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.

Yesterday, the United Kingdom’s Commercial Secretary to the Treasury launched a consultation on a new special-resolution regime, Special administration regime for investment firms, to strengthen the government’s ability to handle future insolvencies of failing investment banks to minimize cost and disruption of the overall national financial system.

Yesterday, Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath granted a request by Washington Mutual (WaMu) shareholders to appoint an independent examiner, to be chosen by the U.S. trustee, to review assets and claims in the company’s bankruptcy case related primarily to the 2008 seizure and sale of WaMu by the FDIC to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 million.

Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the closing of its previously announced sale of $233 million of notes backed by performing and non-performing commercial real estate (CRE) loans from 22 different financial institutions f

Friday, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation closed The Bank of Bonifay, headquartered in Bonifay, Florida, and the FDIC was appointed receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with First Federal Bank, headquartered in Lake City, Florida, to assume all of the deposits of The Bank of Bonifay.

Friday, the California Department of Financial Institutions closed 1st Pacific Bank of California, headquartered in San Diego, California, and the FDIC was appointed receiver.

Friday, the Minnesota Department of Commerce closed Access Bank, headquartered in Champlin, Minnesota, and the FDIC was appointed receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Prinsbank, headquartered in Prinsburg, Minnesota, to assume all of the deposits of Access Bank.