|
|
Post by BrianWilliams on Jan 31, 2007 3:18:13 GMT -8
Just a note: "Limited" companies were invented in Britain at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and the intent was to limit liability by individual shareholders to no more than their investment in the enterprise.
Ed Life and the other investors in the first incarnation of Harbourlynx have no personal liability to settle its obligations after bankruptcy.
Shareholders in Limited companies are last in line to receive any residue from a failed enterprise. Taxes first, then unpaid wages (in BC, anyway), then secured creditors (mortgage holders), then unsecured creditors (fuel bills, moorage, towing, mechanical contractors, advertisers, etc).
In the absence of proven criminal fraud by owners, there is just one pool of money available to pay the debts of a failed Limited company - its assets.
It is a sound doctrine, even though it is sometimes manipulated by sharks. Mostly, the principle of limited liability allows little guys like you and me to buy a few shares in a growing business, with the hope that our retirement will be cushioned by the hard, smart work of other people.
Yike! Consider the hundreds of thousands working people who bought Johns-Manville shares in the 1960s. Manville's 100-yr asbestos empire collapsed in the 1970s when USA's EPA recognized their product as deadly. Widows and retirees suffered when Manville shares went to zero -- but they were not made to pay part of the billions in restitution ordered by the US Supreme Court. That came from the corporate assets ... and from US taxpayers when Manville's wealth was exhausted.
A frightening non-limited liability story was the near-collapse of the Lloyd's insurance syndicate in the early 1980's. Cascade may correct my imperfect memory.
Lloyd's Of London seemed more solid than the Rock of Gibraltar, but its smaller investors were skating on the edge of personal liability. Lloyd's wasn't a limited company. It was a syndicate of individuals who backed insurance contracts on ships, cargos, building construction, movie productions and more.
Lloyd's investors were motivated partly by UK's tax laws on earned income (profits from a successful Lloyd's transaction were treated lightly, compared to a straight capital gain). But Lloyd members who backed some USA ventures, for example, were badly thrashed.
Asbestos reared its ugly, fibrous head. The Manville investors lost only their stake, painful enough. But Lloyd's backers, some of them in for only US$ 10,000, found they were personally liable for millions.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperD on Feb 3, 2007 10:37:10 GMT -8
Just some facts to clear the confusion.
The engines are series 74L MTU 396, not 94.
The engine-out overhaul interval is 8000 hours which may be extended depending on the engine load factor.
The crew have not yet been paid nor have two companies that placed liens against the ship as well, however, the previous vessel owners recently lost a battle in BC Supreme Court which would have allowed them to be immune to these claims under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The court ruled that the claims, in accordance with admiralty law, should be fought in federal court. A maritime lien is attached to a vessel and stays with the vessel regardless of ownership changes or bankruptcy.
The engines Mr. Life is acquiring are marine engines and do not have to be "marinized." Moreover, they have less than five hundred running hours from new. The HL engines had in excess of 23,000 hours on some components. They replacements have been in storage for some time and require cosmetic surgery, seal replacement, etc.
|
|
Neil
Voyager 
Posts: 7,096
|
Post by Neil on Feb 6, 2007 10:00:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Feb 20, 2007 20:50:34 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Feb 21, 2007 9:48:31 GMT -8
when the company went bankrupt, the ship was "Let to Go Dark" or was unplugged from her shore power and allowed to have her batteries drain. they will need replacing, and im sure some of the equipment needs to be replaced because they were let to go dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 21, 2007 19:32:18 GMT -8
I saw the ship on Saturday and she did have a "new" paintjob. Not sure how new it is, but it is different from the one she had when she operated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Feb 21, 2007 22:22:46 GMT -8
I'm surprised nobody has thought of taking a picture or two of her. Guess it's kind of a slow new photos month. Hopefully the Lynx will be back in service soon
|
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Feb 22, 2007 16:18:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Feb 22, 2007 16:21:36 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Feb 22, 2007 17:31:00 GMT -8
Very nice photos, She looks quite nice, possibly better then she did before.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Feb 26, 2007 18:14:58 GMT -8
3:45PM Monday Feb 26, I was standing on the Visiting pier dock at Nanaimo and Low and behold, the Harbourlynx has come to life. Her engines were started and her jets were alive with action! Sorry folks no pictures as I was chating with some people at the time and by the time I got my camera ready, they shut down her engines! But this is the first time I have seen her engines running in about a year.  |
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Feb 27, 2007 11:25:15 GMT -8
I did see 1 person out on the aft lower deck monitoring the Jets.
Now as mentioned before although I could see that her jets were running I was not paying to much attention as I was chatting with some people on the visiting pier.
|
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Feb 27, 2007 17:46:31 GMT -8
they might have just finished installing the new motor. she has one good engine (with alot of miles on her) but i think that might be a sign of things to come. she might be getting ready to go over to the assembly wharf and pick up the new engine
|
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Mar 4, 2007 22:10:22 GMT -8
On Saturday March 3 I went past the Harbourlynx on a transit Bus and noticed the ship has been moved. She has been turned around and is now sitting with her stern towards the buildings . I will keep you posted. |
|
|
|
Post by queen of cowichan on Mar 7, 2007 19:26:41 GMT -8
Update March 7, 2007 Nanaimo Daily News: Ed Life expects to have the Ferry sailing by Summer of this year and is set to hire staff. He says the replacement engines for the ship has arrived in Canada from Holland and is now in Montreal and will travel to Vancouver by train arriving berfore March 26. Originaly the engine was scheduled to arrive March 14, but the now settled C.N. strike delayed it. Once in Vancouver the engine will be Trucked to the ship. When the engine arrives Ed Life will be able to Have a time line for pinning down a start up date.  |
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Mar 9, 2007 17:39:11 GMT -8
Look for up to date pictures to my picture site re Harbourlynx this comming week. I will post when I have uploaded them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 9, 2007 18:03:30 GMT -8
Social Service Tax is BC's 7% "Provincial Sales Tax". This tax normally applies to the following items which are pertinent to the Harbourlynx vessel:
- repairs: Repairs to the ship would be taxable for the 7% PST
- import of vessel: The cost is taxable, unless the purchase is for a ship > 500 tons gross.
It looks like the Province of BC decided to give up on collection of the revenues on these transactions.....they have in effect canceled the taxes for these items.
These were done by BC Gov't "Order in Council". This was done in the past 2 days...per my search on the Province of BC website of such orders in council. When the item is listed, there is no explanation for "why"....it's just listed as a decision.
What is an Order-in-council? Here's an explanation from the Province of BC website:
Order in Council:
Orders in Council are official documents implementing Government decisions concerned with the day-to-day operation of the Province.
The Resumes include the Order in Council identifying number; the originating Ministry; the name of the Act which provides the authority for the Order; and a resume of the subject matter.
From time to time, Orders are made by a Minister that do not require the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
These Orders will be included in the Resumes under a separate heading entitled "Ministerial Orders."
A format similar to Orders in Council will be followed indicating the number, date, ministry responsible, statutory authority and a brief resume of the subject matter.
It is hoped that this information regarding Orders in Council will prove to be of benefit to you and the people of British Columbia.
So, these are Gov't decisions, that appear to have bypassed the Legislature for debate....... (pardon my "YVR-channeling").
What is the reason for the remission of these taxes?
- the reason has not been published by the Gov't. But it likely meant that the Gov't concluded that the taxes were charged in error, and never should have applied to these particular transactions.
- Good legislation normally stands-on-its-own, and doesn't require special orders-in-council to allow for special circumstances. Also, the Gov't likely isn't allowed to decide on a whim that some taxes don't apply. So this was likely a grey-area matter, that required appeals/legal-muscle, etc.
Conclusion: A win by the taxpayer company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 10, 2007 16:11:59 GMT -8
The second Order-in-Council was for the old company. So this tax break goes to the old company. Or maybe not....read on:
Now, there are 4 possibilities re this:
1) Ed Life's group bought the old company's shares. Therefore, the tax break goes to the old company, which is now owned by Life. Presumably (assuming that good business advice was given and adhered to), there would be a purchase-price adjustment clause in the purchase/sale contract for those shares, which would allow the vendor (the old shareholders) to get a higher purchase price, as a result of this tax break.
2) Ed Life bought the assets of the old company, not the company itself. In that case, the tax break goes to the old company, and would reduce the loss taken by the old shareholders.
3) Ed Life bought the assets / or / company while it was under CCAA bankruptcy protection. In that case, this just cancels one of the secured debts (the Province's Minister of Finance was likely one of the "top seeded" creditors). There's still no cash available to pay the unsecured creditors.
4) some other scenario. Perhaps the old GM could fill us in....unless he's presently "LandLocked" and unavailable....
In any case, remember that this is NOT a Refund. There is no fresh cash coming from the Gov't to Investors as a result of this. All this is doing is canceling a debt, one of many debts that the old company couldn't pay.
That being said, if this debt had been canceled 1 year ago, would this have given the old company some breathing room with it's other creditors, and allowed it more flexibility to strike some kind of deal to keep the business running? I suppose that there were many other debts that added up to the sinking of the company, and either way, the company would still be in trouble.
======================
ORDER IN COUNCIL 135
Ministry Responsible: SMALL BUSINESS AND REVENUE
Statutory Authority: Financial Administration
Remission of social service tax owing by Nanaimo Harbour Link Corporation of $301,672.09 on the purchase of the vessel Nanaimo Harbourlynx brought into British Columbia for use and the remission of $63,529.33 of social service tax on the purchase of repair services performed on the vessel
|
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Mar 10, 2007 17:13:10 GMT -8
they may have cancelled this as having to be paid because it has not been paid yet and the gov't realizes there might be creditors out there that are owed a lot more money then they are. remember the original harbourlynx went bankrupt and then would have had to pay back any debts at a percentage of what they really owe and by priority set out by a provincial court judge
|
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Mar 12, 2007 13:37:19 GMT -8
Let's not get too demanding LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by NMcKay on Mar 12, 2007 16:17:43 GMT -8
lets see.. last i remember
Nanaimo HO
9 People Employed
Nanaimo Terminal
4 People Employeed
Vancouver Terminal
4 People Employed
Vessel
Bridge Crew - 3 x 2
GPL - 5 x 2
thats 30 people. im betting all have been hired elsewhere by now.
|
|
long lost landlocked
Guest
|
Post by long lost landlocked on Mar 12, 2007 20:07:22 GMT -8
Where the heck does one start... Jan 03 - Boat brought into Canada on temporary import permit. Registered at 472 GT. May 03 - Shipyard went broke. Ed Life took over as contractor to complete vessel. July 03 - Boat measured in Canada. Came in at 501 GT. Sept. 03 - Boat registered in Canada. Because vessel over 500 GT, company applies for tax refund on Provincial Sales Tax on purchase and all repairs (>4M). Company gets refund as does Mr. Life for his part in the repairs. Oct 03 - Boat goes to work. Jan 04 - Provincial taxman says OOps! Made a mistake. On the day you took posession of boat she only 472 gt. Not only does purchase not count for refund, but all repairs you have to pay PST. All expenses after 500 GT declaration (july) non taxable. Jan 04 until Jan 06 - Company pleads with Minister Thorpe for remission of tax. Thorpe says no way! Feb 06 - Company declares bankruptcy. Mar 9 06 - Order in council to grant remission of taxes on two orders - 134 and 135. One to company and other to Mr. Life. Mar 16 06 - Order providing remission to NHLC withdrawn. Taxman says OOps! Made a 'clerical error'. Life's remission stands. Interesting thing about all this...John Atlantic Burr purchased at 280 GT. 11.5 Million spent.... On the same basis as when the HarbourLynx was purchased, BCFS bought a 280 ton ship. All repairs, import charges, everything should have been taxed. Will pst ever be paid on one cent of the cost of the project? Doubt it. Look who owns it! Was the 500K tax bill a point of consideration in killing the company....  ? Absolutely yes! So much for being in competition with the big blue and white.... |
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Mar 12, 2007 22:50:12 GMT -8
Wow, so the NHLC order-in-council was reversed. Lets see if the Minister of Finance changes his mind another 4 times on this issue.
Mr. Landlocked, out of curiousity, was the arguement against the BC Gov't that the ship was simply "very close to 500 tons" and so you asked them to round-it-up-to-501, or was there another technicality involved re the weight?
|
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 13, 2007 7:21:49 GMT -8
No, the company was well aware of the 500 ton rule. Hence the addition of the extension to the upper houseworks, not unlike the "Burr"s additional lane to increase the tonnage to achieve an over 500 measurement.
The challenge is that you MUST remeasure a ship when she enters the country by a Canadian surveyor PRIOR to certification. The company did so. The taxman argued that the rules state that tax is due once you take posession (as the ship comes off the heavy lift ship essentially), not at the time it is imported. I believe the argument used by BCFS on the Burr is that they did not purchase a ship, but rather 'pieces of a ship with which to build a ship'. In the case of the HarbourLynx, they purchased a ship and have a bill of sale from another country indicating her tonnage, which by the way does not meet the 500 ton rule.
Sad thing is that if the bill of sale had said 501 gt, and the ship was measured prior to certification by a Canadian surveyor to be 499 gt, what position would the taxman have taken? I think we all know what the answer would have been! No, you will not see any more reversals of the tax. It's done. All of this action on the tax happened last March on the dates shown.
Again I state, watch out if you intend to compete with the blue and white fleet. You will receive very different treatment than they.
|
|
|
|
Post by landlocked on Mar 13, 2007 7:45:41 GMT -8
Well, I wouldn't say Ed Life 'won' per se. He invested a lot of time, energy and money in the project. Because he was a contractor, that's why he paid the tax. The refund was reinvested in the project, so there was no perceived advantage to him.
Yes, beware of BCFS. They get many, many, advantages, are treated by both the government, other civil authorities, and suppliers differently. You cannot compete in many areas plus THEY HAVE THE EAR OF THE GOVERNMENT! If it isn't good for BCFS, it's likely not good for the government.
I can't say that if I were in the position BCFS was in and I felt threatened by some little start up, I would protect my turf too.
|
|
? Absolutely yes!