Can a Corporation be Appointed a Receiver?


QUESTION: I was in court last week and the judge appointed a corporation as the receiver in a case. I thought a receiver cannot be a corporation. Has something changed?

ANSWER: Previously, California Financial Code § 106, defined “trust business” as the “business of acting as an executor, administrator… receiver… under the appointment of any court or by authority of any law of this or any other state or the United States, or as a trustee for any purpose permitted by law.” Financial Code § 1500 went on to provide that no corporation shall engage in the trust business unless it is qualified as required by that section, which required generally that it be a bank. The one exemption was set forth in Financial Code § 1501.2 which provided: “Nothing in this division shall prohibit a non-profit corporation from acting as a receiver pursuant to the appointment of any court.” It was, therefore, clear that, in general, a receiver in California could not be a corporation.

However, last year the legislature amended the Financial Code. It repealed § 106 and replaced it with § 115, which basically says the same thing. It repealed § 1500 and replaced it with § 1550, which basically says the same thing. It repealed § 1501.2 and replaced it with § 1553 which drastically changed the exemptions to the requirement for a corporation to qualify to act as a receiver. In particular, Financial Code § 1553 now provides:

[T]he following persons are exempt from Section 1550:


(d) Any person appointed as receiver, trustee, or other fiduciary by a court of competent jurisdiction acting pursuant to that authority.

“Person” is defined in § 18 of the Financial Code as “any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, limited liability company, syndicate, estate, trust, business trust, or organization of any kind.” As a result, given the amendments to the Financial Code, a corporation can be appointed as a receiver. Whether that is a good idea is another question. From a receiver’s standpoint, it may be beneficial to have the protection of a corporate entity. From the standpoint of the court and parties to receivership actions, it may raise a number of issues. First, a corporation cannot appear in court without counsel. Second, who at the corporation is acting for the court as receiver – the CEO? the CFO? the CEO’s secretary? any officer of the corporation? We will just have to see how this plays out and how willing courts are to appoint persons who are not natural, breathing, people as their receivers.

Written by:

Published In:

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.

© Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.