This website has been created by Bridging Finance Unitholders, for Unitholders.

While our actions to date were unsuccessful, we still believe there is reason to gather names and critical mass in order to prepare for possible future actions.

If you, too, believe that there may be future benefit to having a collective mass of like-minded Unitholders, please leave your information at the link below.

Background:

This website was formed by a small group of Bridging Finance Investors who felt that critical decisions were being made with respect to the Bridging Finance receivership, and specifically the ’SISP’, without readily available information nor an informed unitholder vote. This website brought together additional investors to crowd source legal representation with Lerners LLP for the March 25, 2022 hearing before the Ontario Superior Court. The goal was to inform the court that numerous unitholders did not feel that the process was adequate and to request more readily accessible information which would lead to an informed unitholder vote. It was a simple and reasonable objective, but ultimately it was not successful.

Based on the numerous responses we received at this website, we are more convinced than ever that a vast majority of unitholders did not approve of the process taken in this matter. One of the major challenges facing unitholders was that we had no way to communicate important information or self-organize through a list of unitholders names and emails. The extremely tight timelines were a significant limiting factor.

At this point, we have no further actions to take, but that could change in the future. We may see opportunity to take action as an organized group to protect or recoup our investment. For this reason, we will leave the website open and continue to collect names and email addresses of fellow Bridging Investors. This website is by Bridging Finance unitholders, for unitholders. We’re sorry that our initiative was not enough to obtain an informed unitholder vote on the SISP but perhaps we can help one another in the future. If there is a need to act, we will be a few steps ahead by having collated this collective. We will email you with next steps. If you have ideas or actions for consideration, email us here, we are reading every message and we appreciate your concerns. We’re listening.

Join our confidential email list below and we will reach out if we can help one another in future.

Show Your Support

We will send you updates, count you amongst the number of unitholder and investment advisor supporters, but will not share your name or email address.

News and Updates


Bridging Finance investor speaks out as PwC pushes for wind down‍
March 29 Update
As you can read from the link below, the Ontario Superior Court approved the Receivers motions to terminate the ’SISP” related to Bridging Finance, contrary to our request for more readily accessible information and an informed unitholder vote.
‍https://www.pwc.com/ca/en/car/bfi/assets/bfi-162_290322.pdf
‍His reasons are expected to follow and are expected to be posted to the following website:https://www.pwc.com/ca/en/services/insolvency-assignments/bfi/court-orders.html
‍At this point, all we can do is sincerely thank those that contributed funds to crowdsource representation towards our mutually beneficial unitholder goals as well as thank those that joined the mailing list. In the end, we had over 60 people join the list prior to the court date, including numerous advisors, which totaled over $100 million worth of Bridging Finance (based on those that disclosed their units held or by clients they represented). We were extremely limited by time, and were not able to submit actual evidence to the court on the required timeline. We also promised to protect everyone’s anonymity, which was a limitation as well. Should another opportunity present itself to protect our mutual interests, we will be better prepared to act quickly as we now have a base to work from. Please keep sharing this website so we can collect more unitholders in case we need them.
March 24 Update
See the following story from BNN today. Court case is tomorrow morning, Friday March 25, 2022. Send anything relevant you learned from your advisors today to info@BridgingInvestors.com. Fingers crossed for a positive outcome tomorrow with the court.

We have been contacted by an Investment Advisor who has advised us that 100% of this advisor’s Unitholder clients are in favour of a vote in this proceeding.  The Investment Advisor advised us that he sent a letter to the Ontario Securities Commission.  The Investment Advisor has shared a template of the letter sent and it is included with this post but, the Investment Advisor has removed identifying information from the template.

Investment Advisor Letter to the OSC - 2022-03-24.docx
We at Bridging Investors want to clarify an earlier misunderstanding.  The attached letter is not our words.  They are the words of the Investment Advisor who contacted us.  In the original template letter the Investment Advisor says that “BJ, which promised a vote did not hold one and are now saying that it would be a waste of unitholders money”.  While we can’t speak to the discussion this Investment Advisor may have had with Bennett Jones, we agree with the statements made by Lerners LLP in their factum at paragraph 23.  We are not aware of any promises made by Bennett Jones to conduct a vote of Unitholders, although we believe (strongly) that a vote is necessary.

Also, as of March 24, 2022, as a from of apology to Bennett Jones, we have changed the statement in the template letter from its original form: 'BJ which promised a vote’ to 'BJ did not hold a vote‘.

We acknowledge that in posting the letter in its original format, we may have inadvertently be seen to imply that Bennett Jones lied. That is not the case nor the purpose of this website. It if for sharing factual information, not for making defamatory statements.

Now, why is reaching our to your advisor important? Please remember that Bennett Jones has acknowledged that most of the feedback they received was from Investment Advisors.

‍Quoting from the Factum of Bennett Jones LLP (March 18, 2022)

'As discussed in the Second Report, much of the feedback received was by IAs on behalf of unitholders. There is no evidence before the Court that unitholders were uncomfortable with IAs submitting feedback on their behalf'

‍If you are a Unitholder and support our cause, please write to your Investment Advisor immediately and ask them to provide your thoughts to Bennett Jones, the OSC and cc you on their correspondence.  When you contact your Investment Advisor, ask them if they spoke with Bennett Jones to let them know your thoughts.  If they agreed with Bennett Jones’ views, ask your Investment Advisor why they did that without speaking to you about it?

In addition to this, we are continuing to collect more and more names on our mailing list in support of this effort. Please continue to share this cause in any fashion you know how. We are relying on a grassroots effort to reach other unitholders who share in our concerns. They deserve an opportunity to have their voices represented this Friday, but we don’t know who they are or how to reach them!
21 March Update
Please read our latest press release below. We are requesting more information from the Receiver about the updated proposal indicated in the 24 February letter from BlackRock. Read more about it in the Press Release.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/group-of-bridging-finance-investors-launch-website-file-factum-for-upcoming-hearing-send-open-letter-to-osc-chair-and-report-on-enhanced-blackrock-bid-800062492.html
18 March Update
Yesterday Lerners submitted the following Factum to obtain our goal of enabling transparency and understanding around the SISP options and an informed unitholder vote. The Factum explains our argument to the court. It is worth a read.
As more unitholders support this cause by joining our mailing list, we have submitted an open letter (to protect your anonymity) to the Ontario Securities Commission. Here is a copy of the Open Letter sent to OSC Chair Grant Vingoe.
Open Letter sent to OSC Chair Grant Vingoe.pdf
We have been contacted by an Investment Advisor who has advised us that 100% of this advisor’s Unitholder clients are in favour of a vote in this proceeding.  The Investment Advisor advised us that he sent a letter to the Ontario Securities Commission.  The Investment Advisor has shared a template of the letter sent and it is included with this post but, the Investment Advisor has removed identifying information from the template.

Investment Advisor Letter to the OSC - 2022-03-24.docx
We at Bridging Investors want to clarify an earlier misunderstanding.  The attached letter is not our words.  They are the words of the Investment Advisor who contacted us.  In the original template letter the Investment Advisor says that “BJ, which promised a vote did not hold one and are now saying that it would be a waste of unitholders money”.  While we can’t speak to the discussion this Investment Advisor may have had with Bennett Jones, we agree with the statements made by Lerners LLP in their factum at paragraph 23.  We are not aware of any promises made by Bennett Jones to conduct a vote of Unitholders, although we believe (strongly) that a vote is necessary.

Also, as of March 24, 2022, as a from of apology to Bennett Jones, we have changed the statement in the template letter from its original form:
‍
'BJ which promised a vote’ to 'BJ did not hold a vote‘.

We acknowledge that in posting the letter in its original format, we may have inadvertently be seen to imply that Bennett Jones lied. That is not the case nor the purpose of this website. It if for sharing factual information, not for making defamatory statements.

Now, why is reaching our to your advisor important? Please remember that Bennett Jones has acknowledged that most of the feedback they received was from Investment Advisors.

‍Quoting from the Factum of Bennett Jones LLP (March 18, 2022)

'As discussed in the Second Report, much of the feedback received was by IAs on behalf of unitholders. There is no evidence before the Court that unitholders were uncomfortable with IAs submitting feedback on their behalf'

‍If you are a Unitholder and support our cause, please write to your Investment Advisor immediately and ask them to provide your thoughts to Bennett Jones, the OSC and cc you on their correspondence.  When you contact your Investment Advisor, ask them if they spoke with Bennett Jones to let them know your thoughts.  If they agreed with Bennett Jones’ views, ask your Investment Advisor why they did that without speaking to you about it?

In addition to this, we are continuing to collect more and more names on our mailing list in support of this effort. Please continue to share this cause in any fashion you know how. We are relying on a grassroots effort to reach other unitholders who share in our concerns. They deserve an opportunity to have their voices represented this Friday, but we don’t know who they are or how to reach them!

Why we are asking for more readily accessible information and ultimately an informed unitholder vote surrounding the Bridging Finance Receivership process?

In conversations with other unitholders, we are not truly informed with respect to the state of the loan book, nor do we have a real or consistent understanding of the 3 options available to minimize losses. What is clear, is that we are all about to crystalize some significant losses (approximately $1.4 billion out of $2.1 billion), but what hasn’t been made clear is why? Why is there a NAV (Net Asset Value) discrepancy between the different parties involved in the sale and investment solicitation process (the “SISP”)? Is there justification for a more optimistic outcome through a BlackRock approach than was originally communicated to a subset of unitholders? Why don’t we all have readily available access to clear information on the three options?
‍
After nearly a year since the start of the receivership, and an extremely long process surrounding the SISP, why the sudden rush to terminate the SISP with a constrained methodology towards communicating facts and options to those affected? Why did some unitholders get to hear the BlackRock presentation and others did not? In truth, there are many questions that no one has answers to right now. A significant amount of money is at stake, and it is essential that an informed decision be facilitated.

Show Your Support

How will we proceed to ensure appropriate representation of unitholders and investment advisors on behalf of their clients?

While the group acknowledges that the receiver and court appointed representative communicated with unitholders and investment advisors, they are joining together to make it known that those efforts were inadequate to create a body of informed unitholders and investment advisors. Additionally, communications between unitholders and investment advisors were not adequate to replace transparent education or a formal process to determine the outcome.

The group will be asking the Ontario Superior Court to support:

  • greater consultation and transparency around the options as well as provision of information directly to all unitholders by the Receiver and Bennett Jones LLP in its capacity as court appointed representative counsel for the unitholders; and
  • a vote of unitholders to determine which of the options available to the Receiver with respect to the BFI Funds should be pursued.
Show Your Support

What can you do?

We have the potential to make a real difference to protect our investment by having the facts laid bare and making an informed decision by unitholder vote. The court system is an important tool in our society, but it is designed to work best when there is a loyal opposition to properly examine the issue from all sides. We must stand as that loyal opposition to ensure our interests are protected. The reality is, we are not an informed group of unitholders and investment advisors today, but we now have a path forward to change that.

We ask you to show your support for this initiative by joining our confidential mailing list. If you would like to play a larger role in this effort, please write us at info@bridginginvestors.ca.

Show Your Support
Going into detail

Questions & Answers

What is the ‘Rescission issue’ referenced in Receiver’s Tenth Report and how does it affect the potential options?

This is question that should be answered for all investors, and it was the subject of a press release on 9 March 2022. Rescission is related to unitholders who acquired units within the applicable statutory period (commonly 180 days prior to the date of the receivership) and whether they are entitled to any priority to proceeds over the claims of unitholders which acquired units greater than 180 days prior. The Receiver’s Tenth Report seems to suggest they will ask the court to rule on rescission. Advice on how rescission affects the three options available should be factored into an informed vote by unitholders.On 9 March 2022, the following came out in the press.
‍https://financialpost.com/pmn/press-releases-pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/rescission-unitholders-to-advance-their-interests-in-bridging-receivership
‍Among other things, it states that 'Unitholders may have rescission rights if they purchased units of Bridging funds within six months of the commencement of the Receivership. Other damage claims may also be available. The success of such claims will affect the amount and timing of any distribution to those unitholders’. It also states they represent unitholders with holdings over $50 million.It would seem that this could significantly impact the cash distribution timeline suggested. This is a good example of why we should self-organize to understand all the facts clearly, inform an educated vote and ensure our collective interests are protected. Rescission may or may not be successful, could be great for some and not others, but regardless, we should make an informed decision.

Who initially retained Lerners LLP to seek the adjournment and why?

After consultation with other like minded unitholders, a single unit holder retained Lerners LLP to seek the adjournment given the short period of time available before the 25 Feb 2022 court date. The unitholder simply wishes to remain anonymous while enabling others to join in the same manner with Lerners LLP.

Why do we need additional representation when the court already appointed Bennett Jones as representative counsel?

This representation is meant for those who feel the information provided by Bennett Jones has not been accessible enough to date or don’t feel like their questions have been adequately answered through the available communication channels with PwC and Bennett Jones.

What is the ultimate goal?

The goal is that unitholders actively participate to understand the available options and that the decision be made by an informed unitholder vote. 

Do you have a question we haven’t answered here? Submit them to:

info@bridginginvestors.ca

Show Your Support at no cost to you

If you are a unitholder or investment advisor and resonate with this cause, we ask you to join our confidential mailing list by filling out this form. We will not share your name or email or use it in the court case. We will use it to send you updates and help us learn from one another.

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Thank you! Your submission has been received.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
BRIDGING INVESTORS
WHYHOWWHAT CAN I do?