Introduction
I recently read a case from the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba. The decision deals with the responsibility of a trustee company in reviewing and disallowing bankruptcy proofs of claim.
Thank you for reading our Brandon's Blog. Check out our AI insolvency bot on this page and don't forget to subscribe!
The case
The case citation is Re 5274398 Manitoba Ltd. o/a Cross Country Manufacturing (Bankrupt) 2019 MBQB 89. This is an appeal of Bellhop Express Corp. (“Bellhop”) from the Notification of Disallowance of Claim by the licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a trustee in bankruptcy) (Trustee). 5274398 Manitoba Ltd. operating as Cross Nation Production (the Company) filed a Proposal under Division I Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA).
On February 6, 2018, a creditors meeting was held in Winnipeg at which time the creditors of the Company, existing in person or by proxy, elected to approve the proposal. On February 5, 2018, the day prior to the meeting, Bellhop sent its Proof of Claim and also registered its ballot voting down the Proposal.
The Trustee disallowed the Bellhop Proof of Claim for voting. The Trustee also did not count Bellhop’s vote against in the calculation in whether the Proposal received the required majority of creditors.
The Court approved the Proposal. After Court approval, the Trustee again reviewed Bellhop’s Proof of Claim. On September 10, 2018, the Trustee sent a formal Form 77—Notice of Disallowance of Claim, Right to Priority or Security or Notice of Valuation of Claim to Bellman.
Bellhop appealed the Trustee’s decision to the Court. Their right to do so is found in Section 135 of the BIA.
The appeal
In the Canadian bankruptcy system, the obligation to prove a claim is that of the creditor. When a creditor files a Proof of Claim, the Trustee has the duty of examining it in order to identify whether the claim stands. If the Trustee is not pleased with the Proof of Claim, he or she might look for additional details from the creditor. The goal of the Trustee is to figure out whether the claim of the creditor is a claim provable under the BIA.
Once the Trustee has made its determination, the claim is either admitted or disallowed. If disallowed, in whole or in part, the Trustee must issue its disallowance using Form 77—Notice of Disallowance of Claim, Right to Priority or Security or Notice of Valuation of Claim. The creditor receiving such a Notice of Disallowance can appeal the Trustee’s decision to the Court.
In this case, before getting to the merits of the appeal, the Court had to decide if the creditor was allowed to present new evidence in support of its claim not previously provided to the Trustee. In this case, the Court decided that it would be appropriate for this new evidence to be presented.
The Trustee did not handle its investigation properly
The Court was prepared to approve additional Bellhop evidence. The Court said that the Trustee company got Bellhop’s Proof of Claim and made inquiries through the Company regarding it. It obtained specific information and made use of some or all of it. The Trustee then developed its Notice of Disallowance.
The Court was critical of the Trustee’s analysis of the Proof of Claim. The Court stated that the Trustee should have shared with Bellhop the information it obtained from the Company and the Company’s legal counsel which it relied upon to develop the Notice of Disallowance. The Trustee could have also shared a draft of its Notice of Disallowance to see if Bellhop had any other documents or information to refute the Trustee’s analysis. Unfortunately, no such transmittal of details was provided by the Trustee to Bellhop before the issuance of the Notice of Disallowance.
The Court went on to say that it was this failure to share such details, it denied Bellhop of the chance to comment on it. It also, therefore, created this situation where Bellhop had to seek leave of the Court for the chance to submit extra details.
The Court’s view was that a Trustee could prevent this situation by having telegraphed its decision to the plaintiff before the official Notice of Disallowance was issued. The Trustee should have asked for the Bellhop’s remarks of any type of, prior to providing its Notice. If the plaintiff failed to react, or react properly, after that it will certainly have a harder job in obtaining approval to provide more proof of its claim.
So under these circumstances, the Court allowed Bellhop to submit more evidence.
The review of the claim and the Trustee’s disallowance
It is a shame that the Trustee seemed to stop short of a fullsome review of all potential information before reaching its decision to disallow the Bellhop Proof of Claim. The reason being is that the Court spent a great deal of time having to determine the issue of presenting additional evidence. The Court was quite critical of the Trustee in its handling of the adjudication of the claim requiring the motion for leave to present more evidence.
In the end, the Court agreed with the Trustee’s decision to disallow the Bellhop claim. The Court held that the proof sent to the Trustee did not warrant a claim of $3,270,684, or anything near that. To reach a decision to allow the claim, part of which was for the loss of income, the Trustee would have to decide on an arbitrary basis. The role of the Trustee is to be neutral and rely upon evidence; not act arbitrarily.
The Court went on to say that there is a responsibility upon creditors in a BIA proceeding to equip a Trustee with sufficient proof that sustains the claim they are making. That did not happen in this case. The Court went on to say that additionally, there is no responsibility on a Trustee to sustain the cost of a substantial examination of a claim which on its face seems blatantly overvalued. Were that the situation, creditors would certainly be urged to submit extremely pumped up claims.
The far better strategy is to urge a circumstance where creditors file sensible claims with sufficient proof to sustain them. That way creditors ensure that the time, initiative, and expense of a Trustee to examine, analyze and value the claim is reasonable.
So in the end, the Court sided with the Trustee’s decision but admonished the Trustee for essentially wasting the Court’s time.
Trustee company summary
Do you or your business have creditors claiming against you? Are you in financial distress? Do you not have sufficient funds to pay your expenses as they come due?
Call the Ira Smith Team today so we can get rid of the tension, anxiousness, pain and discomfort from your life that your money issues have generated. With the unique roadmap, we establish simply for you, we will promptly return you right into a healthy and balanced problem-free life.
We have years as well as generations of experience helping people and businesses trying to find debt restructuring to avoid bankruptcy. You can have a no-cost evaluation so we can assist you to repair your financial difficulties.
As a Trustee company, we are the only experts recognized, approved and audited by the federal government to offer insolvency guidance and solutions. A proposal is a federal government accredited debt settlement strategy to remove your debt and let you avoid bankruptcy.
Call the Ira Smith Team today. This will definitely enable you to return to a brand-new healthy and balanced life, Starting Over, Starting Now.
