15
Good luck collecting from them, we recieved a letter from KPMG stating they are insolvent. When I call Mackinnon, they are still operating, book with them at your own risk.
Mackinnon Transport Inc Guelph
- Thread starter Gord M
- Start date
10
Doesnt seem fair, They make the wrong moves in business and all the good running carriers that get associated with them pay the price. I hope they "become a stronger " as the saying goes from owners who screw alot of carriers and service providers along the way.
30
True, but that's the system we have. Look at the bright side though, if you make the wrong moves then you too can file for bankrupcy without the fear of losing all of your personal assets or going to debtors' prison. It cuts both ways.
15
take-over at Mackinnon
Laidlaw is apparently taking over their assets, if you did work for Mackinnon you are lucky to get 10%, but who knows maybe Laidlaw will be charitable and pay all the carriers Mackinnon owes.
Laidlaw is apparently taking over their assets, if you did work for Mackinnon you are lucky to get 10%, but who knows maybe Laidlaw will be charitable and pay all the carriers Mackinnon owes.
Last edited by a moderator:
2
Drove past the ECL (contrans garbage division) yard on hwy #4 today, and some mackinnon/le walker trucks and vans sitting in the yard. Not much asset value there...customers & drivers is the only thing to be gained by contrans from this transaction !
10
I got the unsecured creditors list today from KPMG. Alex and Evan are the biggest creditors, of course behind the poor bast*** at Kal tire, they are out a quarter mill.
Its nice to know that at least the mackinnon family will keep a good portion of the unsecured creditor $$. Bless their hearts and happy new year.
Its nice to know that at least the mackinnon family will keep a good portion of the unsecured creditor $$. Bless their hearts and happy new year.
10
10
10
Short list of secured, all dollar amounts are 0.
10 pages of unsecured, but a whole bunch are shown at 1.00 claimed.
General suppliers (lawn maintenance, truck parts etc) and CARRIERS make up the majority of those not at 1.00.
I find it funny they are trying to screw carriers, yet they are still posting on the link for loads.
Bigger question, if you knew nothing of this, and just looked at the Link's D&B and Equifax...there is no indication of any issues whatsoever. Guess that tells you the value of those two pieces of crap.
10 pages of unsecured, but a whole bunch are shown at 1.00 claimed.
General suppliers (lawn maintenance, truck parts etc) and CARRIERS make up the majority of those not at 1.00.
I find it funny they are trying to screw carriers, yet they are still posting on the link for loads.
Bigger question, if you knew nothing of this, and just looked at the Link's D&B and Equifax...there is no indication of any issues whatsoever. Guess that tells you the value of those two pieces of crap.
30
Sorry to hear of your troubles with this Dave. The credit reports are only as good as the folks who report. Evidently no one or very few people bothered to report any issues like slow payments. I'm with you though, most of those credit reports are a load of crap... Many of these reports will report whatever and feel no obligation to provide accurate info... I had a problem like that last year...actually right around Xmas..I had to threaten to rip the guys kidneys out before they'd correct it... which they did (because they correctly decided I wasn't kidding)..
Last edited by a moderator:
10
Secured list
They must have an excellent relationship with their financial institutions if they see no need to secure the debt.
If anyone one has information on their bank , please let me know , I will be applying for a sizable loan this afternoon.
Best wishes for the new year to all !!!!
I believe the coming year will be bountiful for those carriers that are still around!!
They must have an excellent relationship with their financial institutions if they see no need to secure the debt.
If anyone one has information on their bank , please let me know , I will be applying for a sizable loan this afternoon.
Best wishes for the new year to all !!!!
I believe the coming year will be bountiful for those carriers that are still around!!
10
30
They've been around since 1928, so they may indeed have a rock solid relationship with their bank, inspite of the mess they're in.
10
There you go!!
This clearly shows that is impossible to compete in this arena.
The parameters are not the same for all players.
This filing looks to be well thought out, not all of us can afford top legal firms to advise us to protect our personal investment via a holding company that becomes a secured creditor. Clearly this is the case.
Trust account miss use , did it occur???
The following is certain:
There is a need for a combined effort by all the remaining carriers with fleets under 100 units (arbitrary number) to form an association that has an agenda set on political lobbying aimed towards provincial and federal government representatives.
With the intent on changing the rules governing load tendering by any legal entity.
Stricter rules must be drawn up governing the use (or misuse) of trust accounts and operating requirements. Very heavy fines need to be implemented in case of any deviation from the parameters.
I for one am not very happy to hear that we will now have to compete with a leaner and stronger re engineered MacKinnon.
I for one will be looking into setting up such a group in Quebec. If anyone else will be interested in joining me, simply PM.
With a combined effort of the thousands of small fleets such as ours, we should be able to even out the playing field, and compete with the larger fleets.
This clearly shows that is impossible to compete in this arena.
The parameters are not the same for all players.
This filing looks to be well thought out, not all of us can afford top legal firms to advise us to protect our personal investment via a holding company that becomes a secured creditor. Clearly this is the case.
Trust account miss use , did it occur???
The following is certain:
There is a need for a combined effort by all the remaining carriers with fleets under 100 units (arbitrary number) to form an association that has an agenda set on political lobbying aimed towards provincial and federal government representatives.
With the intent on changing the rules governing load tendering by any legal entity.
Stricter rules must be drawn up governing the use (or misuse) of trust accounts and operating requirements. Very heavy fines need to be implemented in case of any deviation from the parameters.
I for one am not very happy to hear that we will now have to compete with a leaner and stronger re engineered MacKinnon.
I for one will be looking into setting up such a group in Quebec. If anyone else will be interested in joining me, simply PM.
With a combined effort of the thousands of small fleets such as ours, we should be able to even out the playing field, and compete with the larger fleets.
2
Smaller Trucking Co's
Hello alx, in the new year we would be interested in forming some sort of group to discuss the issues that us as smaller carriers (100 trucks or less as you mentioned as a tentative #) face on a regular basis. I think that would be constructive for alot of members on this site as well. We are Ontario based, but maybe we should start a new thread on here to brainstorm some ideas to what you propose? Have a Happy New Year everyone and look forward to 2012! Chris @ F1
Hello alx, in the new year we would be interested in forming some sort of group to discuss the issues that us as smaller carriers (100 trucks or less as you mentioned as a tentative #) face on a regular basis. I think that would be constructive for alot of members on this site as well. We are Ontario based, but maybe we should start a new thread on here to brainstorm some ideas to what you propose? Have a Happy New Year everyone and look forward to 2012! Chris @ F1
30
While re-inventing the wheel sometimes produces a better device, in this case, doesn't the OTA, Canadian Trucking Alliance and all the other provincial trucking associations already do what you're asking for? When the Ontario government decided to get rid of the Load Brokers Licence a few years ago, it was the OTA that pushed to at least maintain the trust account provision. Although you may get some sympathetic attention, it is my belief that governments of all political stripes want nothing, or at best, very little to do with regulating any business. They would rather let the courts navigate and apply what little regulation exists. However, where there is room for progress, is in how the courts view the trust account. It should get secured status along with funds owing to financial institutions and other secured creditors. If there was a trust account and if MacKinnon was using it as the regulations require, the money should not have been part of general revenue and therefore has a different status. It will be interesting to see the courts interpretation in this particular case
10
Lobbying
Thanks for the initial interest F1.
Loaders , I do see what you are saying. I believe that earlier this week one of our fellow readers, mentioned the trust account issue, and added that a judge had already ruled unfavorably in this regard.
In some of my earlier post I had mentioned my disdain for the OTA and CTA. I am not sure that what they are promoting benefits the majority of Carriers, more likely the minority of larger ones.
The fact that the OTA has been governed in recent memory by people who had their own businesses fail is not comforting.
I am not quite sure of the figures, but trucking is one of the biggest , if not the largest sector of the economy in the country regarding employment.
There are surely thousands of Carriers out there with little representation, not knowing where to find it.
As F1 has mentioned , we could certainly start brain storming on this site, may I add hoping to increase the number of supporters, seeing the benefits garnered.
Thanks for the initial interest F1.
Loaders , I do see what you are saying. I believe that earlier this week one of our fellow readers, mentioned the trust account issue, and added that a judge had already ruled unfavorably in this regard.
In some of my earlier post I had mentioned my disdain for the OTA and CTA. I am not sure that what they are promoting benefits the majority of Carriers, more likely the minority of larger ones.
The fact that the OTA has been governed in recent memory by people who had their own businesses fail is not comforting.
I am not quite sure of the figures, but trucking is one of the biggest , if not the largest sector of the economy in the country regarding employment.
There are surely thousands of Carriers out there with little representation, not knowing where to find it.
As F1 has mentioned , we could certainly start brain storming on this site, may I add hoping to increase the number of supporters, seeing the benefits garnered.
2
Ota
I quite agree the OTA hasn't done much to protect the small carriers, It seems the opposite. In my oppinion I think the OTA prefers to help the bigger carriers to stay in business by trying to stop the smaller carriers from nipping at there heals. Change only happens when the industry gets together holds hands and demands those changes. As long as we stay divided and take care of our own back yards with a our heads in the sand we will always have our ass in the air being kicked at. Look at the CVOR changes a few years ago if you are a small carrier you are prone to higher infractions! The point system is set on how many trucks you have on the road, 1 bad driver can shut a small company down but not a large company. In the past the driver was made responsible now its the company. In short it would be a great idea to get something going! Being unified has changed the world!
My 2 cents.
I quite agree the OTA hasn't done much to protect the small carriers, It seems the opposite. In my oppinion I think the OTA prefers to help the bigger carriers to stay in business by trying to stop the smaller carriers from nipping at there heals. Change only happens when the industry gets together holds hands and demands those changes. As long as we stay divided and take care of our own back yards with a our heads in the sand we will always have our ass in the air being kicked at. Look at the CVOR changes a few years ago if you are a small carrier you are prone to higher infractions! The point system is set on how many trucks you have on the road, 1 bad driver can shut a small company down but not a large company. In the past the driver was made responsible now its the company. In short it would be a great idea to get something going! Being unified has changed the world!
My 2 cents.
30
10
I despise the DBA (David Bradley Association). When they are not self serving, they invariably push for the large carriers. EOBR is a great example. If you don't want to have a huge compliance department, force EVERYBODY to invest in EOBRs.
I never did figure out what his 105 speed limit agenda was for. I believe it was a repayment to the government for something they gave the OTA once upon a time. I myself agree with 105 but couldnt figure the need for legislation.
According to the FMCSA in the US, there were 44000 trucking firms in the states in 2008. 3643 had more than 40 trucks. (source...Hours of Service Proposed Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis Appendix A – Data and Calculations for Industry Profile)
It is safe to assume the proportions are similar here. You can bet the OTA speaks for the 40+ much more than the <40 fleet size.
I am all for an association for small carriers, but I believe small carriers are like farmers. Independent, bull headed, and will associate only until there is a reward to them for jumping out of line (at the expense of the rest of the association). I doubt it will have much success, but count me in.
On another note, I'm going to a high priced but very good transportation lawyer next week in Toronto to see where I stand with the whole MacKinnon thing. Trust account/BOL act/yada yada. I will let you know what transpires.
I never did figure out what his 105 speed limit agenda was for. I believe it was a repayment to the government for something they gave the OTA once upon a time. I myself agree with 105 but couldnt figure the need for legislation.
According to the FMCSA in the US, there were 44000 trucking firms in the states in 2008. 3643 had more than 40 trucks. (source...Hours of Service Proposed Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis Appendix A – Data and Calculations for Industry Profile)
It is safe to assume the proportions are similar here. You can bet the OTA speaks for the 40+ much more than the <40 fleet size.
I am all for an association for small carriers, but I believe small carriers are like farmers. Independent, bull headed, and will associate only until there is a reward to them for jumping out of line (at the expense of the rest of the association). I doubt it will have much success, but count me in.
On another note, I'm going to a high priced but very good transportation lawyer next week in Toronto to see where I stand with the whole MacKinnon thing. Trust account/BOL act/yada yada. I will let you know what transpires.