I'm obviously not a bankruptcy trustee, lawyer, or forensic accountant.. and this is WAY over my head, but all I can suggest is that in Canada's Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, it defines an 'insolvent person' as someone who is *not* bankrupt, but whose liabilities to secured creditors amount to $1000 or more (the secured loan to MB), AND whose total assets are not sufficient to cover payment of all obligations present and accruing (the TB lawsuit of $14million) - would that mean he is an insolvent person?
I'm not going to stake my life on it, because as mentioned above, I had only understood that the courts had locked up DM's monies and assets because:
i)he'd been charged with murdering someone from whom he had already inherited monies, which is not allowed by law; and
ii)he was being sued for millions of dollars.
I was not aware that one
*had* to be either a bankrupt or an 'insolvent person' in order for the courts to order receivership, and I'm still not convinced that that is the case.
The document from Zeifman could simply be stating that the same formalities are being followed as are required for a bankrupt or insolvent person, as outlined in the Act, by giving notice to the appropriate parties?
from the Act:
insolvent person means a person who is not bankrupt and who resides, carries on business or has property in Canada, whose liabilities to creditors provable as claims under this Act amount to one thousand dollars, and
- (a) who is for any reason unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due,
- (b) who has ceased paying his current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due, or
- (c) the aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a fairly conducted sale under legal process, would not be sufficient to enable payment of all his obligations, due and accruing due; (personne insolvable)