rcw assignment for benefit of creditors

The ABC’s Of An Assignment For The Benefit Of Creditors

A flexible approach to managing debt outside of court, assignment for the benefit of creditors in washington.

Simply stated – an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors assigns the assets and liabilities of the party making the assignment (the “Assignor”) to that party’s chosen representative (the “Assignee”).  The Assignee then administers those assets for the benefit of creditors as the holder of a power of attorney from the Assignor.

The Regional Background of Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

Prior to the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978, the National Association of Credit Management (“NACM”) frequently administered Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors in Spokane, Washington.  

The Spokane Merchants Association was often the sponsor of these assignments, and enlisted the support of the distressed company with pressure from local trade creditors.

The NACM would prepare a written assignment to the management of the target company, with strong provisions for the operation of the company during the assignment.

The NACM would also form a committee of creditors to manage a plan for the repayment of creditors, while frequently obtaining a blanket lien against the assets of the company to render it “judgment-proof” from the claims of non-participating creditors.

Such an assignment effectively wrested control of a company away from its owners and managers, who often had few reasonable alternatives for continuing their business.

The dynamics of creditor intervention changed dramatically with the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code, and the provisions for restructuring business debt under Chapter 11 .   With the protections of the automatic stay, and for the continuation of existing management of the Chapter 11 entity as a debtor in possession, an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors through NACM became immediately less viable as a creditor remedy.

Although the statute was essentially dead letter law, the Washington statute governing Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors remained substantially unchanged until the enactment of the Washington Receivership Act in 2004.

The Enactment of the Washington Receivership Act

RCW 7.08, which is the statute governing Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, was restated in 2004 to coordinate Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors with the Washington Receivership Act .

The revised statute provided for the appointment of the Assignee as a receiver following the execution of the assignment.

Under the revised statute , the Assignor may appoint an Assignee for the express purpose of having that party appointed as the receiver.  

The Assignee is best selected by the assignor based on knowledge, trust, and expertise.  The Assignee must consent to the assignment.

Individuals, acting in their personal capacity, may execute an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors to provide for the administration of their personal assets.   For example, a divorcing couple may initiate an assignment to administer their assets and liabilities as part of a property settlement agreement.  

Individuals are entitled to exempt property in accordance with applicable law, and exclude that property from the assignment.   Otherwise, the Assignor must assign all property to the Assignee.

The assignment must be substantially in the form set forth by statute at RCW 7.08.030. The assignment must attach a schedule of all known creditors, including the creditors’ mailing addresses; the amount and nature of their claims; and whether their claims are in dispute.  

The schedule must also include a true list of all property, including the estimated liquidation value and location of that property, and legal descriptions for all real property.

These schedules of assets and liabilities, while detailed, are less comprehensive than the Official Bankruptcy Forms. It is often advisable to supplement the statutory form of schedules with a schedule of executory contracts and a schedule of co-debtors, so parties will receive a more complete presentation of financial information.

There is no disclosure of operating information or past transactions that is similar to the Statement of Financial Affairs that is required in a bankruptcy case.

What Are The Business Purposes Of An Assignment For The Benefit Of Creditors?

Most Assignors execute an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors for one of two purposes.

First, an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors can provide a “stand-alone” procedure for liquidating assets under the independent management of the Assignee .   Unlike a bankruptcy or a receivership case, there is no legal action required to commence an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, and no judge will oversee the actions taken by the assignee.

Accordingly, an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors can be employed to test the willingness of creditors to participate in a voluntary settlement of the Assignor’s liabilities. If so, the Assignor and the creditors may avoid the time and expense of a receivership or bankruptcy proceedings.

As a non-judicial procedure, an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors is also more private and confidential than a bankruptcy or receivership case. The owners of the assets can then devote their time and energy to other endeavors, and place some distance between themselves and the financial issues of their former business.

Second, an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors contains the consent of the Assignor to the appointment of the Assignee as a general receiver over the Assignee’s property in accordance with chapter 7.60 RCW. This provision allows the use of an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors as a “stepping-stone” to a general receivership, without the other procedural hurdles that are set forth in the receivership statute.

Either the Assignor, the Assignee, or any creditor of the Assignor may file a petition to appoint the Assignee as receiver of the assets of the Assignor. That petition, filed with the clerk of the superior court, must include a copy of the assignment; the schedules of assets and liabilities; and a request for the court to fix the amount of the receiver’s bond.

The amount of the bond may be low, since the Assignor selected the Assignee based on faith in the trustworthiness and integrity of the Assignee.    If circumstances change, the Court can increase the amount of the bond as appropriate.

The superior court will then appoint the Assignee as general receiver of the Assignor’s property upon the filing of the petition.

The Washington Receivership Act would govern all further proceedings involving the administration of the Assignor’s property and the claims of the Assignor’s creditors.

There is no requirement to schedule a meeting of creditors.   The court would only schedule such a meeting upon the motion of two or more creditors, if filed within thirty days following the date upon which the receiver mailed notice of the receivership to all known creditors.

At the meeting of creditors, the Court will determine whether to appoint a person other than the Assignee as the general receiver.   A creditor may not vote at any meeting of creditors until the creditor has presented a proof of claim.

The filing of a motion to elect a new Assignee suspends the authority of the Assignee to sell or dispose of any property of the Assignor, except perishable property, whether or not the court has appointed the Assignee as the general receiver.

The failure of the creditors to select a new Assignee will reinstate that authority.   Otherwise, the authority vests in the replacement Assignee, who then serves as the receiver.

More often, a party files a petition to appoint the Assignee as receiver to obtain the protections of the automatic receivership stay, and access to the court for the resolution of creditor disputes.

An Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors must be for the benefit of all creditors in proportion to the amount of their respective claims.   All creditors are entitled to receive notice of the assignment.

The Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors irrevocably appoints the Assignee as the Assignor’s attorney in fact, with full power and authority to do all things that may be necessary to fulfill the assignment.  

The Assignee can perform the same acts that the Assignor could do , including but not limited to the power to sue; the power to execute all necessary deeds, instruments, and conveyances, and the power to convey any or all of the real or personal property of the estate.

The Assignee must take possession of the assets, liquidate the assets, and collect all claims.   The Assignee must pay and discharge all reasonable expenses, costs, and disbursements in connection with administration of the assignment.

To the extent that funds are available after payment of administrative expenses, the assignee must   pay all of the Assignor’s debts and liabilities, according to their priority as established by law, on a pro rata basis within each class.  

Unlike a bankruptcy or receivership, there is no provision for the assignee to exercise the rights of a hypothetical lien creditor to file suit for the recovery of fraudulent transfers, or for the recovery of preferential payments to creditors.

Although the Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors statute does not set forth the priority of creditors’ claims, the priorities established in the Washington Receivership Act should be applicable in an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors .  

These priorities do not elevate the claims of the federal government above the claims of state tax agencies. Nevertheless, the Internal Revenue Service may assert a first priority claim for payment under 31 U.S.C. 3713(a)(1) , which provides that a claim of the United State Government shall be paid first when a person indebted to the government is insolvent, and that person makes a voluntary assignment of property.

The Assignee must return any assets that remain after the payment of all debts and liabilities to the Assignor.

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors: Overview | Practical Law

rcw assignment for benefit of creditors

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors: Overview

Practical law practice note overview w-006-7771  (approx. 19 pages).

Apex Law Group

Receivership Under RCW 7.60: An Alternative to Bankruptcy

A receivership is the appointment of a disinterested person or organization (a receiver), by a court or by a corporation or a person, for the protection or collection of property that is the subject of creditors’ claims. Receiverships exist at both the state level, through RCW 7.60 , and the federal level, through Rule 66 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . Receiverships serve to usher a business through difficult times with the hope of restoring profitability. While debtors can voluntarily choose to enter a receivership through an assignment for the benefit of creditors (commonly referred to as “ ABC ”), receivership is primarily another tool available for creditors to recoup value when a business is in financial distress.

In essence, a receiver is appointed by the court as the court’s agent, and subject to the court’s direction, to take possession of, manage, or dispose of property of a business for the benefit of creditors. A receiver has the ability to take possession of a failing business liquidate, and distribute the proceeds of the business in accordance with the priorities set forth by law.

If a receivership sounds like a bankruptcy, it should. They are comparable. In fact, the Washington State Legislature enacted RCW 7.60 to “create more comprehensive, streamlined, and cost-effective procedures applicable to proceedings in which property of a person is administered by the courts of this state for the benefit of creditors”; similar to the purpose of bankruptcy.  Statistics show that receiverships are an increasingly popular alternative to bankruptcy. And once you peel back the layers, it is not hard to imagine why. For both creditors and debtors, receiverships cost less and give more control over the outcome.

Costs & Control

Receiverships are generally cheaper than a bankruptcy. Receiverships are not held to the strict deadlines observed in a bankruptcy case and do not involve the burdensome filing requirements from interested parties. Both of these features help reduce the combativeness of bankruptcy litigation and shorten the time frame. Even still, receiverships maintain some of the primary benefits as bankruptcy proceedings such as an automatic stay of many types of actions and the sale of assets free and clear of liens.

Additionally, creditors typically collect more from a receivership than a bankruptcy. In a typical chapter 11 bankruptcy, company management typically remains in control of the debtor company (the classic “ debtor in possession ” bankruptcy), or the bankruptcy estate is overseen by a trustee selected from a standing panel of bankruptcy trustees. However, in a receivership, creditors can propose a potential receiver who meets the qualifications of RCW 7.60.035 . This means creditors can maximize their returns by choosing individuals that will protect creditor interest and choosing individuals who have specialized knowledge in the subject matter of the business going through the receivership.

Key Points to Consider

There are key issues to be aware while considering a receivership. First, while there are federal receiverships ( 28 U.S. Code § 3103 ), most receiverships are operated and controlled by state courts, and therefore subject to state court judges and their rules. While receivership law can look like bankruptcy law, a state court judge may not always agree with such comparison and bankruptcy case law is not necessarily binding on the state court. Some businesses, particularly those who own assets in multiple jurisdictions, will find a federal receivership more appropriate as it gives more power to receivers to manage assets across state lines, but the majority of businesses will find themselves in state court.

Second, receiverships are not always an independent process. While a receivership can be invoked to assist a business in winding up affairs, it can also be “combined with, or [] ancillary to, an action seeking a money judgment or other relief.” RCW 7.60.025 lists 38 reasons to appoint a receiver, the majority of those reasons are a receiver being appointed as part of other legal proceedings. In 2004 the Washington legislature codified receivership law into a single chapter. While that may seem recent, it was the legislatures attempt to clean up over 150 years of separate and distinct uses for receivers in all manner of roles, from caretaking to liquidation of assets.

The multi-faceted application of a receivership is apparent when you consider purpose of a receivership. Unlike bankruptcy, which is designed to protect the debtor, a receivership is designed to protect assets (particularly a lender’s assets), income, real estate, cash, business assets, etc.

Overall, federal and state receiverships are underutilized . They provide a flexible and efficient method of overseeing business transitions while protecting the assets of creditors and lenders alike. While bankruptcies are down in 2021 , following the same downward trend in 2020, some have expressed concern about the continued strength of economic conditions that allow for low bankruptcy filings. The fear now is the conditions and programs supporting businesses through the Covid-19 pandemic will dry up, and a wave of bankruptcy will follow. If this is the case, the receivership may find itself being used more often in the coming years.

The above article is for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon as specific legal advice. This article, or contacting Apex, does not in any way form an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions or would like to learn more, please contact Coleman Scroggins at [email protected].

In Solvency

Understandable Insights from Fox Rothschild's National Bankruptcy Practice

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors – an often-overlooked state law alternative to Chapter 7 bankruptcy

by Magdalena Schardt

For some folks the three letters ABC are a reminder of elementary school and singing a song to learn the alphabet.  For others, it is a throw back to the early 70’s when the Jackson Five and its lead singer Michael, still with his adolescent high voice, sang a catchy love song.  Then there is a select group of people in the world of corporate workouts, liquidations and bankruptcies, who know those three letters to stand for the A ssignment for the B enefit of C reditors – a voluntary state law liquidation process that may arguably offer a hospitable and friendly alternative to federal bankruptcy.  This article is a brief summary of this potentially attractive alternative to bankruptcy.

            The Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”), also known as a General Assignment, is a state law procedure governed by state statute or common law.  Over 30 states have codified statutes, and the remainder of states rely on common law.  See Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors , by Robert Richards & Nancy Ross, ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 6 (listing state statutes).  In some states, the statutory authority and common law can coexist.  At its most basic, the ABC process involves the transfer of all assets by a financially distressed debtor (the assignor) to an individual or entity (the assignee) with fiduciary obligations who then liquidates the assets and pays creditors.  The assignment agreement is essentially a contract involving the transfer and control of property, in trust, to a third party.  In some states that have enacted a statute, state courts may supervise the process (and at different levels of involvement depending on the statute).  The statutory scheme in other states such as California and Nevada, and in states where common law govern, do not provide for judicial oversight..  

ABCs are promoted as less expensive and more flexible than a chapter 7 liquidation and may proceed substantially faster than bankruptcy liquidation. See generally Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors , ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 8 (citations omitted).  In addition, the ABC process may provide four other noteworthy benefits not available in a bankruptcy.  First, the liquidating company chooses the assignee, there is no appointment of a random trustee or formal election required like in a bankruptcy.  This freedom of choice allows the assignor to evaluate the reputation and experience of proposed assignees, as well as select an assignee with familiarity in the nature of the assignor’s business and/or with more expansive contacts in the industry to facilitate the sale/liquidation.  Second, the ABC process generally falls under the radar of the media (particularly in states that do not require court supervision), and the assignor may avoid publicity, often negative, that can be associated with bankruptcy proceedings.  Third, with an ABC, the assignee has the ability to sell the assets without the imposition of potentially cumbersome requirements of Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, and in some cases, can conduct a sale the same day as the general assignment.  Finally, the ABC process generally authorizes the sale of assets free of unsecured creditor debt.  In essence, in an ABC, a company buying assets from a distressed business does not acquire the debt of the assignor.

On the down side, ABCs do not provide the protection of the automatic stay that is triggered upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.  In some situations, the debtor entity needs to stop the pursuit of creditors immediately, and a bankruptcy proceeding will supply this relief.  Unlike bankruptcy, the sale through an ABC: i) is not free and clear of liens; ii) unexpired leases cannot be assumed and assigned without the consent of the contract counter-party; and iii) insolvency can trigger a default under an unexpired lease or executory contract. See generally Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors , ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 20. In general, an ABC is not a good choice for debtors that have secured creditors that do not consent because there is no mechanism for using cash collateral or transferring assets free and clear of liens without the secured creditors’ consent.  In cases where junior lienholders are out of the money, there is no incentive for those creditors to voluntarily release their liens.  In addition, while unsecured creditors do not have to consent to the general assignment for it to be valid, choosing this alternative forum may cause concern for creditors (particularly those used to the transparency of a court-supervised bankruptcy or receivership proceeding) and invite the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy. Therefore, it is prudent to involve major creditors in the process, and perhaps even in the pre-assignment planning. In addition, if an involuntary petition is filed, the assignee could request that the bankruptcy court abstain in order to proceed with the ABC.

Using the ABC state process in lieu of filing for bankruptcy in federal court may result in a more streamlined, efficient liquidation process that is less expensive and likely completed quicker than a federal bankruptcy proceeding.  In some jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, workout professionals note anecdotally that corporate clients fare better under this state law alternative rather than the lengthy, more complicated federal bankruptcy proceedings.

Many bankruptcy professionals are unfamiliar with the procedures of ABC and are reluctant to recommend it as a method for liquidating assets and administering claims.  This lack of familiarity may be a disservice to potential clients.  Fox Rothschild attorneys in the financial restructuring department have experience in representing all parties involved in an ABC, from assignee, assignor, acquiring entity/individual to creditors.  If you have questions or are looking for more information about the ABC process, contact Magdalena Schardt or one of our financial restructuring and bankruptcy professionals in one of the 29 offices.

Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors – an often-overlooked state law alternative to Chapter 7 bankruptcy

Fox Rothschild LLP

For some folks the three letters ABC are a reminder of elementary school and singing a song to learn the alphabet.  For others, it is a throw back to the early 70’s when the Jackson Five and its lead singer Michael, still with his adolescent high voice, sang a catchy love song.  Then there is a select group of people in the world of corporate workouts, liquidations and bankruptcies, who know those three letters to stand for the A ssignment for the B enefit of C reditors – a voluntary state law liquidation process that may arguably offer a hospitable and friendly alternative to federal bankruptcy.  This article is a brief summary of this potentially attractive alternative to bankruptcy.

 The Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”), also known as a General Assignment, is a state law procedure governed by state statute or common law.  Over 30 states have codified statutes, and the remainder of states rely on common law.  See Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors , by Robert Richards & Nancy Ross, ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 6 (listing state statutes).  In some states, the statutory authority and common law can coexist.  At its most basic, the ABC process involves the transfer of all assets by a financially distressed debtor (the assignor) to an individual or entity (the assignee) with fiduciary obligations who then liquidates the assets and pays creditors.  The assignment agreement is essentially a contract involving the transfer and control of property, in trust, to a third party.  In some states that have enacted a statute, state courts may supervise the process (and at different levels of involvement depending on the statute).  The statutory scheme in other states such as California and Nevada, and in states where common law govern, do not provide for judicial oversight..  

ABCs are promoted as less expensive and more flexible than a chapter 7 liquidation and may proceed substantially faster than bankruptcy liquidation. See generally Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors , ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 8 (citations omitted).  In addition, the ABC process may provide four other noteworthy benefits not available in a bankruptcy.  First, the liquidating company chooses the assignee, there is no appointment of a random trustee or formal election required like in a bankruptcy.  This freedom of choice allows the assignor to evaluate the reputation and experience of proposed assignees, as well as select an assignee with familiarity in the nature of the assignor’s business and/or with more expansive contacts in the industry to facilitate the sale/liquidation.  Second, the ABC process generally falls under the radar of the media (particularly in states that do not require court supervision), and the assignor may avoid publicity, often negative, that can be associated with bankruptcy proceedings.  Third, with an ABC, the assignee has the ability to sell the assets without the imposition of potentially cumbersome requirements of Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, and in some cases, can conduct a sale the same day as the general assignment.  Finally, the ABC process generally authorizes the sale of assets free of unsecured creditor debt.  In essence, in an ABC, a company buying assets from a distressed business does not acquire the debt of the assignor.

On the down side, ABCs do not provide the protection of the automatic stay that is triggered upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition.  In some situations, the debtor entity needs to stop the pursuit of creditors immediately, and a bankruptcy proceeding will supply this relief.  Unlike bankruptcy, the sale through an ABC: i) is not free and clear of liens; ii) unexpired leases cannot be assumed and assigned without the consent of the contract counter-party; and iii) insolvency can trigger a default under an unexpired lease or executory contract. See generally Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors , ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 20. In general, an ABC is not a good choice for debtors that have secured creditors that do not consent because there is no mechanism for using cash collateral or transferring assets free and clear of liens without the secured creditors’ consent.  In cases where junior lienholders are out of the money, there is no incentive for those creditors to voluntarily release their liens.  In addition, while unsecured creditors do not have to consent to the general assignment for it to be valid, choosing this alternative forum may cause concern for creditors (particularly those used to the transparency of a court-supervised bankruptcy or receivership proceeding) and invite the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy. Therefore, it is prudent to involve major creditors in the process, and perhaps even in the pre-assignment planning. In addition, if an involuntary petition is filed, the assignee could request that the bankruptcy court abstain in order to proceed with the ABC.

Using the ABC state process in lieu of filing for bankruptcy in federal court may result in a more streamlined, efficient liquidation process that is less expensive and likely completed quicker than a federal bankruptcy proceeding.  In some jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, workout professionals note anecdotally that corporate clients fare better under this state law alternative rather than the lengthy, more complicated federal bankruptcy proceedings.

Many bankruptcy professionals are unfamiliar with the procedures of ABC and are reluctant to recommend it as a method for liquidating assets and administering claims.  This lack of familiarity may be a disservice to potential clients.  

[ View source .]

Related Posts

  • Mediation in Bankruptcy: A Glimpse
  • In re The Hacienda Company, LLC – Round 2: Bankruptcy Courts May be Available to Non-Operating Cannabis Companies to Liquidate Assets
  • PAGA Dischargeable in Bankruptcy?

Latest Posts

  • Fifth Circuit Vacates EPA’s Orders Regulating PFAS under Significant New Use Rule
  • IRS Issues New Guidance for Cannabis Companies That Receive Over $10K Cash

See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

Refine your interests »

Written by:

Fox Rothschild LLP

Published In:

Fox rothschild llp on:.

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Custom Email Digest

  • Find a Lawyer
  • Ask a Lawyer
  • Research the Law
  • Law Schools
  • Laws & Regs
  • Newsletters
  • Justia Connect
  • Pro Membership
  • Basic Membership
  • Justia Lawyer Directory
  • Platinum Placements
  • Gold Placements
  • Justia Elevate
  • Justia Amplify
  • PPC Management
  • Google Business Profile
  • Social Media
  • Justia Onward Blog

2005 Revised Code of Washington - Chapter 11.98 RCW: Trusts

  • 11.98.009  Application of chapter.
  • 11.98.016  Exercise of powers by co-trustees.
  • 11.98.019  Relinquishment of powers by trustee.
  • 11.98.029  Resignation of trustee.
  • 11.98.039  Nonjudicial change of trustee -- Judicial appointment or change of trustee -- Liability and duties of successor fiduciary.
  • 11.98.041  Change of trustee -- Discharge of outgoing trustee, when.
  • 11.98.045  Criteria for transfer of trust assets or administration.
  • 11.98.051  Nonjudicial transfer of trust assets or administration -- Notice -- Consent required.
  • 11.98.055  Judicial transfer of trust assets or administration.
  • 11.98.060  Power of successor trustee.
  • 11.98.065  Change in form of corporate trustee.
  • 11.98.070  Power of trustee.
  • 11.98.080  Consolidation of trusts.
  • 11.98.090  Nonliability of third persons without knowledge of breach.
  • 11.98.100  Nonliability for action or inaction based on lack of knowledge of events.
  • 11.98.110  Contract and tort liability.
  • 11.98.130  Rule against perpetuities.
  • 11.98.140  Distribution and vesting of assets.
  • 11.98.150  Distribution of assets after one hundred fifty year period.
  • 11.98.160  Effective date of irrevocable inter vivos trust -- Effective date of revocable inter vivos or testamentary trust.
  • 11.98.170  Designation of trustee as beneficiary of life insurance policy or retirement plan -- Determination of proper recipient of proceeds -- Definitions -- Beneficiary designations executed before January 1, 1985, not invalidated.
  • 11.98.200  Beneficiary trustee -- Limitations on power.
  • 11.98.210  Beneficiary trustee -- Disregard of provision conferring absolute or similar power -- Power of removal.
  • 11.98.220  Beneficiary trustee -- Inferences of law -- Judicial review.
  • 11.98.230  Beneficiary trustee -- Income under marital deduction -- Spousal power of appointment.
  • 11.98.240  Beneficiary trustee -- Applicability -- Exceptions -- Election of exception -- Cause of action.
  • 11.98.900  Application of RCW 11.98.130 through 11.98.160.
  • 11.98.910  Severability -- 1959 c 124.
  • 11.98.920  Short title.

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Washington may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

Get free summaries of new opinions delivered to your inbox!

  • Bankruptcy Lawyers
  • Business Lawyers
  • Criminal Lawyers
  • Employment Lawyers
  • Estate Planning Lawyers
  • Family Lawyers
  • Personal Injury Lawyers
  • Estate Planning
  • Personal Injury
  • Business Formation
  • Business Operations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Trade
  • Real Estate
  • Financial Aid
  • Course Outlines
  • Law Journals
  • US Constitution
  • Regulations
  • Supreme Court
  • Circuit Courts
  • District Courts
  • Dockets & Filings
  • State Constitutions
  • State Codes
  • State Case Law
  • Legal Blogs
  • Business Forms
  • Product Recalls
  • Justia Connect Membership
  • Justia Premium Placements
  • Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
  • Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
  • Testimonials

COMMENTS

  1. Chapter 7.08 RCW: ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS

    HTML PDF. 7.08.010. Assignment must be for benefit of all creditors. HTML PDF. 7.08.030. Assignment — Procedure — Creditor's selection of new assignee. HTML PDF. 7.08.900. Construction — Chapter applicable to state registered domestic partnerships — 2009 c 521.

  2. Chapter 7.08 RCW: ASSIGNMENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS

    Dated: . . . . Dated: . . . . (2) The assignor shall annex to such assignment schedules in the form provided for by RCW 7.60.090 (3) in the case of general receiverships, setting forth the creditors and the property of the assignor. (3) Every assignment shall be effective when a petition to appoint the assignee as receiver has been filed by the ...

  3. Assignment For The Benefit Of Creditors In Washington

    RCW 7.08, which is the statute governing Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors, was restated in 2004 to coordinate Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors with the Washington Receivership Act. The revised statute provided for the appointment of the Assignee as a receiver following the execution of the assignment.

  4. Chapter 7.08 RCW: Assignment for benefit of creditors :: Title 7

    Fraud in assignment for benefit of creditors: RCW 9.45.100. Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Washington may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site.

  5. Revised Code of Washington § 7.08 (2020)

    7.08.020 Assent of creditors presumed. [1890 p 83 § 2; RRS § 1087.] Repealed by 2004 c 165 § 47. 7.08.040 Meeting of creditors to select new assignee. [1890 p 83 § 3, part; RRS § 1088, part.] Now codified in RCW 7.08.030. 7.08.050 Inventory by assignee — Bond. [1890 p 85 § 4; RRS § 1089.] Repealed by 2004 c 165 § 47. 7.08.060 Notice ...

  6. Washington Revised Code RCW 7.08.010: Assignment must be for benefit of

    2005 Washington Revised Code RCW 7.08.010: Assignment must be for benefit of all creditors. No general assignment of property by an insolvent, or in contemplation of insolvency, for the benefit of creditors, shall be valid unless it be made for the benefit of all of the assignor's creditors in proportion to the amount of their respective claims.

  7. Chapter 11.98 RCW: TRUSTS

    Assignment for the benefit of creditors: Chapter 7.08 RCW. Assignments to trustees, priority of wages: RCW 49.56.010. Banks and trust companies ... Trust provisions may relieve trustee from duty, restriction, or liability imposed by statute: RCW 11.97.010. Trustees' accounting act: Chapter 11.106 RCW. Trusts and monopolies: State Constitution ...

  8. Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors: Overview

    Maintained • USA (National/Federal) A Practice Note providing an overview of assignments for the benefit of creditors. This Note addresses the basic process by which assignments are generally administered and considerations when determining whether an assignment for the benefit of creditors is the appropriate course for liquidating a business.

  9. PDF WASHINGTON'S RECEIVERSHIP ACT

    Chapter 7.60 RCW and the former assignment for benefit of creditors ("ABC") statute, Chapter 7.08 RCW. The receivership legislation was the result of years of effort by the WSBA Creditor- ... The person making an assignment for benefit of creditors is required to verify the schedules. Under RCW 7.60.080, the debtor has the duty to cooperate ...

  10. Receivership Under RCW 7.60: An Alternative to Bankruptcy

    A receivership is the appointment of a disinterested person or organization (a receiver), by a court or by a corporation or a person, for the protection or collection of property that is the subject of creditors' claims. Receiverships exist at both the state level, through RCW 7.60, and the federal level, through Rule 66 of the Federal Rules ...

  11. Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

    See Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors, by Robert Richards & Nancy Ross, ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 6 (listing state statutes). In some states, the statutory authority and common law can coexist. At its most basic, the ABC process involves the transfer of all assets by a financially distressed debtor (the ...

  12. 2005 Washington Revised Code RCW 7.08.030: Assignment

    Justia US Law US Codes and Statutes Revised Code of Washington 2005 Revised Code of Washington Title 7 — Special proceedings and actions Chapter 7.08 RCW: Assignment for benefit of creditors Washington Revised Code RCW 7.08.030: Assignment — Procedure — Creditor\'s selection of new assignee.

  13. Chapter 7.60 RCW: RECEIVERS

    (1) In the event of a general assignment of property for the benefit of creditors under chapter 7.08 RCW, the assignment shall have annexed as schedule A a true list of all of the person's known creditors, their mailing addresses, the amount and nature of their claims, and whether their claims are disputed; and as schedule B a true list of all ...

  14. Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors

    See generally Practical Issues in Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors, ABI Law Review Vol. 17:5 (2009) at p. 20. In general, an ABC is not a good choice for debtors that have secured ...

  15. PDF Title 33 RCW

    Assignment for benefit of creditors: Chapter 7.08 RCW. Bonds and notes of federal agencies as investment and collateral: Chapter 39.60 RCW. Business license system exemption: RCW 19.02.800. Co-owners, simultaneous death: RCW 11.05A.040. Corporate seals, effect of absence from instrument: RCW 64.04.105. Corporation fees, in general: Chapter 23B ...

  16. 2005 Revised Code of Washington

    Assignment for the benefit of creditors: Chapter 7.08 RCW. Assignments to trustees, priority of wages: RCW 49.56.010. Banks and trust companies: Title 30. RCW. Cemeteries endowment and nonendowment care: Chapter 68.40 RCW. endowment care fund: Chapter 68.44 RCW. Certificate conferring trust powers on bank, fee: RCW 30.08.095.

  17. Chapter 11.98 RCW: TRUSTS

    Assignment for the benefit of creditors: Chapter 7.08 RCW. Assignments to trustees, priority of wages: RCW 49.56.010. Banks and trust companies: Title 30A ... RCW 11.98.200 through 11.98.240 do not limit or restrict the power of a spouse of the trustor or the spouse of the decedent to exercise a power of appointment described in section 2056 ...