Canada: Hypothecary Claims, Factoring And Priorities

Last Updated: December 11 2012
Article by Benjamin David Gross and Étienne Guertin

In a recent decision1, the Superior Court ruled in favour of GE, Commercial Distribution Finance Canada ("GE") in a dispute against The National Bank Of Canada ("NBC"). Both institutions had a common client, New World Zanotti Transblock Inc. ("Zanotti"), which had granted to each of them a hypothec specifically charging its receivables. NBC had agreed to grant GE's hypothec a prior rank to its wwn. In order to reduce Zanotti's indebtedness to tt, NBC nevertheless collected the proceeds resulting from the sale of Zanotti's receivables, which were themselves encumbered by GE's hypothec, and deposited those proceeds into Zanotti's operating bank account. The proceeds were paid by Natexport, a subsidiary of NBC, that had purchased the receivables pursuant to a factoring agreement entered into between it and Zanotti. GE claimed damages for an amount equal to the proceeds usurped by NBC on the grounds that NBC had contractually acknowledged GE's priority over those assets.

THE FACTS

When it assigned its assets, Zanotti, a Corporation specialized in the sale of refrigeration units, had several sources of financing. In particular:

  • an inventory financing plan pursuant to which GE financed the purchase of refrigeration units by instalment sale contracts;
  • various operating lines of credit granted by NBC, which bank was also responsible for managing all of Zanotti's bank accounts;
  • a factoring program governed by an agreement entered into with NatExport.

To guarantee its contractual obligations, Zanotti granted to NBC various movable hypothecs on its inventory and receivables. It also granted a hypothec in favour of GE on the universality of its corporeal and incorporeal movable property. The cession of priority agreement between GE and NBC acknowledged GE's priority over the inventory financed by it under a master instalment sale agreement and in respect of which it had a reservation of ownership, as well as its priority over the rights and claims resulting from the proceeds of sale of said inventory.

Subsequent to the cession of priority and without GE's knowledge, NatExport, a subsidiary of NBC, entered into a factoring agreement with Zanotti pursuant to which it acquired the receivables resulting from the sale of the inventory financed by GE's instalment sales. The purchase price remitted by NatExport was paid directly to the order of Zanotti and deposited in its operating bank account, which was managed by NBC. NBC in turn immediately imputed the balance of the account to repayment by Zanotti of advances granted to it by NBC as operating lines of credit.

A search at the Register of personal and movable real rights (the "RPMRR") under Zanotti's name reveals several entries namely, and in a chronological order, three hypothecs in favour of NBC, one hypothec in favour of GE, a reservation of ownership by GE respecting inventories financed by a master instalment sale agreement, a cession of rank by NBC in favour of GE and, lastly, a withdrawal (by NBC) of Zanotti's authorization to collect its claims (initially granted to Zanotti under NBC's three hypothecs).

The factoring agreement contained the following clause:

[Translation:]

"12. Any amount owing by the Corporation to the Vendor further to a discount is payable by cheque jointly to the order of the Vendor and, as the case may be, any financial institution to which the Vendor granted a general assignment of receivables or a movable hypothec covering the receivables [...]."

GE applied to the Superior Court for recognition of its prior rights over the proceeds of the sale of the inventory that it had financed, maintaining that NBC (through the factoring agreement) collected the proceeds of disposition of said inventory in contravention of the cession of priority agreement.

JUDGMENT

The Court therefore had to determine if NBC had committed a fault rendering it liable to GE. In order to make that determination, the Court had to assess the extent of GE's rights over Zanotti's receivables, in light of the cession of priority agreement, its hypothec and its reservation of ownership.

To that end, GE claimed that clause 12 of the factoring agreement constituted a stipulation for the benefit of a third person of which it was the beneficiary. According to GE, it was entitled to directly demand performance of the obligation stipulated in its favour, namely joint payment of the proceeds from the sale of the receivables pursuant to article 1444 of the Civil Code of Québec:

"1444. A person may make a stipulation in a contract for the benefit of a third person.

The stipulation gives the third person beneficiary the right to exact performance of the promised obligation directly from the promisor."

In usurping the proceeds of the sale of Zanotti's receivables (i.e. amounts owed by the purchasers of the refrigeration units sold by Zanotti) without GE's knowledge, NBC prevented GE from asserting the stipulation for the benefit of a third person while contravening its undertakings under the cession of priority agreement.

NBC argued that the factoring agreement was entered into in the ordinary course of Zanotti's business and that GE was not entitled to collect the receivables resulting from the sale of refrigeration units by Zanotti, given GE's failure to implement its own collection mechanism for the receivables encumbered in its favour under its movable hypothec (namely its failure to withdraw Zanotti's right to collect its own receivables).

The Court was of the view that the factoring agreement substantially modified the financing arrangements granted to Zanotti. As NBC was aware of GE's rights under the cession of priority agreement, it could not impute the funds disbursed by NatExport in purchasing the receivables encumbered in favour of GE in order reduce Zanotti's indebtedness to NBC:

[Translation:]

"The purchase of receivables under a factoring agreement rendered illusory the possibility, respecting the accounts thus purchased, that GE could claim any right whatsoever in the proceeds of disposition of the goods financed under an instalment sale agreement, with the very knowledge of [NBC] and in contravention of the cession of priority2."

Stating a recognized principle in legal doctrine, the Court noted that the factor under a factoring agreement could not acquire from the Vendor more rights than this Vendor actually holds3. Applying that principle to this case, the Court stated as follows:

[Translation:]

"By accepting the existence of the factoring agreement here, [NBC] had acknowledged the existence of a new legal relationship between the parties concerned and in such circumstances had to respect GE's acknowledged prior right respecting the proceeds of disposition of the goods financed under the instalment sale agreement.

To agree to factoring without considering the cession of priority rendered fruitless and ultimately illusory GE's purported entitlement to the proceeds of disposition in the event of the sale of the inventory covered by the instalment sale contract4."

COMMENT

This Superior Court decision addresses various important principles, notably that a secured creditor that imputes the proceeds from the sale of its debtor's receivables under a factoring agreement, commits a fault if it previously had acknowledged the priority of another secured creditor over such proceeds.

However, this decision could be viewed from an entirely different perspective.

First, it is a long-standing principle in Quebec law that a subsequent-ranking hypothecary creditor who exercises its right to collect receivables owed to its debtor before a prior-ranking creditor is entitled to collect and retain the monies thus collected until such time as the prior ranking creditor exercises its rights. If this principle applies where rank is determined exclusively by the original order of registrations at the RPMRR, should it not also apply where a cession of priority determines the rank of the creditors, unless of course the cession of priority specifically prohibits this, or either requires the junior creditor to notify the senior creditor of its intention to collect the receivables or requires the junior creditor to obtain the consent of the senior creditor in order to withdraw said authorization to collect claims and the junior creditor does not do so. NBC made this argument before the Court, that rejected it, possibly suggesting that by ceding its priority, NBC had implicitly waived its right to collect Zanotti's receivables first.

Secondly, the Court based its holding on clause 12 of the factoring agreement and the argument that there existed a stipulation for the benefit of a third person. However, this clause provides for a joint payment to the Vendor and to its hypothecary creditor, "as the case may be", for the receivables thus purchased. Could it honestly be argued that this clause entitles a financial institution holding a hypothec over Zanotti's receivables to a joint payment where it has not withdrawn Zanotti's authorization to collect its claims under its hypothec? How else could this hypothecary creditor assert its entitlement to a joint payment? Moreover, even if it were possible for GE to obtain payment without withdrawing Zanotti's authorization to collect its claims, it was in fact NatExport that failed to comply with its obligations under clause 12 and not NBC, which was not a party to the factoring agreement.

The decision would appear to be founded in equity, the Court frowning on NBC's course of action – imputing the proceeds of receivables to its repayment when it had already formally acknowledged GE's priority therein. It must be borne in mind that Zanotti's financial health may have influenced NBC's actions: it is plausible that, seeing its debtor's imminent bankruptcy looming, NBC hastened to appropriate the proceeds of Zanotti's receivables and impute them to the repayment of the operating lines of credit it had granted to Zanotti, in such manner as to pre-empt a prior-ranking creditor from imputing such proceeds to the repayment of its debt should bankruptcy of Zanotti thereafter occur. In that regard, it is revealing that NBC subsequently filed a petition for Zanotti's bankruptcy.

The Court seems to have substantiated its decision by implying that NBC acted in bad faith in the transaction and by treating NBC as the alter ego of its subsidiary NatExport, while adopting a theory based on a stipulation that, in our view, does not cover GE's situation.

It is well established that a hypothecary creditor does not have title to the assets charged by its hypothec merely because it has a hypothec. This begs the question: in the circumstances of this case, could it be, even though it was never mentioned in the judgment, that the Court implicitly considered GE to be the legitimate owner of the proceeds from the sale of the refrigeration units because they were covered by the reservation of ownership created under the instalment sales contracts between Zanotti and GE?

The first paragraph of article 1745 of the Civil Code of Québec provides as follows:

"1 745 . An instalment sale is a term sale by which the seller reserves ownership of the property until full payment of the sale price."

However, recent case law has never specifically held that the proceeds from the sale of assets covered by a reservation of ownership belonged to the conditional seller. To our knowledge, Quebec decisions have only treated that issue indirectly, generally preferring to find that where the proceeds of the sale of such assets have been paid into the conditional buyer's general account, those monies are then no longer traceable and identifiable and, hence, not subject to the conditional seller's reservation of ownership.

Despite the fact that it does not deal with it, perhaps the Court ultimately found itself before a factual situation where distinct and identifiable receivables were purchased by NatExport from the Vendor, Zanotti, which was no longer the real owner of those receivables, and hence NBC could not appropriate the proceeds of their sale. The Court's statements, when suggesting that Zanotti could not sell to the factor any rights greater than those it actually had in the receivables covered by the factoring agreement would seem to imply that its primary motivation was that GE was the real owner of the receivables through its reservation of ownership. However, we are of the view that this decision does not allow for the unqualified conclusion that a conditional seller's reservation of ownership extends to the proceeds of disposition of the assets it has financed.

Another possible interpretation of the Court's decision is that Zanotti could only have sold the receivables subject to GE's hypothec. If the factoring occurred in the ordinary course of Zanotti's activities5, GE's hypothec on the receivables covered by the agreement would have extended to the proceeds of their sale under article 2674 of the Civil Code of Québec6, i.e., on the amounts paid by NatExport into Zanotti's operating bank accounts. However, the Court seems to regard the sale as having occurred outside the normal course of Zanotti's activities. Incidentally, it would have been prudent for NBC to obtain GE's prior consent and a voluntary reduction of its hypothec on the receivables.

Lastly, in our view, what is key in this judgment is that the cession of priority granted by NBC enhanced GE's rights respecting the amounts paid by NatExport further to the factoring of Zanotti's receivables. In that regard, a conditional seller often loses its rights respecting the proceeds of disposition of goods thus financed when the monies obtained upon their sale are deposited in the conditional buyer's operating bank account. According to the Court's ruling, the conditional seller could nevertheless be repaid its receivables by proving, through accounting entries or otherwise, that the funds deposited in its debtor's account constitute proceeds of sale of the items financed by the conditional seller, provided that the funds in question remain identifiable.

Footnotes

1 GE, Financement commercial aux détaillants Canada v. Banque Nationale du Canada, 2012 QCCS 2681.

2 Supra, note 1, at para 20.

3 Nicole L'Heureux, Édith Fortin and Marc Lacoursière, Droit bancaire, 4th ed., Éditions Yvon Blais, p. 266.

4 Supra note 1, paras 33 and 34.

5 First Vancouver Finance v. M.N.R., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 720, at paragraph 46; see the obiter to that effect in Dessert & Passion inc. (Proposition de), 2009 QCCS 4669 (CanLII), at paragraph 96.

6 Civil Code of Québec, article 2674: «A hypothec on a universality of property subsists but extends to any property of the same nature which replaces property that has been alienated in the ordinary course of business of an enterprise. [...] If no property replaces the alienated property, the hypothec subsists but extends only to the proceeds of the alienation, provided they may be identified.»

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions