Judge calls Input Capital contracts ‘unconscionable’

[SASKFARMER3]

You guys would shit to realize who uses them. Some BTOs. Follow the money they win.

[biglentil]

Hmmm interesting verdict, is the farmer going to be able to come up with 4 million anyways?

Unconscionable contracts remind me of situations where there is a last minute Will change on the person's death bed.

[farmaholic]

I personally know no one who uses them. But I guess that could be expected when I don't soar with eagles but instead walk with turkeys.

[GDR]

I would never use them and figure they are basically a loan shark but if you are willing to sign their contract and take their money what right do you have to conplain and cry fowl afterwards. What a load of crap, no accountability anymore in our world. Everything from no actual grades in school, no scores for kids sports, most of the Me Too movement, big bad lender doing what they said they would do but you dont like it. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions its not always someone elses fault!

[GDR]

Also wasting tax dollars in the judicial system and taking up valuable court time that maybe could be used for putting criminals behind bars.

[SASKFARMER3]

Look to the left look to the Right Look north of your yard or south. Who in the last few years has gone from just a small little family farm with paid for land to a BTO overnight and seeds more Canola than rest of the crops?

Bingo that's their Client.

[bucket]

Loan sharking, collusion, price fixing, all used to be illegal.


ICC, Graincos, Railways, Grocers like Westons, Fuel cos. And the public stands for it and farmers embrace it.


This isn't capitalism anymore....

Capitalism is making a business for the public that has value and can return a reasonable return on that investment for those that risked setting it up.

[the big wheel]

Also wasting tax dollars in the judicial system and taking up valuable court time that maybe could be used for putting criminals behind bars.

Isn't that what this should be about besides the money? They are knowingly doing this it's not an accident. It's being represented as this major development in agriculture says john gormley about icc right ? Is this not an intentional land play if not a windfall interest scam?

Are they not confusing the premise? The initial idea that giving a loan for grain is actually not a bad idea and that's what s being sold as a revolutionary idea however in the end it's how much grain. At what cost to pay the loan back is what matters. They make it sound like they are e making money off the fundamentals of buying and selling the grain in options etc but it's really a major interest play is it not? Where you sign over land?

[bucket]

The gain on the value of the farmland since any of these farmers signed on gave input more than a reasonable return on their piece of paper contract streaming.

The players in all of this are despicable, deplorable.

But what bothers me most is the fact government were involved in the whole thing.....this was a condoned operation by both the NDP and Saskparty.

[RTK]

If you inked the deal you honour the deal. Seems pretty simple to me...

[recapped]

ICC sees it like this.


Input Capital Corp. Awarded $4.4 Million Plus Interest and Court Costs in Court Decision

News provided by
Input Capital Corp.

May 18, 2018, 14:30 ET

Share this article

REGINA, May 18, 2018 /CNW/ - Input Capital Corp. ("Input" or the "Company") (TSX Venture: INP) (US: INPCF) announces that yesterday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench awarded Input a judgment for $4.4 million, together with interest and court costs, in a matter relating to a streaming contract on which a farmer in SE Saskatchewan defaulted.

The court also ruled in Input's favour on a number of issues which have been alleged in recent media reports. The court also ruled that:

The streaming contract with the farmer was not a partnership;
The Cost of Credit Disclosure Act does not apply;
There was no requirement for Input to be licensed under the Trust and Loans Corporations Act;
The Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act does not apply because the contract was not a loan;
Input did not breach any of its contractual obligations to the client; and
The client was unjustly enriched by the default, and should be required to pay Input.

While Input achieved success in the case, the court did make certain findings that Input believes to be in error. Input is considering an appeal of these findings.

ABOUT INPUT

Input is an agriculture commodity streaming company with a focus on canola, the largest and most profitable crop in Canadian agriculture. The Company has developed several flexible and competitive forms of financing which help western Canadian canola farmers solve working capital, mortgage finance and canola marketing challenges and improve the financial position of their farms. Under a streaming contract, Input provides capital in exchange for a stream of canola via multi-year fixed-volume canola purchase contracts. To a farmer, Input is like a virtual grain company, buying canola and providing financial solutions. To canola buyers, Input is like a large virtual farm which produces and sells canola over a large geographically diverse footprint, but does not own the land, or equipment or operate the farm. In production terms, Input is the largest canola farm in the world.

Input plans to continue to grow and diversify its low cost canola production profile by entering into streaming contracts with canola farmers across western Canada. Input is focused on farmers with quality production profiles, excellent upside yield potential, and strong management teams.

NEITHER TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

[farmaholic]

Recapped.....does that stand for going over the facts or being recapitalized?

[recapped]

Page 93 & 94 paragraph 218 to 222.


https://static.producer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/18132207/QBG-2120-of-2015-Input-Cap-Gustafson.pdf#_ga=2.239956230.445216775.1526672844-779100769.1514993935 https://static.producer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/18132207/QBG-2120-of-2015-Input-Cap-Gustafson.pdf#_ga=2.239956230.445216775.1526672844-779100769.1514993935

I think Mr Gustafason entered this contract with the intention to not ever deliver towards the contract.

[the big wheel]

ICC sees it like this.


Input Capital Corp. Awarded $4.4 Million Plus Interest and Court Costs in Court Decision

News provided by
Input Capital Corp.

May 18, 2018, 14:30 ET

Share this article

REGINA, May 18, 2018 /CNW/ - Input Capital Corp. ("Input" or the "Company") (TSX Venture: INP) (US: INPCF) announces that yesterday, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench awarded Input a judgment for $4.4 million, together with interest and court costs, in a matter relating to a streaming contract on which a farmer in SE Saskatchewan defaulted.

The court also ruled in Input's favour on a number of issues which have been alleged in recent media reports. The court also ruled that:

The streaming contract with the farmer was not a partnership;
The Cost of Credit Disclosure Act does not apply;
There was no requirement for Input to be licensed under the Trust and Loans Corporations Act;
The Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act does not apply because the contract was not a loan;
Input did not breach any of its contractual obligations to the client; and
The client was unjustly enriched by the default, and should be required to pay Input.

While Input achieved success in the case, the court did make certain findings that Input believes to be in error. Input is considering an appeal of these findings.

ABOUT INPUT

Input is an agriculture commodity streaming company with a focus on canola, the largest and most profitable crop in Canadian agriculture. The Company has developed several flexible and competitive forms of financing which help western Canadian canola farmers solve working capital, mortgage finance and canola marketing challenges and improve the financial position of their farms. Under a streaming contract, Input provides capital in exchange for a stream of canola via multi-year fixed-volume canola purchase contracts. To a farmer, Input is like a virtual grain company, buying canola and providing financial solutions. To canola buyers, Input is like a large virtual farm which produces and sells canola over a large geographically diverse footprint, but does not own the land, or equipment or operate the farm. In production terms, Input is the largest canola farm in the world.

Input plans to continue to grow and diversify its low cost canola production profile by entering into streaming contracts with canola farmers across western Canada. Input is focused on farmers with quality production profiles, excellent upside yield potential, and strong management teams.

NEITHER TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE NOR ITS REGULATION SERVICES PROVIDER (AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN POLICIES OF THE TSX VENTURE EXCHANGE) ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ADEQUACY OR ACCURACY OF THIS RELEASE.

If this isn't a loan then what is all he additional cost to
The farmer for?
If no loan then thenplay is about getting a farmers canola and making money off of trading and speculating isn't it? That's how it's being sold isn't it?
If you get 10 dollars from icc and have to pay back 15 worth of canola what is the cost for then? If not a loan you should only pay back 10 worth of canola in the future? Or no?

[farmaholic]

When you read dribs and drabs of the link provided by recapped, you have to wonder if there is any canola market distortion with the actions of ICC.

Wouldn't the GrainCos like a single huge supplier, rather than dealing with a bunch of tight fisted farmers?

And all I see ICC as, is a middle man between me and the market, one more hand in my pocket.

I said to someone, ICC has a "certain type" of client.........I don't fit that casting mold. Every morning I will only wake up the Sandbox Farmer from the Slum of the Ghetto.