Industry Views & NewsBlogs

 In bankruptcy matters, creditors sometimes believe that an aggressive stance is necessary to get the recovery they believe they are entitled to. However, that approach can carry its own risks. In the recent Nova Scotia case of the bankruptcy of Randall Mullen, a judgment creditor asserted that the bankrupt had inappropriately benefited by taking advantage of the provisions of the (BIA) and protecting his RRSP from creditors. The creditor pursued his claim against the RRSP, with the ultimate result that what might otherwise have been a net recovery of about $20,000 for that creditor turned into a net loss in excess of $5,000 (plus any legal fees incurred). The creditor, Mr. Dykens, had obtained a judgment against Mr. Mullen. He sought to enforce it prior to bankruptcy, including a demand to release the debtor’s RRSP to satisfy the judgment. Before the administrator released any funds, however, Mr. Mullen made an assignment in bankruptcy. The Licensed Insolvency Trustee opined that upon the assignment being made, the RRSP became an exempt asset and not available to Mr. Mullen’s creditors, in accordance with the provisions of the BIA. Mr. Dykens did not accept that opinion and pursued various lines of inquiry into Mr. Mullen’s affairs. The creditor corresponded extensively with the Trustee throughout the bankruptcy, required an examination by the OSB, and finally objected to Mr. Mullen’s discharge, arguing that the RRSP (or the value thereof) should be made available to creditors. He unsuccessfully appealed the absolute discharge granted by the Registrar. He then applied, unsuccessfully, to lift the stay of proceedings to permit him to pursue the RRSP to satisfy the judgment. Throughout, the creditor failed to heed advice and comments from the Trustee, the OSB, the Registrar, and the Court, particularly as to the RRSP being an exempt asset and the lack of blameworthy conduct of the bankrupt. The ultimate result was that the assets of the estate (approximately $42,000) were completely dissipated on Trustee’s fees and legal expenses incurred by the bankrupt estate in responding to the inquiries and court proceedings; the creditor’s actions did not result in any increase in estate assets. Mr. Dykens, holding nearly half of the unsecured debt, would have recovered approximately $20,000 from the estate, but instead received effectively nothing; in addition, he was ordered to pay costs to both the bankrupt estate and the bankrupt personally, at both levels of Court. Unfortunately, the other creditors also suffered, in that their portion of the potential recovery was also wiped out. The lesson to be learned is to investigate (and seek the advice of experienced insolvency professionals) as to whether your claim has merit before exhausting the funds from which your recovery would be paid. Pamela Branton is a Senior Solicitor with the Nova Scotia Department of Justice. She is currently Vice-Chair of the Bankruptcy Subsection of the Canadian Bar Association, Nova Scotia, has served as a Director of the Canadian Insolvency Foundation, and as the Co-Chair for the Canadian Bar Association’s Pan-Canadian Insolvency and Restructuring Conference held in Halifax in 2012.