Debt Financing and Banking

Last September, the AMF published its draft Regulation respecting complaint processing and dispute resolution in the financial sector (the “Draft Regulation”). The consultation period for it ended on December 8, 2021. The AMF is currently reviewing the many comments it received. The Draft Regulation1 aims to harmonize and improve complaint processing in the financial sector by providing for new mechanisms to ensure prompt and efficient complaint processing, among other things. In the insurance industry, only firms and insurers are currently required to adopt and apply a complaint processing and dispute resolution policy. The Draft Regulation will make these obligations apply to independent partnerships and representatives. It also introduces new requirements and restrictions as well as monetary penalties for not including mandatory content in communications to a complainant, for example. Here are some of the Draft Regulation’s new provisions: Broadening of the definition of “complaint” to: Any dissatisfaction or reproach; That cannot be remedied immediately and for which a final response is expected; In respect of a service or product offered by a financial institution or financial intermediary; That is communicated by a person who is a member of the clientele of the institution or intermediary. The Draft Regulation does not contain a requirement that a complaint must be made in writing.2 It does make it mandatory for financial institutions and financial intermediaries to implement a complaint drafting assistance service.3 It also requires that a note be left in each record to indicate whether a complainant requested this service. Prohibition on the use of the term “ombudsman” in any representation or communication intended for the public to refer to the complaint process or to the persons assigned to its implementation.4 Specific requirements as concerns the mandatory content of a complaint processing policy, an acknowledgment of receipt and final response to a complainant, a complaint record and a complaints register.   For each complaint received, the complaint record must include the following information: The complaint Whether the complainant requested the complaint drafting assistance service The complainant’s initial communication A copy of the acknowledgment of receipt sent to the complainant Any document or information used in analyzing the complaint, including any communication with the complainant A copy of the final response provided to the complainant New time limits: Within 10 days of receiving a complaint, the insurer must notify the complainant in writing that they must also file the complaint with any other financial institution, financial intermediary or credit assessment agent involved, and the insurer must provide the complainant with their contact information.5 The complainant must be given 20 days to assess and respond to an offer to resolve the complaint, with sufficient time for the complainant to seek advice for the purpose of making an informed decision.6 If the complainant accepts the offer, the insurer has 30 days to respond.7 Financial institutions and financial intermediaries have a strict 60-day time limit to provide the complainant with a final response.8 There is a new 15-day time limit to send the complaint record to the AMF.9 There is a streamlined process for complaints that are resolved within 10 days of being recorded in the complaints register: The final response serves as an acknowledgment of receipt and must contain the following information: The complaint record identification code The date on which the complaint was received by the insurer or insurance representative The name and contact information of the employee responsible for processing the complaint referred to in section 7 of the Draft Regulation or in the Sound Commercial Practices Guideline A summary of the complaint received The conclusion of the analysis, including reasons, and the outcome of the complaint A reference to the complainant’s right to have the complaint record examined by the AMF The signature of the complaints officer A statement to the effect that the complainant has accepted the offer to resolve the complaint New monetary administrative penalties The Draft Regulation also provides for monetary administrative penalties ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 for failure to comply with certain requirements and prohibitions of the Draft Regulation. For example, the following will be subject to a monetary administrative penalty of $5,000: Attaching a condition to an offer to prevent the complainant from fully exercising their rights. Using the term “ombudsman” or any other similar title in any representation or communication intended for the public to refer to the complaint process or the persons assigned to its implementation to suggest that such persons are not acting on behalf of the financial institution or financial intermediary. In the latter case, a monetary administrative penalty may be imposed even where no complaint is involved, because the prohibition covers “any representation or communication intended for the public.” Insurers and financial intermediaries should review their communications as soon as possible, and especially the summary of their complaint processing policy appearing on their website. It concerns all entities regulated by the AMF, but the bulletin more specifically addresses financial institutions and financial intermediaries in the insurance industry. As currently indicated on the AMF’s website. Draft Regulation, s. 11. Id., s. 26, para. 2. Id., s. 15. Id., s. 13. Id. Id., s. 12, para. 4. Id., s. 25.

On April 6, 2021, the Court of Appeal, per Justice Mark Schrager, rendered an interesting decision in Bank of Nova Scotia c. Davidovit (2021 QCCA 551). The Bank of Nova Scotia (the “Bank”) had granted a commercial loan to a company, of which Aaron Davidovit (“Davidovit” or the “Surety”) was the principal, for the operation of a gym. Under a clause contained in the personal guarantee (suretyship) signed by Davidovit, he was to reimburse all costs and expenses incurred by the Bank to collect amounts owed to it by the principal debtor or Surety, including, but not limited to, legal fees on a solicitor/client basis (the “Clause”). The Bank was claiming $31,145.22 in extrajudicial fees and legal costs from Davidovit, while the amount claimed from the Surety in capital and interest amounted to $35,004.49. The trial judgment The trial judge, the Honourable Frédéric Bachand, concluded that the contract of suretyship was a contract of adhesion within the meaning of article 1379 of the Civil Code of Québec (the “C.C.Q.”) and agreed with Davidovit’s arguments that the Clause was invalid because it was excessively and unreasonably detrimental to the adhering party and contrary to the requirements of good faith, in violation of article 1437 C.C.Q. Justice Bachand emphasizes two main problems with the Clause: (i) it was unilateral, thus giving a disproportionate advantage to the Bank while the Surety did not benefit from such an advantage; (ii) it could restrict access to justice in that it could deter the Surety (who was already vulnerable vis-a-vis his opponent) from contesting the Bank’s claim, the Clause thus doing little to promote the rule of law.  Appeal decision The Court of Appeal reversed Justice Bachand’s judgment on the invalidity of the Clause, but confirmed Davidovit’s personal condemnation as Surety. Firstly, the Court of Appeal pointed out that a unilateral clause is not in itself abusive. All of a borrower’s obligations under a loan agreement or a surety’s obligations under a contract of suretyship are unilateral, but that this fact alone cannot determine whether a clause is abusive. The logic applied by the trial judge would lead to the conclusion that the repayment of a balance due at the end of a loan is abusive, because it is unilateral. Secondly, the fact that one party finds itself at a disadvantage is also not reason to conclude that a clause is abusive. Section 23 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, raised by Justice Bachand in dealing with equality of arms in a judicial process, did not apply in this case, despite the fact that a bank may appear to have more means to initiate legal proceedings than a surety does. Thirdly, just because the law provides for a monetary sanction, such as payment of legal fees or other damages (e.g. in application of article 54 or 342 of the Code of Civil Procedure) for an abusive situation (e.g. a frivolous defence of a surety), this does not mean that contracting parties cannot agree to provide for such payment. The judges of the Court of Appeal held that, on the contrary, a clause for the reimbursement of extrajudicial costs and fees allows for legitimate claims to be pursued before the courts against principal debtors and sureties who refuse to pay. Justice Schrager also took the liberty of commenting on the trial judge’s conclusion regarding the qualification of the contract of suretyship as a contract of adhesion. However, considering that neither party questioned this qualification, the Court of Appeal did not formally rule on this aspect, but pointed out that the mere fact that the terms of a contract appear on a preprinted form does not necessarily mean that it constitutes a contract of adhesion, although a preprinted form may be an indication that the terms imposed are not negotiable. The reasonableness of the amount claimed under the Clause Although valid, the Clause must still be subject to control by the courts to ensure that the amount claimed for extrajudicial costs and fees is not abusive and is claimed in good faith. The Court found that the reimbursement of more than $31,000 in legal fees where the principal claim amounts to just over $35,000 is unreasonable and disproportionate. Given 1) the complexity of the case, 2) the amount of the claim against the Surety, 3) that the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the costs was on the Bank, 4) that claims for reimbursement of extrajudicial costs and fees must be exercised reasonably and in good faith (in accordance with articles, 6, 7 and 1375 C.C.Q.), the Court of Appeal reduced the claim and arbitrarily established it at $12,000. Conclusion Clauses for the reimbursement of extrajudicial fees have a certain acceptability in society, particularly in the commercial sphere. Even in a contract of adhesion, they are not necessarily abusive and invalid, but their application is subject to control by the courts so that they are exercised reasonably and in good faith.

The Tax Court of Canada (the “Court”) recently upheld the deductibility of carrying charges incurred in connection with an issuance of shares.  In so doing, the court upheld the tax benefits arising from a common financing practice. In addition, the Court reiterated the principle in tax matters according to which, save in exceptional cases, the legal relationships established by one or more taxpayers must be respected. In this case1, Laurentian Bank (the “Bank”) issued shares from its share capital to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (“CDPQ”) and the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec (“FSTQ”) totalling $120M, through a private placement.  In addition to assuming a portion of the costs incurred by CDPQ and FSTQ in connection with this issuance of shares, the Bank agreed to pay each of the investors, as professional fees for services rendered in connection therewith, an amount corresponding to 4% of the total amount of their investment.  The Canada Revenue Agency challenged the Bank’s deduction, over 5 years, of the total amount of $4.8M paid to CDPQ and FSTQ, in particular on the grounds that no services had been rendered to the Bank by the two investors and that the expense was unreasonable. The Court ruled in favour of the Bank and allowed it to deduct the amount of $4.8M in computing its income on the basis of paragraph 20(1)(e) of the Income Tax Act, namely, in 20% increments over five fiscal years. Not only did the Court recognize the merits of the Bank’s arguments as to the fact that it had incurred an expense for services obtained from the CDPQ and the FSTQ, but the Court also confirmed that the expense was reasonable under the circumstances. In this decision, the Court recognized the favourable tax consequences for an issuer of shares arising from a common practice in the field of financing through share issuance. It also appears that the reasons for the Court’s decision could be applied to other costs incurred in the context of financing activities and thus allow entities incurring such costs to obtain a significant tax advantage.   It is therefore to the advantage of corporations issuing shares or borrowing to carefully analyze and negotiate the financing agreements they are considering in order to maximize their tax benefits. Our taxation team can assist you in setting up a share issuance that is both successful and optimal from a tax standpoint.   Banque Laurentienne du Canada c. La Reine, 2020 CCI 73

The impact of COVID-19 is particularly strong on start-ups in need of short-term financing and venture capitalists, whose contribution is essential to support the growth of these companies and who must make investment decisions in a context of widespread uncertainty. Like others, we have noticed the slowdown in investment activity and that many start-ups are now finding it difficult to close rounds of financing or even get time or attention from potential investors. In this context of uncertainty, we advise entrepreneurs who anticipate the need to soon close a round of financing to consider the following items: Current investors First and foremost, it is vital to consider the rights of your business’s current investors, contained in corporate documents and agreements between the investors and the corporation, as they could impact your round of financing’s feasibility. For example, if a valuation was obtained a few months ago and it is presently impossible to find a new investor to offer to purchase the corporation’s shares at an equal or higher valuation, the consequences of proceeding “down round” will have to be considered. In some circumstances, the success of a new round of financing may even depend entirely on existing investors’ support and consent. It is also possible that, under certain conditions, existing investors may be willing to take a share of the risk faced by the corporation by participating in a new round of financing, thus eliminating the need of seeking funding from new investors. Lastly, especially if one of the current investors is a venture capital fund or an active investor, it is likely that the corporation has agreed to specific milestones with that investor that could add to the difficulty of operating the business during a pandemic (for example, aggressive sales or production growth targets). But it is possible that your investor will be understanding and accept to review these milestones and associated timelines, which could lead to a positive impact on the corporation’s burn rate and give it  more leeway to weather the crisis. In all cases, we recommend transparency between the corporation and its investors, adopting a “partnership approach” and, above all, not to try to hide the corporation’s situation in its communications with its investors. Potential investors If there is no other option than seeking funding from new financial partners, it will be crucial to know the current situation of any targeted potential investor. As the current pandemic situation affects everyone, understanding the constraints faced by a potential investor is key in order to optimize the search for financing and the pitch process.  For example, if the potential investor has a specific investment thesis or policy, the investor may be even more thesis-driven and show less flexibility than before. Conversely, the investment thesis may be undergoing a re-evaluation. In addition, many potential investors will be impacted by the type of clients they serve. For example, a fund manager whose clients are government institutions may still have as much capital to deploy in the current context as before Covid-19, unlike a fund manager whose clients are high-net-worth individuals who face uncertainty and liquidity problems themselves and put pressure on the fund manager to take a more conservative stance. So, more than ever, you need to target your approach and make sure your potential investor is available to enter into a transaction in the near future. Assistance programs The various levels of government and some Crown corporations have released several assistance programs. In the context of a funding round, Export Development Canada (“EDC”) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) both announced co-investment assistance programs to provide access to additional financing for start-ups that already have a certain level of support from private investors. These programs are a good opportunity for entrepreneurs who need to complete or initiate a round of financing, who are not eligible for certain other government assistance programs, and who are not generating enough cashflow to finance their activities through credit facilities on conditions that are viable for their business. The program announced by EDC proposes a co-investment by EDC of an amount equivalent to that considered in an eligible round of financing, up to a maximum of $5,000,000. As for the program announced by the BDC, the BDC Capital Bridge Financing Program also provides assistance in the form of co-investment in an amount equivalent to the amount the company receives from qualified investors: BDC will offer financing as convertible notes whose default terms include a 20% discount rate on the price per share of the next round of financing and a term of three years. BDC may, however, decide to deviate from these terms and invest under the same conditions as the investors leading the round of financing. The company receiving the investment must be Canadian and have raised $500,000 in external capital in the past. It must also have a proven business model and an existing customer base prior to the impact of COVID-19. The business must have been “specifically impacted by COVID-19.” Unlike some other government assistance programs, this one does not have a fixed scale relative to this criterion. Businesses can demonstrate how the current situation affects them through qualitative and quantitative indicators (e.g. disruptions in their supply or distribution chains, difficulties in getting paid). The important thing will be to show that the lack of cashflow and the difficulty of concluding a round of financing are related to the impact of COVID-19 and not to a situation inherent to the company. The round of financing for which co-investment is being sought must have started after February 1, 2020. The round of financing must be for a minimum amount of $250,000 (prior to investment by BDC) and the overall round of financing must ensure 18 months of runway before additional funding is required by the company. For example, a business with a monthly operational burn rate of $30,000 and $300,000 in financing would meet this criterion since (1) the round, prior to BDC investment, is over $250,000, and (2) the overall round of financing, including co-investment by BDC, would be $600,000 and would ensure 20 months of runway, based on its current burn rate. There are no fixed criteria for determining who is an “eligible investor.” We understand, however, that the investor must be a private firm that has demonstrated its capacity as a lead investor for the funding round in question its ability to conduct the due diligence process. The investor does not have to be Canadian but must be sufficiently known and credible in Canada. We consider this convertible note financing offer to have three main advantages in the current environment: It increases the total “post-financing” value of the business in the form of additional cash, and the size of the funding round without increasing the principal investor’s risk, thus making the investment more attractive. It avoids immediate valuation issues for the company, allowing the lead investor to maintain control over the valuation process through the funding round. It is relatively simple, quick and inexpensive, and should not make the transaction process more complicated or burdensom for the lead investor. In short, these co-investment-based assistance programs are appealing as they can be presented to an investor by a company with financing needs whose planned or ongoing funding round is currently at a standstill due to the situation created by COVID-19. The programs may also be interesting elements to consider for an investor who wishes to have a co-investor or who would like the round of financing to reach a certain threshold to ensure that the company being invested in has sufficient runway after the investment, especially in the current context where it is difficult to predict subsequent rounds of financing. However, the parties wishing to benefit from such programs will have to ensure that their situation meets each program’s criteria and that they evaluate the financing terms offered as part of the assistance program in the context of the transaction. Conclusion Start-ups currently in need of financing should first discuss with their existing investors to try to find room for manoeuvre and assess the possibility of quickly obtaining financing, part of which could come from one of the assistance programs available. In all cases, it will be necessary to measure the impact that additional funding from new investors could have on the rights and obligations that exist between the corporation and its current investors and to ensure that it does not trigger any particular rights or recourse or create ambiguities, contradictions or even events of default. For more information in this regard or to find out about other measures that could help your business, do not hesitate to contact the Lavery team. Our team is following current developments related to COVID-19 very closely in order to best support our clients and business partners. We invite you to visit the web page that centralizes all of the tools and information produced by our professionals.