Talk:Receivership/Archives/2013

Merge

It is confusing to readers to have separate articles for Receiver (legal) and Receivership. Please merge them into an article that explains both terms, and informs readers about all the related concepts and history. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Receivership is fairly uninformative relating only to the time when a USA government can order receivership, not what receivership is. Regardless of that, I could have merged receivership with this as no opinions have appeared, but I am going to say merge this one into receivership as an NPOV that the process and situation gives more scope than the title and personality (and to remove the brackets). I doubt ther is any opinions on the way but I have stated, I will do that in a few days and check and correct the receiver disambiguation unless a discussion appears (there is no discussion at all on Receivership talk) ~ R.T.G 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Towns?

How common of a concept around the US is an entire town going into receivership? It's likely to happen to Lawrence, Massachusetts (http://www.necn.com/Boston/Business/2009/12/09/City-of-Lawrence-Mass-faces/1260395334.html) in the near future, and has happened to other communities in the past. Thanks, CSZero (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

The article doesn't use the word "bankruptcy" anywhere. I know nothing about finance or business. Is that something that can or should be corrected? Woodshed (talk)

In U.S. law, many of the legal processes that were traditionally part of receivership proceedings have been superseded in practice by the provisions of the federal Bankruptcy Code (prior to 1978, the Bankruptcy Act). Since the bankruptcy courts are part of the federal court system, they can exercise much wider jurisdiction than is typically available to state-court appointed receivers. Receivership therefore is used primarily in processes involving entities that are excluded from bankruptcy jurisdiction, such as banks, insurance companies, and certain governmental institutions. Thus, bankruptcy and receivership in the U.S. are parallel but (mostly) mutually exclusive proceedings. In fact, the Bankruptcy Code explicitly provides that a bankruptcy court cannot appoint a receiver (11 USC 105(b)) and that a receivership is suspended automatically upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case.

Maybe this graf can be integrated into the US part of the article. If you are inclined go for it! Ellsworth (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)