Province Pulls Stock Out Of Ruffs Greenhouses

Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:00 AM

Prince George, B.C. - The owner of Ruffs Green Houses, the company that was placed into receivership in March of this year, says the Ministry of The Attorney General in BC has begun pulling all of the Province’s seedlings from his greenhouses and is shipping them to Kelowna.

Bernie Ruff (in photo at right) says the Attorney General’s Department in BC told him that that they felt they did not have any security with the Federal Farm Credit and so they are removing the 2-to 3 million trees that were being stored in the refrigerated section of the company green houses. The seedlings are being taken to a Kelowna apple storage plant were they will be stored, then thawed out and shipped back up to this region for planting.

Ruff says he has been told that the Province of BC has no trust in the receiver or FCC and so the trees are being removed because the seedlings may be at risk.

Ruff says the Province will be facing a huge trucking expense because when the trees are shipped back they will be thawed out and they cannot be piled together like the frozen stock.

Ruff says he continues to work with his accountant and the Province with a hope that they can guarantee a contract with his company that would enable him to come out of receivership and re employ the 30 to 50 seasonal employees that he has along with the 8 full timers.

"f I can get that assurance from the Province" Ruff says, "We could be back in business and operating here next year."

Ruff’s Greenhouses were hit by a windstorm in 2006. There was no insurance and the losses pushed the Greenhouse operations into receivership.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 1999 12:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: metalman on April 10 2008 7:55 AM

Good luck, Bernie.
metalman.

Posted by: Harbinger on April 10 2008 9:43 AM

The train doesn't stop here and now trees don't grow here. What next? Fine the guy fer something in keeping with the Liberal spirit. Compensates for the lower taxes. (ya right)

Posted by: thereasonableman on April 10 2008 11:26 AM

Sad to hear, another blow.

Posted by: southfortguy on April 10 2008 3:44 PM

Sad story..but I guess in this case it would have paid to have insurance.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on April 10 2008 4:07 PM

Very sad to hear indeed,but my question is ... why no insurance?
Was it the cost of that insurance itself?
Because if it was,then is this business profitable enough to survive over the long term?
And there is no doubt,insurance costs have become a major problem for smaller business.
Hate to see 30-50 seasonal jobs and 8 fulltime jobs go down the tube!

Posted by: Carma on April 10 2008 5:10 PM

Good point andyfreeze. If company cannot afford insurance, then perhaps it isn't profitable for long term. I wonder if the other nurseries also operate without insurance? Or was it a choice/gamble for this company to do without. Would be interesting to hear from the Receiver or the Ministry for their explanation of the action they are taking as there is always 2 sides to every story.

Posted by: metalman on April 10 2008 5:33 PM

Let us remember, in this enlightened age that we live in, insurance companies can and do charge usurious rates for what used to be affordable, even if you have had no claims, and have not changed the way you do business, or changed categories. This happened to me for business insurance. I was able to obtain coverage with another firm no problem, but the ones we had dealt with (the insurance co. AND the agency) for many years, apparently did not want our business anymore.
metalman.