It is not unusual for a creditor of a debtor to cry foul that a non-debtor affiliate has substantial assets, but has not joined the bankruptcy. In some cases, the creditor may assert that even though its claim, on its face, is solely against the debtor, the debtor and the non-debtor conducted business as a single unit, or that the debtor indicated that the assets of the non-debtor were available to satisfy claims. In these circumstances, the creditor would like nothing more than to drag that asset-rich non-debtor into the bankruptcy to satisfy its claims. Is that possible?

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

There are numerous reasons why a company might use more than one entity for its operations or organization: to silo liabilities, for tax advantages, to accommodate a lender, or for general organizational purposes. Simply forming a separate entity, however, is not enough. Corporate formalities must be followed or a court could effectively collapse the separate entities into one. A recent opinion by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Lassman v.

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

FSA has made a statement explaining how the bank’s failure to comply with FSA’s liquidity guidelines as they applied to it was critical. It says that while the bank’s downfall was not directly due to the breaches, the breaches happened at a critical period for the financial markets and at a time FSA needed banks to keep it up to date on their liquidity. (Source: FSA Explains Liquidity Importance)

FSA has published a set of frequently asked questions designed to help readers understand MG Global’s insolvency position and investors’ rights under it. (Source: MF Global Investors – Your Questions Answered)

FSA has won a case in the High Court in which the court held one individual and two businesses were operating a collective investment scheme without authorisation. The court banned James Maynard from selling land for business purposes in the UK for life and made a bankruptcy order against him. It ordered him and Countrywide Land Holdings Limited to pay £31,896,194 to FSA and ordered Plateau Development & Land Limited, now in liquidation, to pay £918,975. Tracey McDermott said there was a low probability of getting meaningful compensation but that FSA had scored an important victory.

WorldSpreads Limited has become the third firm to enter into the Special Administration Regime. The firm, a spread betting company, entered into the regime following the discovery of accounting irregularities which led to a finding that the firm could not continue in business. (Source: Firm Enters Special Administration)

The Internal Market Directorate is discussing with stakeholders whether the debt write-down or bail-in tool would help a managed reorganisation or winding down of a financial institution that faced imminent failure. This discussion takes place in the context of the ongoing work on an EU framework for managing crises in the banking sector. The debt write-down or bail-in tool would complement the special resolution powers that need to be available for authorities to stem risks to financial stability and limit the recourse to taxpayer’s money.