading “Enhancing Retirement Security”.

This issue remained in the news over the past two years. High profile insolvency situations such as Sears Canada and U.S. Steel Canada brought this matter to the forefront. I wrote a few blogs on the topic of proposals to change the BIA and CCAA. The proposals were meant to supply protection to senior citizens. This consisted of private members’ bills introduced by Hamilton Mountain NDP MP Scott Duvall, Bloc Québécois MP Marilène Gill and Senator Art Eggleton, P. C.

None of their Bills ever came close to being enacted. Rather, the Liberal government made some changes. Only time will tell if the changes I describe below will accomplish the stated goal of enhancing retirement security.

Insolvency and bankruptcy code amendments – BIA

The BIA amendments will apply to bankruptcy, receivership and BIA financial restructurings done under the Proposal section of the BIA. The amendments are aimed at several areas. All the insolvency amendments are for insolvency proceedings beginning on or after November 1, 2019.

1. Good faith

Section 4.2 of the BIA is amended by adding a good faith provision section(4.2)(1). The new language states that any interested person in any type of process under the BIA must act in good faith relative to those proceedings. New subsection 4.‍2(2) codifies a power for the Court. It now states that if the court is satisfied that an interested individual fails to act in good faith, on application by any other interested party, the Court might make any kind of order that it thinks is proper in the circumstances.

I would have hoped that acting in good faith was always a given. Previously, the Court had wide discretion in insolvency proceedings to make an order that it believed to be just and appropriate. I am not sure this new language adds much to “enhancing retirement security”, but at least now it is codified.

2. Registered disability savings plan

Before Budget Canada 2019, there was a gap when it came to a registered disability savings plan (RDSP). The gap was that unlike an RRSP or RRIF, there was no exemption for an RDSP in how bankruptcies work in Canada.

Now Paragraph 67(1)‍(b.‍3) of the BIA is amended to include the same exemption for an RDSP that an RRSP and RRIF enjoy. That is, the amounts in any of these funds are now exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy apart from property added to any such plan or fund in the twelve-month period before the date of bankruptcy.

3. Director liability – Inquiry into dividends, redemption of shares or compensation

Section 101(1) of the BIA has been amended. It now deals with certain transactions that 1 year before the corporation went bankrupt. The time period is within the day that is one year prior to the date of the initial bankruptcy event and ending on the date of the bankruptcy both such dates included. If the corporation had:

  • paid a dividend, aside from a stock dividend;
  • redeemed or acquired for cancellation any one of its shares of the company’s capital stock; or
  • has paid termination pay, severance pay or incentive or other benefits to a director, officer or any person that manages or controls the business

the Court may, on the application of the licensed insolvency trustee (Trustee), inquire into the transaction to find out whether it took place at a time when the firm was insolvent or whether it made the firm bankrupt.

If a transaction referred to above has actually occurred, the Court can give judgment to the Trustee against the directors of the firm, jointly as well as severally, or individually as appropriate in the circumstances.

The amount of the pay or benefits, with interest on the amount, that has not been paid back to the company if the Court discovers that the payment of the pay or benefit:

  • occurred at a time when the company was insolvent or it made the corporation bankrupt;
  • was notably over the reasonable market price of the consideration gotten by the company;
  • was made outside the common course of business

and the directors did not have reasonable grounds to think that the payment:

  • took place when the firm was not insolvent or would not render the firm insolvent;
  • was not conspicuously over the fair market value of the consider obtained by the corporation; and
  • was made in the ordinary course of business.

Interestingly, the new statute also states that a judgment will not be made against or be binding on a director who had protested against the payment of the pay or benefits and had, therefore, vindicated himself or herself under the relevant corporate legislation from any kind of resulting obligation.

No doubt we will only learn how effective this additional liability of directors provision will be after several court cases. Presumably, this amendment to the statute will provide extra food for thought for the insurance companies providing director and officer liability coverage.

Insolvency proceedings under the CCAA

The CCAA covers larger company financial restructuring. In addition to amendments to the CCAA to mirror the BIA amendments discussed above, there were also a couple of other changes made.

4. Initial application

Prior to November 1 CCAA filings, the company was given an initial stay of proceedings for 30 days. Now, for filings November 1, 2019, and after, this initial stay period has been reduced to 10 days.

5. Relief reasonably necessary

An initial order made or during the 10-day initial application stay period will be limited to alleviation that is fairly required for the continued operations of the borrower business in the regular course, but no extra relief will be granted. This narrowing of relief during the initial order period means that the Company cannot ask for all sorts of extra relief outside of the normal course of business.

In order to attempt to get extra relief, the Company will have to make a motion to the Court on notice to any affected parties. The Company will not be able to pack it into an initial order and force affected parties who did not receive notice to have to come to Court under the comeback clause. This was the case before November 1, 2019.

Most times in a CCAA restructuring, it is necessary for the Company’s survival to get debtor-in-possession financing. When such financing is available, it usually comes with very onerous terms. To avoid essentially keeping all of the Company’s assets out of reach by using such financing, the CCAA has been amended. It says that when applying for the initial order or during the initial stay period, no order shall be made unless the court is pleased that the terms of the loan are restricted to what is reasonably necessary for the continued operations of the debtor firm in the ordinary course of business during that initial stay period duration.

In this way, Parliament has tried to put the brakes on wide-sweeping initial orders that have everything including the kitchen sink in them. Parliament wants to have the initial orders contain only what is reasonably necessary to keep the Company’s operations going until everyone is back in Court all lawyered up.

It will be very interesting to see what Court decisions come from all of these new amendments to the Canadian insolvency laws.

Summary

I hope you enjoyed this how bankruptcies work in Canada Brandon’s Blog on the other BIA and CCAA insolvency amendments effective November 1, 2019. Are you or your company in need of financial restructuring? The financial restructuring process is complex. The Ira Smith Team understands how to do a complex corporate restructuring. However, more importantly, we understand the needs of the entrepreneur. You are worried because your company is facing significant financial challenges. Your business provides income not only for your family. Many other families rely on you and your company for their well-being.

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

We know that companies facing financial problems need a realistic lifeline. There is no “one solution fits all” approach with the Ira Smith Team. That is why we can develop a company restructuring process as unique as the financial problems and pain it is facing. If any of this sounds familiar to you and you are serious in finding a solution, contact the Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. team today.

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

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

BANKRUPTCY ACT CANADA: ARE YOU REALLY PREPARED FOR IT?

Introduction

No person wishes to go make a filing under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (Bankruptcy Act Canada), however occasionally it is inevitable. You might think that people who file are just those that are careless with their finances. However, with most of the people I see, it is usually an event outside of their control that pushes them over the edge.

In personal bankruptcy, things such as illness, divorce, job loss, unanticipated catastrophes, identity theft and fraud are many times the causes of insolvency. Of course, lack of proper budgeting, overspending and inappropriate uses of credit are also involved. In corporate insolvency, the #1 cause always seems to track back to management.

Insolvency filings happen every year. In 2018, a total amount of 128,846 insolvency filings were made with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB). This is 2.4% more from 2017. Consumer insolvency filings increased 2.5% (125,266 filings), while company filings dropped 0.8% to 3,580.

At the very same time, people choosing to avoid bankruptcy by filing a proposal continued increasing in 2018, bringing this number to a brand-new level. Proposals represented 52.6% of consumer filings in 2017. In 2018, they expanded by 6.6% to 56% of all personal filings.

Are you considering a Bankruptcy Act Canada filing, or at least speaking to a Licensed Insolvency Trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) (Trustee)? In order to help you start your fact-finding, I want to tell you what will happen to your bank accounts, retirement accounts and your other important financial funds. Understanding what to anticipate can assist you to stay clear of some pricey blunders.

Bankruptcy or (consumer) proposal

Being insolvent is that you are not able to settle your financial debts. People with severe financial problems can make Bankruptcy Act Canada filing by filing either for bankruptcy, a consumer proposal or Division I proposal.

Proposals are official methods controlled by the Bankruptcy Act Canada for personal filings. Dealing with a Trustee you make a proposal to:

  • Pay your creditors a portion of what you owe them over a particular time period not going beyond 60 months
  • Extend the time you need to settle the debt
  • Or a mix of both

The Proposal is made via the Trustee, who uses the money in your proposal fund to pay the cost of administration and distribution to each of your creditors their pro-rata share. A consumer proposal needs to be finished within 5 years from the day of filing.

Proposal

People with severe financial problems can apply for bankruptcy. They can also try to avoid bankruptcy by using the Proposal provisions of the Bankruptcy Act Canada.

There are numerous advantages to avoiding bankruptcy. The main differences between proposals and bankruptcy are:

  • Unlike informal debt settlement, a Proposal produces a binding discussion forum where each of your unsecured creditors has to participate in for your debt restructuring.
  • You can keep your property, including your home, if you can afford to in your budget.
  • Lawsuits against you and enforcement proceedings, such as wage garnishments, cannot begin or continue.
  • In a successfully completed Proposal, you do not need to file for bankruptcy.

Keep in mind that financial institutions have “set-off” legal rights, implying that if you declare bankruptcy or file for bankruptcy when you’re behind in payments to them, they will take the funds in your accounts to try to cover all or some of what you owe them. This is notwithstanding that there is a stay of proceedings once a Bankruptcy Act Canada filing takes place and such an offset really should not take place.

So if you are thinking of filing either for bankruptcy or a proposal, I want you to be prepared for what might happen to your financial assets.

Your bank account

In a bankruptcy, the cash in your bank account is a property which must be paid over to the Trustee. Upon your filing, the Trustee will put all your banks on notice to provide the funds in any accounts maintained with them to the Trustee. As noted above, the bank may very well offset cash in your savings or chequing account against the money you may owe them, including credit card debt.

In a Proposal, you do not lose control of the money in your bank accounts. Rather, they are considered by the Trustee in formulating the type of Proposal you should offer your creditors. Remember, your Proposal must offer your creditors a better alternative than your bankruptcy would. However, even though there is a stay of proceedings invoked once you file your Proposal, it is not uncommon for a bank where you maintain an account and to whom you owe money, to take the money in your account and offset it against what you owe them.

So the moral of this story is that you are best to have bank accounts at financial institutions to whom you do not owe any money.

Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF) or Deferred Profit Sharing Plan (DPSP)

In a bankruptcy, your RRSP, RRIF or DPSP are excluded from seizure. However, the Trustee is entitled under the Bankruptcy Act Canada to receive the equivalent to any amounts contributed to these accounts in the 12 months preceding your filing date. In a Proposal, this 12-month amount must be included by the Trustee in the calculation of what amount your Proposal should offer your creditors.

Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security income (OAS)

Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is the only one permitted to garnish your CPP earnings if you have an unpaid personal income tax. By filing either for bankruptcy or a Proposal, the stay of proceedings will be invoked and CRA will have to stop the garnishment of your CPP and you will get the CPP payments you are qualified for.

However, the earnings obtained from CPP and OAS will certainly be taken into account by the Trustee in determining if you have any surplus income payment obligation in bankruptcy. In a Proposal, that amount also has to be considered in developing your Proposal.

Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA), Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) and other non-registered account investments

In a bankruptcy, just like any other non-exempt property, the amount held in your TFSA and any other non-registered investment account must be paid to the Trustee. In a Proposal, these amounts need to be taken into account in determining what type of Proposal to make. It may very well be that these accounts are collapsed in order to help fund a Proposal.

Similarly, RESPs are not excluded in personal bankruptcy. In a Proposal, the amount must be considered as an asset in calculating how much must be offered in your Proposal to stand a chance for success.

The reason that an RESP is not excluded from seizure in bankruptcy is relatively straightforward. Your child does not acquire ownership or other entitlement to the RESP funds as parents can take possession of the funds prior to the child becoming a post-secondary school student. For that reason, it is the parents who have ownership of the funds.

Consequently, the Trustee of an insolvent mother or father that has an RESP can collapse it. If the parent in bankruptcy wants the RESP to not collapse, adequate arrangements need to be made with the Trustee for the equal amount of funds in the RESP at the filing date be paid to the Trustee for the bankruptcy estate and the bankrupt’s creditors.

Annuity revenue in bankruptcy

Annuities are agreements where you pay a company (normally an insurance company) a specific amount, in order to get regular monthly payments for a specific period of time or for the remainder of your life.

If an annuity contract is properly set up with an insurance company, it will be exempt from seizure in bankruptcy. However, the income stream it produces will be considered by the Trustee in determining whether the bankrupt person has a surplus income obligation.

Your RRIF can also be considered as an annuity as it provides a legislated stream of payments. The RRIF is exempt from seizure in a bankruptcy, other than for any contributions in the 12 months immediately prior to filing. Like an annuity, the entitlement to payments will be considered by the Trustee in doing the surplus income calculation.

In a Proposal, you don’t give up ownership of an annuity contract or RRIF, but the income must be considered in preparing a suitable Proposal.

Bankruptcy Act Canada summary

Do you have financial problems? Do you not have enough money to pay your bills in full when due?

As a Trustee, we are the only professionals licensed, authorized and supervised by the federal government to offer insolvency advice and to implement solutions under the Bankruptcy Act Canada. A consumer proposal is a federal government licensed debt settlement plan to eliminate your debt. We will help you to select what is best for you to free you from your debt issues.

Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can eliminate the anxiousness, tension, discomfort and pain from your life that your cash problems have caused. With the unique roadmap, we develop just for you, we will promptly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.

Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have generations and decades of experience helping people and companies looking for debt restructuring and a debt settlement plan to AVOID bankruptcy.

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

bankruptcy act canada

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

CONSUMER PROPOSAL CANADA: A BLUEPRINT TO STOP BILL COLLECTORS

consumer proposal canada

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

Introduction

I have written before on the concept of how a bankruptcy filing puts into place a stay of proceedings. A section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that creditors are not allowed to take or continue any collection or enforcement activity against a bankrupt person or company. But what about a consumer proposal Canada? I will discuss this concept for a consumer proposal and highlight a recent case on this issue.

The federal law

Under section 69.2 (1) of the BIA, with certain limited exceptions, when a consumer proposal is filed, “…no creditor has any remedy against the debtor or the debtor’s property, or shall commence or continue any action, execution or other proceedings, for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy…”.

So if the claim is one that is provable in a bankruptcy, and therefore in a consumer proposal Canada, then the creditor cannot begin or continue a lawsuit or try to enforce a judgment for the amount owed.

A recent decision from the Ontario Court confirms this law where a consumer proposal Canada will stop creditors and bill collectors from starting or continuing legal action against you.

The facts of this case

The case is Yigzaw v. Ashagrie, 2019 ONSC 2474. It is about a motion to lift the stay of proceedings to permit enforcement of an order issued against the debtors who have filed a consumer proposal.

The applicants, Philipos Yigzaw and Aster Abraham, seek to appeal an order issued by the Court on February 21, 2017 (the 2017 order). The 2017 order was gotten on the basis of summary judgment on an application started by the applicants. In their application, they sought repayment of $102,500 that they had advanced to the respondents Anaketch Ashagrie and Yilma Gari to fund a business operating under the name “Telling Roses”. They also seek an accounting of how the funds had actually been spent.

The 2017 order required Ashagrie and Gari to pay $102,500 to Yigzaw and Abraham in addition to costs of $6,250. The respondents were likewise required to provide an accounting. The Court declined to issue a certificate of pending litigation against the respondents’ residence, although a writ of execution was issued. The respondents submitted a consumer proposal the very next day.

In this enforcement motion, the applicants state that the respondents have failed to adhere to the 2017 order. They look for relief that would require Ashagrie and Gari to be examined and to pay the amount of the judgment. They also want a finding that the respondents are in contempt.

The issues for the Court to consider

The Court first considered section 69.2 (1) of the BIA I spoke about above. The Court then looked at the exception I alluded to, being Section 69.4 of the BIA.

That section says that a Court may, in certain circumstances, raise the stay to allow a creditor to pursue its rights against a debtor who has filed consumer proposal. To obtain a lifting of the stay, the creditor must persuade the Court that it is most likely to be materially prejudiced by the ongoing stay, or that lifting the stay is equitable on other grounds.

Canadian courts have held that the criteria in s. 69.4 might be fulfilled where the creditor’s debt will not be released as an outcome of the insolvency process. The types of financial obligations that are not discharged are provided in s. 178( 1) of the BIA.

They consist of a debt or obligation arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity as well as a debt or obligation resulting from obtaining property or services by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation. Lifting of a stay is not a routine matter.

To succeed, the applicants have to show how they are most likely to be materially prejudiced by the stay, or that there are various other equitable grounds to raise it.

In a typical motion under s. 69.4, the applicant looking to lift the stay says that it needs to have the opportunity to prove that its accusations come from an activity provided in s. 178( 1) to ensure that it may obtain a judgment against the bankrupt or insolvent person. If successful, then that claim would survive the insolvency process.

In that normal case, the Court examines the creditor’s claims to identify if the debt, if confirmed, would be released as an outcome of the bankruptcy or proposal. Sometimes, the Court may also consider evidence submitted by the creditor.

This case is uncommon because the applicants have already gotten a judgment on their claim. They are not seeking to show their claim. They are looking to enforce the Order. So the concern the Court must think about is whether that Order was made according to a cause of action listed in s. 178( 1 ). The Judge did this by reviewing the claims and evidence before the Judge who gave judgment, his analysis, and the evidence filed in this motion.

The Court’s analysis

The Court quite properly pointed out that in order to be successful for the lifting of the stay, the applicants had to show that their debt was more than just one of a contract to lend money that was not repaid.

The Court said that looking at the application in the most charitable method possible, the claims could not support a finding that the respondents obtained property from the applicants by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation. The applicants state that their loan was conditional on the money being used for “Telling Roses”. They do not declare that they were induced to loan money to “Telling Roses” as an outcome of any type of illegal misstatement by the respondents. Likewise, the applicants do not allege that the respondents took part in any kind of deceitful acts that induced them to loan the funds. Therefore, the exception from the discharge of the debt in s. 178( 1 )( e) of the BIA was not advanced in the applicants’ claim.

The allegations in the application also do not support a finding that the participants engaged in fraudulence, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. To meet that standard it is not nearly enough for a debt to have actually been brought on by fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation. That form of criminal activity had to have occurred in the context of a fiduciary relationship.

The applicants do not declare that the respondents had a fiduciary obligation towards them. The relationship they explain with the respondents would not follow such a claim. Fiduciary relationships are unusual in arms’ length business transaction. The applicants additionally do not clearly affirm that the respondents participated in any type of scam at any point.

In reviewing the reasons given by the Judge who made the 2017 order, and in looking at all the other evidence in this motion, the Court found that it was anything more than one party loaning funds to another to start a business. The business never made a profit, it failed and therefore, could not repay the money.

The decision

Given these facts and the Court’s analysis, the Court found that the applicants could not succeed on their motion to lift the stay. Rather, the Court confirmed that the 2017 judgment could only be used as the basis for the applicants to file a proof of claim in the consumer proposal filed.

The basis for the 2017 order was a finding that the applicants lent the respondents the amount of $102,500. There is absolutely nothing in the underlying decision, or in the accusations in the application on which judgment was obtained, or in any evidence submitted in this motion, that puts the applicants’ claim in the classification of financial debts that are not released under s. 178( 1) of the BIA.

Therefore, the applicants’ motion to lift the stay under s. 69.4 of the BIA was rejected. They failed to show that they are likely to be materially prejudiced by the ongoing operation of the stay or that there are various other equitable factors that would lead to a conclusion to lift the stay.

Do you have too much debt?

Are you in financial distress? Do you not have adequate funds to pay your financial obligations as they come due?

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

As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only professionals accredited, acknowledged and supervised by the federal government to provide insolvency advice and to implement approaches to help you remain out of personal bankruptcy while eliminating your debts. A consumer proposal is a government-approved debt settlement plan to do that. 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 and balanced problem-free life.

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

Call a Trustee Now!