Marina Commodities: thirty-six million short

The business at the centre of this is nine people in an office in Mississauga. From there, Marina Commodities Inc. buys and sells dried agricultural crops — lentils and other pulses, chiefly — into customers in more than twenty countries, which makes it, in the language of its lender's factum, a global commodities exporter and trading house. One more employee works in Australia. Nobody is unionised and there is no registered pension plan, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, paras. 7, 10.

The credit facility behind it is asset-backed, which is the whole of this story. On August 14, 2026, Justice W.D. Black appointed KPMG Inc. receiver and manager of the group on the application of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

The structure, and who guarantees whom

CIBC is administrative agent, Australian security trustee and — a detail worth pausing on — the sole lender under the credit agreement. There is no syndicate here to be persuaded or outvoted, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, para. 6.

MCI is an Ontario corporation with its registered head office in Mississauga and is the primary operating company. Ausican is also an Ontario corporation at the same address, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCI, and principally a holding company for the Australian entity with no significant operations of its own. MCA is an Australian corporation, wholly owned by Ausican, and its business is procuring crops from Australian suppliers and selling them to MCI for resale onward. All three are managed from Canada by Canada-based management, primarily Farhan Adam and Faheem Adam, who hold various director and officer roles across the group, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, paras. 7–8.

MCI is funded by a revolving, asset-backed loan under a credit agreement dated September 6, 2023. Ausican and MCA have each given secured guarantees of all of MCI's obligations under it, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, para. 9.

An asset-based facility lends against a formula, and the formula is fed by the borrower. Each period the borrower certifies what inventory and what receivables it has; the lender advances a percentage of them. The certificate is the collateral, in the sense that matters day to day — the lender does not count the lentils.

What the Agent says it found

The application was brought urgently, and the factum's summary paragraph explains why in a single construction.

The Agent had very recently learned of material misstatements in the borrowing base certificates: the inclusion of material inventory and receivables that do not exist or should not have been included. Alongside that, it alleges the diversion of significant receivables away from the collection accounts the Agent maintains and controls. Together, on the Agent's account, those two things have undermined the explicit function and purpose of the ABL facility — and left the approximately US$50,000,000 advanced undercollateralized by at least US$36,000,000, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, para. 2.

The Agent says it took steps to address the issues with the debtors and did not receive satisfactory responses, and that its exposure continues to grow by the day, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, para. 3.

The debtors are in default of the loan and security agreements. Demand has been made and statutory notices of enforcement delivered, and the debtors have consented to the Agent enforcing its security, per Factum of the Applicant, August 13, 2026, para. 4.

The consent, and what it reserved

Jeffrey Larry appeared for the respondents. What he told the court is the sort of position that gets recorded in a single sentence and carries a great deal: although the debtors reserve the right to contest certain of the factual allegations advanced by the Agent, they consent to the appointment of KPMG as receiver and to the related relief in the proposed order, per Endorsement of Black J., August 14, 2026, para. 4.