Evan MacKinnon vows to restore MTI as "premier flatbed TL carrier"

"I'm especially excited that through our business deal with Laidlaw Van LP we have jointly achieved preservation of 95% of the jobs of the MacKinnon employees and independent contractors - a huge success in these challenging times of excess unemployment," MacKinnon said. He added the company's focus will be to return to its roots and core competencies as a "premier flatbed truckload carrier."

Is this guy for real? Is it just me, or is it a little early in the "restructuring" process to be putting the 95% job preservation number out there? He may end up eating those words... I feel horrible for all those - and there will be lots - who lose lots of money in this deal, which is very far from over. I'm just surprised this guy (Evan) can't help but pat himself on the back through all of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To any of you folks that have fairly deep knowledge of going after the shipper for unpaid freight charges (bills of lading act?), can you give me a little insight as to whether or not, in your opinion, there is recourse in that direction for monies owed by MacKinnon for freight?
I have my corporate lawyer working that angle, but she is struggling with it.
Would like to know which acts empower that process, and if you think it applies in this case.
 
Dave we have used the following letter successfully in the past it gets there attention and you can usually work something out with them once there lawyer sees this.


Company Name
Address
City, Province
Postal code

Attention:

Re: Carrier: Name here
Shipper: Name of Shipper Here ( “company name”)
Consignee: Above company name (“company name”)
Outstanding Invoices: list all invoice #”s

All of the Outstanding Invoices represent Carriers trucking fees for shipments of goods sent by ______________ and delivered to ___________ as consignee. Each of the outstanding invoices remains unpaid by __________, notwithstanding various requests for payment. You will note the aggregate of the amounts owing pursuant to the Outstanding Invoices as of August 26, 2004 is $________. Interest has not been added to this total.

Pursuant to the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.10 and the Bills of Lading Act, R.S.C. Chap. B-5, as the consignee of the goods shipped via Carrier, ___________ is liable for payment of the Outstanding Invoices. Carrier has reissued each of the Outstanding Invoices to ____________ and they are enclosed. Accordingly this letter constitutes formal demand for the immediate payment of $_______________. Please be advised that if Carrier. does not receive payment in full of that amount by Monday August 26, 2004, forthwith thereafter Carrier will commence a lawsuit against ___________ to collect that amount plus legal costs and all interest and any other amounts to which it may be entitled pursuant to law.

Please consult with your lawyers as we have been very successful with collecting other unpaid debts and should we receive payment of monies owed without involving our lawyers, we would waive any interest charges to date.

Sincerely,
 
I would go after McKinnon...making the shipper pay twice doesn't seem fair. Does McKinnon have a trust account? I would pursue that option and then normal collection procedures as they aren't under bankrupcy protection yet.
 
Freight Broker said:
I would go after McKinnon...making the shipper pay twice doesn't seem fair. Does McKinnon have a trust account? I would pursue that option and then normal collection procedures as they aren't under bankrupcy protection yet.
Click to expand...

I really don't care about fair, nor does my banker and creditors. If a shipper gives freight to a broker that can't/doesn't pay their bills -then it becomes their problem.

When shippers learn this they will be much more selective and perform their due diligence before using scummy brokers that don't/can't pay the carriers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the input. I'll keep y'all posted.

They don't owe me enough to put me out of business, but they owe me enough that I don't really care about fair. What isn't fair is the cheque isn't coming in the forseeable future.

When I spoke to A/R the other day, they had received no direction from the execs, and were waiting for their meeting so they could find out more than Truck News knew.

What the real shame is, in my mind, is the whole trust account legislation is carried in what -the Highway Traffic Act? What's the fine for not having a trust fund...185 bucks + victim surcharge?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It' not about fair, it's about the due process. As a Carrier your recourse on unpaid freight bill is with the shipper or reciever as per the bill of lading that shows you as the carrier and whether it is marked prepaid or collect. Let them pay you, and then they (the shipper or reciever ) can go to court and recover their payment from Mackinon at their cost, not yours. Why make life so difficult.
 
If MacKinnon was brokering freight, they were required under the Highway Traffic Act, to maintain a trust account for the deposit of monies owed to the carriers who performed the transport. Did they do that? I strongly doubt it. Most carriers who broker freight, and a large number of brokers, do not maintain a trust account usually because of the additional accounting burden it creates. As long as everyone is getting paid, there's no problem. However in this case there appears to be a large number of people who are owed money for transportation services provided. By all means, investigate the possibility that there is a trust account as well as legal proceedings against the shippers. If MacKinnon operated a brokerage without a trust account, there could be some personal liability on the part of the officers of MacKinnon for failing to abide with the regulations.
 
Trust account

A question for the experienced or legal minded.

Assuming, that there was no trust account actively being used for the purpose of holding funds for the carriers, then the current account was being used improperly as per Ontario's regulations.

Could you as carriers , through a knowledgeable lawyer have the funds in their current account frozen due to improper use?

I would certainly look into that angle. This may be virgin territory, but a good lawyer can be very creative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ralphthetrucker said:
I really don't care about fair, nor does my banker and creditors. If a shipper gives freight to a broker that can't/doesn't pay their bills -then it becomes their problem.

When shippers learn this they will be much more selective and perform their due diligence before using scummy brokers that don't/can't pay the carriers.
Click to expand...

So why shouldn't the carrier perhaps perform due diligence on the broker? We're the transportation experts after all. The shipper isn't in the transportation business, he is thus less inclined to know that McKinnon is having difficulties than we are..

If I buy a part from Joe's Peterbilt and Joes Peterbilt doesn't pay Bob's Machining, then I should pay Bob's Machining even though I've already paid Joe's Peterbilt in good faith? I think not.
 
Another possible plan of action for those who may not get paid from MacKinnon. If the load you did was to or from the US, make a claim against their US surety bond for non payment. As a broker who handles freight into or out of the US, they would have had to establish a bond to obtain their US brokers licence. Keep in mind, the amount of the bond is only $10,000.00 so the early birds will get first crack until it is exhausted. My gut tells me however that MacKinnon, acting as a carrier, probably didn't use a trust account or have a brokers licence and surety bond. Certainly something for carriers to think about when they accept freight from another carrier.
 
According to SAFER WEB MacKinnon is properly set up with a surety bond. That angle should be follow-up; however, for large amounts owing I would contact MacKinnon directly. The bond, after all, is only good for 10K, and there are probably already lots of claims against it as people get nervous about getting paid.
 
So there we have it.
Option 1. Make a claim against MacKinnon's surety bond. Remember, only 10K is available.

Option 2. File a motion in small claims court against MacKinnon for the amount outstanding. Anything up to 20K is allowed. Remember, if they do proceed with bankruptcy, your chances are slim to none on seeing anything as an unsecured creditor.

Option 3. Although some members seem find this approach distasteful, proceed against the party named on the bill of lading as responsible for the freight charges. There has been legal precedent established in Ontario where a shipper, having already paid the freight charges to the broker, has been compelled to pay a second time to the party who hauled the freight and is named on the bill of lading as the carrier.

Let's hope that MacKinnon can get their financial house in order before any of these options are required. That would be much easier and less costly.
 
Loaders

I would not waste much time with options 1 and 2 for the same reasons that you cited.

I would go to invoicing the clients directly, and also fast.
With a company as large as MacKinnon, there may be a great deal of carriers going this route, already putting pressure on the end users and forcing them into bankruptcy as well.

Going after a company the size of MacKinnon may be futile. Their corporate structure may be so that any division with assets left is another corporate entity and thus untouchable. Most likely the shareholders have set themselves up as prefered creditors and will persevere.
Maybe this may explain how they will be able to explain how they will be able to operate as a flatbed carrier and sell off the dry division to Laidlaw?

The carriers neither of which are preferred will bear the greatest burden of the loss.

In the last two bankruptcies we have been notified of the, the receivables were in one case 1/70 of the debt and in the other 1/7 . Most of the losses were in both cases were to carriers .

Do not forget , they now are versed in what they are doing. The Walker experience was recent and certainly educational.
 
Freight Broker said:
If I buy a part from Joe's Peterbilt and Joes Peterbilt doesn't pay Bob's Machining, then I should pay Bob's Machining even though I've already paid Joe's Peterbilt in good faith? I think not.
Click to expand...

If the BoL act or any other legislation allowed you to do it then I guess Bob's macining could come after you for payment.
 
Not trying to defend anyone and I know better than most what it feels like to get stiffed by a customer. But when you think about it, how many businsess's other than trucking do you have any re-course at all if a customer doesnt pay. Once you give anyone credit regardless of how reputable they are you are taking a chance. Business is just that way. The only way is C.O.D for everyone and we know that is never going to happen. Dont get in too deep with anyone and you will minimize your risk but you will never eliminate it.
 
Yes, what they said. I've also had to deal with nonpayments, and it is never pleasant. But that's how it goes sometimes. We can minimize the risk by keeping our ears to the ground...bankrupcies are rarely a total surprise. They are usually preceded by slow payments, stall tactics, and rumours. Ignore all that at your peril..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom