Fulltext Search

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?

(12) 信托计划中受托人对股权投资应当如何进行管理?

实践中,信托计划受托人取得股权主要基于两种情形,一是基于受托而取得股权,即委托人将自己合法持有的股权作为信托财产,转移至受托人管理和处分;二是基于投资而取得股权,即委托人先把自己合法持有的信托资金或其他财产转移至受托人,进而由受托人通过管理、运用该等受托财产,以增资、受让等方式投资取得股权并对该等股权进行管理和处分。

基于受托人取得股权的不同情形,受托人对股权投资的管理责任不完全相同。

如受托人系基于受托取得股权,受托人的股东身份更接近“名义股东”,其对投资股权的管理主要受限于信托合同约定的信托财产的运用及管理方式。

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.