Yesterday, the ninevolumeReport of Anton R.

On March 15, 2010 Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”) filed a motion (the “Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases (the “Court”) seeking authorization to establish certain claims and alternative dispute resolution procedures designed to expedite the process of reconciling claims filed against the Debtors’ estates.

The procedures, set forth in detail in an exhibit to the proposed order filed with the Motion, are summarized as follows:

On Friday, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance closed Century Security Bank, headquartered in Duluth, Georgia, and theFDIC was named receiver.

On Friday, the Utah Department of Financial Institutions closed Advanta Bank Corp., headquartered in Draper, Utah, and the FDIC was named receiver.

On Friday, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed American National Bank, headquartered in Parma, Ohio, and the FDIC was named receiver.

On Friday, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance closed Bank of Hiawassee, headquartered in Hiawassee, Georgia, and the FDIC was named receiver.  As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement wi

On Friday, the Minnesota Department of Commerce closed State Bank of Aurora, headquartered in Aurora, Minnesota, and the FDIC was named receiver. As receiver, the FDICentered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Northern State Bank, headquartered in Ashland, Wisconsin, to assume all of the deposits of State Bank of Aurora.

On Friday, the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance closed  Appalachian Community Bank, headquartered in Ellijay, Georgia, and the FDIC was named receiver.

2006 FICA Refund Claims Due April 15, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion that should concern anyone doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy. In short, the court ruled that a company that supplied $1.9 million worth of goods to a debtor after the petition date had to return the debtor's payment. The reason? The debtor did not have permission from the court or its secured creditor to use the money. The payments were for value given post-petition and were apparently made in accordance with the pre-petition practice between the parties.