Well known Indo-Canadian developer Maskeen Developments’ Langley project has hit a financial crunch and was recently placed into receivership. Insolvencyinsider online publication reported that on January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an order appointing FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver and manager over the property, assets, and undertakings of Maskeen (Carvolth) Limited Partnership, its general partner Maskeen (Carvolth) GP Inc., and the bare trustee Carvolth 86th Avenue Lands Ltd.
SURREY – Well known Indo-Canadian developer Maskeen Developments’ Langley project has hit a financial crunch and was recently placed into receivership.
Insolvencyinsider online publication reported that on January 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted an order appointing FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as receiver and manager over the property, assets, and undertakings of Maskeen (Carvolth) Limited Partnership, its general partner Maskeen (Carvolth) GP Inc., and the bare trustee Carvolth 86th Avenue Lands Ltd.
The appointment followed an enforcement petition brought by National Bank of Canada as first-ranking secured creditor. The receivership order was granted after the court concluded that the borrower had failed to repay the loan by the final extended maturity date and remained in continuing default notwithstanding partial interest payments and ongoing discussions.
The proceedings centre on undeveloped real property located at 20120 86th Avenue in Langley, British Columbia. The lands are legally owned by Carvolth 86th Avenue Lands Ltd. as nominee and bare trustee, with beneficial ownership held by Maskeen (Carvolth) Limited Partnership. The project was intended to be a high-rise residential development, with National Bank financing structured as interim land financing pending rezoning and further development steps.
National Bank advanced an interim land loan originally in the principal amount of $10.4 million pursuant to a loan agreement dated September 8, 2022. The facility was subsequently increased to $11.0 million through amendments in August and September 2023. The loan was structured as a demand facility, with an outside maturity initially set at 18 months from drawdown.
The bank’s security included a first-ranking mortgage and assignment of rents registered against the Langley property, site-specific security agreements from both the borrower and nominee, and general security agreements from Maskeen Homes and Maskeen Development. The loan was further supported by personal guarantees from Jagdip Singh Sivia and Jatinderpal Singh Gill.
A second-ranking lender, Cedar Ridge Investments Ltd., held subordinate mortgage and assignment of rents security, expressly postponed to the bank pursuant to registered priority agreements.
The borrower failed to repay the loan by the final extended maturity date of March 31, 2025. While multiple extensions had been granted over the life of the facility, no further accommodation was provided after that date. Following the missed repayment, the borrower also fell into arrears on interest payments between April and August 2025 and failed to provide required financial reporting and proof of insurance on a timely basis.
Although certain interest arrears were later paid, the principal balance remained outstanding. As of August 19, 2025, National Bank was owed approximately $11.0 million, excluding ongoing interest, fees, and enforcement costs. Property taxes and penalties owing to the Township of Langley also remained unpaid, creating additional default risk.
The borrower advised the bank that it was pursuing a rezoning application with the Township of Langley. However, no committed refinancing or sale process tied to the rezoning was presented, and the bank took the position that rezoning alone did not address the immediate repayment default.
National Bank issued formal notices of default and a demand for repayment on July 15, 2025, together with notices under section 244 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. With the loan remaining unpaid and no consensual resolution achieved, the bank sought the appointment of a receiver to take control of the property, preserve value, and pursue a realization strategy.
Courtesy insolvencyinsider.ca / By Dina Kovacevic
