Buying a distressed contractor before its bonds could lapse

The situation

The clock that mattered most was not on the purchase agreement. It was on the surety company's file. Ratana's construction business, a mid-sized general contractor working mostly on public infrastructure work in and around Kanata, had fallen behind its secured lender over the previous year and was weeks from a formal insolvency filing that neither Ratana nor anyone advising her believed could realistically be avoided any longer. Its bonding company had already flagged, in a letter Ratana's team had not fully absorbed the significance of, that the performance bonds backing its active contracts would be reviewed, and very likely pulled, the moment the company entered bankruptcy rather than an alternative process. Once those bonds lapsed, the contracts they secured could be terminated by the public bodies that had awarded them, since those bodies typically require continuous bonding as a condition of the work continuing, and a construction company without bonded, active contracts is worth a fraction of one with a full backlog still intact.

Niran had spent years building a portfolio of franchise locations across several categories and had been looking, for some time, to diversify into an operating business with real physical assets and long-term government contract revenue rather than another retail-style location. Ratana's company, despite its financial trouble, had a strong equipment fleet, a trained and experienced workforce, and a contract backlog that made it a genuinely attractive target on paper, if the deal could be structured to preserve that backlog rather than watch it evaporate somewhere in the middle of an insolvency process. The transaction under discussion, covering the company's assets, contracts, and equipment, was valued in the range of fifty-five to sixty-five million dollars once the bonded contracts were factored into the price.

Shalini's firm held the company's largest secured equipment loan and was, practically speaking, the creditor whose support would decide whether any sale process worked at all, regardless of what Niran and Ratana agreed between themselves. Without her consent to release her security over the equipment fleet as part of a sale, no purchaser could acquire clean title to the assets that made the business worth buying in the first place, no matter how attractive the contract backlog looked.

The straightforward path, letting the company slide into bankruptcy and buying the assets from a trustee afterward at whatever price a liquidation process produced, was the path everyone at the table wanted to avoid. It would very likely have meant losing the bonds, losing the contracts tied to those bonds, and buying a shell of idle equipment and displaced employees instead of a functioning, revenue-generating business.

The legal question

The core question was whether Ratana's company could be sold as a going concern through a formal creditor proposal, rather than through bankruptcy or an informal private sale negotiated entirely outside any insolvency process, and whether doing so would actually preserve the bonds and contracts everyone was trying to save. A creditor proposal is a court-supervised process under insolvency legislation that lets an insolvent company put a restructuring plan to its creditors for a vote, as an alternative to bankruptcy, and it can include a sale of the business's assets as part of that plan rather than a simple repayment schedule. Done correctly, a sale implemented through a proposal can carry protections that an informal private sale cannot, including court authorization that helps assure a buyer it is acquiring clean title free of claims that predate the sale, which matters enormously to any purchaser inheriting a company's existing contracts.

The complication was timing, and it ran in two directions at once. The insolvency rules set a firm deadline for filing a formal proposal once the company gave notice of its intention to make one, and missing that deadline results in an automatic bankruptcy. That deadline can be extended, but only by the court, on an application brought before it expires and on evidence the company is acting in good faith and making real progress toward a proposal, not by the parties simply agreeing between themselves to push it back, and the total extension available is capped. Separately, and on an entirely different clock, the surety company had its own internal review process for deciding whether to keep bonds in place through a change of ownership, and that process ran on its own institutional timeline, shaped by its underwriting standards, not by the insolvency legislation's deadlines at all. Getting the surety's support required the buyer to be identified, the terms of the sale to be substantially settled, and the surety's underwriters to complete their own independent review, all before the proposal deadline expired on its own fixed schedule.

That combination created a genuine legal and practical question with no template answer available from a similar prior file: could a purchase agreement be negotiated, a secured creditor's consent secured, and a surety's approval process completed, all inside a deadline that would not bend to private agreement between the parties, regardless of how close they were to a deal, and that a court would extend only on its own terms, not on the deal's schedule. If any one piece lagged behind the others, the company would default into bankruptcy automatically, the bonds would very likely be pulled by the surety as a matter of its own stated policy on bankrupt bonded contractors, and the contracts underlying those bonds would sit at real risk of termination by the public owners that had awarded them. The purchase agreement Niran wanted to sign was only ever going to be worth what it said on paper if the underlying business survived intact long enough to actually transfer to him.

What we did

1. Mapped the proposal deadline against the surety's review timeline from day one. Before any purchase terms were finalized, we set out the fixed filing deadline the insolvency rules imposed and, separately, contacted the surety directly to understand its own internal approval process and how long it typically took. This let everyone work backward from the true constraint rather than assume the legal deadline was the only clock running.
2. Negotiated the purchase agreement in parallel with the insolvency filing, not after it. Rather than waiting for a formal proposal to be filed before starting acquisition negotiations, we ran both tracks at once, so that by the time the proposal was filed, Niran's offer was substantially agreed and ready to be presented to creditors as part of the plan itself.
3. Secured Shalini's preliminary support before the filing. As the company's largest secured creditor, her consent to release her equipment security as part of a sale was the single point of failure for the whole structure. We negotiated directly with her counsel to confirm, in principle, that she would support a sale on the proposed terms, which gave the rest of the process a stable foundation.
4. Pushed the surety's underwriting review to start early, using the draft purchase agreement as the basis. Surety companies will often begin evaluating a prospective new owner's financial strength and track record before a deal is finalized, if given enough detail to work with. We provided Niran's financial background and the draft terms early so the surety's own internal clock started running in parallel with the insolvency deadline instead of after it.
5. Built the sale into the proposal document itself, rather than as a side agreement. Structuring the purchase as an integrated part of the formal proposal, subject to creditor approval and court sanction, gave Niran the benefit of court authorization for the transfer, which mattered enormously to the surety's willingness to keep the bonds in place through the ownership change, since a court-sanctioned transfer carried far more assurance than a private sale negotiated entirely outside the insolvency process.
6. Coordinated the filing date to land only once every dependency was confirmed. We held the proposal filing until Shalini's support, the surety's preliminary approval, and the purchase agreement's final terms were all locked, rather than filing on the earliest possible date and hoping the pieces caught up. This meant filing a few days later than technically permitted, deliberately, to remove the risk of a gap.
7. Prepared a fallback bankruptcy-sale structure in case the timeline still slipped. As insurance against any one of the moving pieces falling behind, we drafted an alternative structure that could have proceeded through a trustee in bankruptcy if the proposal path failed outright, accepting candidly that it would likely mean losing some or all of the bonded contracts along the way, so that Niran was never left negotiating from a position with no path forward at all if the timeline broke.

The outcome

The proposal was filed with every major piece already in place, the plan was approved by the required majority of creditors, and the court sanctioned the sale to Niran as part of the proposal itself rather than as a separate later transaction. The surety, having completed its review in parallel rather than waiting until after the insolvency filing to start, agreed to keep the performance bonds in place under the new ownership, and the contracts those bonds secured transferred with the business fully intact. The fallback bankruptcy structure we had prepared as insurance was never actually needed, which is the outcome everyone had been working toward from the first phone call.

This was a prevention outcome in the clearest sense available in this kind of file: the scenario everyone was working to avoid, a bankruptcy that pulled the bonds and stripped the contract backlog out of the deal before Niran ever took ownership, simply never happened. That does not mean the process was free of cost or friction along the way. Running the purchase negotiation, the creditor consent process, and the surety's independent review simultaneously required real coordination across three separate parties with three separate timelines, and the deliberate short delay in filing the proposal carried its own risk if any of the three tracks had slipped even a few days further than expected. Niran also accepted a purchase price that reflected the company's genuinely distressed condition rather than its full going-concern value, since a sale conducted under insolvency protection, however well managed, is still fundamentally a sale made under pressure and priced accordingly.

What Niran avoided was the much larger loss sitting on the other side of a missed deadline: buying equipment and a trained workforce with no active bonded contracts attached to them at all, which would have been a materially different, and far less valuable, acquisition than the one that actually closed. The company's contracts, employees, and equipment fleet all moved to the new ownership together as a functioning, revenue-producing business, with the surety and the secured creditor both formally on side well before the deadline that would otherwise have taken the choice out of everyone's hands entirely.

What you can learn from this