It says the banks are proceeding with taking the Canadian operations away from CPIC based on a demand letter dated in February... while saying it's all legal like... and daring anyone to step up and say that its not.
They're hoping the method enables a "speak now or forever hold your peace" type moment that any judge will validate. They're publishing this to tell you that that's what they're doing while they're doing it... by telling you after the fact of having done it already, while delaying the effect of having done it. They've published that they already took that step by delivering the demand letter (which is a material event for CPIC... the effect of which is perhaps not properly noticed in the filing they made)... and then they also published that they're not enforcing it now during the period of the new forebearance...
They've provided an opportunity to object. If no one does anything, it probably proceeds and happens on or about 6 March. Basically, it's showing the banks acting as CPIC management while negotiating with themselves for you, acting for you as or in lieu of CPIC management, and taking CPIC apart one step at a time. Taking one step at a time, they're waiting to see what response they get from taking each new step they take, while going through the motions of trying to strip out any legal recourse anyone else might have to object to their takings as a practice of fraud, etc. As a matter of law, I think none of that really matters. If what they're doing is originally based in a planned fraud, then the steps they take trying to advance the effort to complete the larger fraud being practiced aren't valid, just because the individual steps might be legal, if seen outside the complete context. And that's still true, even if they do get a clueless court to rubber stamp the parts of their acts that are the minor component elements of completing a larger plan.
If there weren't risks like that already inherent in the scope of the mess this is and has become... they'd probably not have the need to go the lengths they have in generating the various layers of insulation while preparing it for the effort that will be made in unwinding it.
Only two things really relevant...
One is more theoretical... as if it can be shown that the basis of the overall effort being made in the "take down" of CPIC is fraudulent... then the effort made in trying to have the courts rubber stamp what they want to happen now doesn't actually have the intended effect. Instead, all that means is that a parallel practice of fraud on the courts eliminates the relevance of the statute of limitations. So, what the banks try to do is chop the effort up into more and smaller parts, and distribute them more widely between different jurisdictions... hoping no one will ever bother to reconstruct the "big picture" that's probably most accurate. A death by a thousand cuts... in which the courts have become the banks willing pawns, rather than law, or justice.
The other is more practical...
That is, that if no one does object, it doesn't really matter whether what they're doing is right or wrong, fraudulent or not... it will proceed to happen, and it will be done as they want, and then we'll see what they choose to do with the rest of CPIC once they've removed "the value" from the rest of it that has no value.
I think they've drug this out about as far as they will, whatever the risks are.
CPIC's plight can be seen as broadly representative of the nature of the problems that do come associated with the concentration of capital and power in the banks that we have now. That CPIC is failing, and is failing in the WAY that it is... isn't just about a failed management having screwed up a perfectly viable business by running it into the ground after loading it up on debt, and still failing to address making any course corrections long after the need was made obvious. Instead, it's about a management who have coordinated a failure that results in the business ending up owned by the banks... before it will be allowed to be 'fixed'... while the management continues making choices that ensure it cannot survive, without being transferred to the banks ownership.
The old saw is that if you own the bank a little, they own you, and if you owe the bank a lot, you own the bank.
CPIC management arranged to owe the bank a lot... just shy of that $100 million threshold... but then CHOSE to surrender control to the banks... early on ? Should have been made clear then where this was going to end up. Should have become all the more clear as the bank continued growing their debt, faster. Whose interest was it, that was controlling the decisions that were made ?
My guess is... they don't care much about the cost of dragging it out. It's not their money that's at risk. They've already made the money on the deal. The "values" of things being considered in completion of the takedown aren't relevant in reality, and they'll still do what it takes to win, cover the cost, and not care what it costs... because its about "winning" and not about the value being at risk.
CPIC has had a fork stuck in it for a long time...
Now, they've started turning the fork... if slowly...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
