InvestorsHub Logo

LexTrader

01/07/20 7:27 AM

#605689 RE: zeus_0100 #605684

Although I agree there is not the "pie in the sky" money coming back to escrow holders, there would not be fraud if there was. Wash. Mut filed BK due to liquidity issues, not asset < liability issues. Big difference.

BBANBOB

01/07/20 9:14 AM

#605702 RE: zeus_0100 #605684

WHY???????????? If they are NOT assets directly owned and held by the CORP they are not PART OF THE BK, but like I said before YOU KNOW THIS

PSSST DIDN'T HAPPEN IN K-MART did it

Civil War General

01/07/20 10:07 AM

#605717 RE: zeus_0100 #605684

I suppose you understand exactly how bankruptcy remote assets actually work, right?
Suppose someone is a trust fund baby, they get money from a spendthrift trust that is not under their control. They owe someone money, like a credit card company, but don’t want to pay. The credit card company cannot attach the trust, even in bankruptcy because the asset, even if it is a billion dollars, does not belong to him. He is only a beneficiary of the trust and the money must be “in his hands” before it becomes available for a creditor to attach their lien to it.

This bankruptcy is no different.
Remote independent trusts that were set up for exactly this purpose are one of the main functions of a Bank Holding Company.