Curriculum·G802 The SPV and Bankruptcy Remoteness·about 33 min

Bankruptcy remoteness, and what breaks it

By the end of this lesson you can

→Define bankruptcy remoteness as a design that reduces, not eliminates, the risk of being pulled into a sponsor's bankruptcy
→Describe how General Growth put bankruptcy-remote SPEs into bankruptcy despite their design
→Reason that remoteness depends on structural features that a determined sponsor can still overcome
→Assess the real strength of an SPV's remoteness rather than assuming it is absolute

Graduate · enrolled learners

This lesson opens with General Growth Properties, 2009.

What happened: General Growth Properties was a large owner of shopping malls that financed them through bankruptcy-remote special-purpose entities: each mall sat in its own single-purpose entity, with an independent director whose consent was needed to file for bankruptcy, a structure designed so that the mall could not be dragged into the parent company's bankruptcy and lenders to that mall would be protected. In April 2009 General Growth put 388 entities of its group into Chapter 11, among them project-level entities built to be bankruptcy remote, some of them current on their debt, after quietly replacing the original independent managers on the boards of 159 of its project-level entities with two experienced restructuring professionals, which the documents did not forbid. Lenders moved to dismiss the filings as made in bad faith, and in August 2009 the bankruptcy court refused, holding that the group's overall financial distress could be considered in judging an entity's filing and that the independent managers of a solvent entity owed their duties to the entity and its shareholders, not to the lender alone, so they could weigh the group's interests, not only the single entity's. The lenders professed surprise, because these structures had been treated as reliably remote. The court added that the structure's fundamental protections, including protection against substantive consolidation, stayed in place. No investor was wiped out here, and the entities were eventually reorganized, which is why the recorded loss is zero, but the assumption that bankruptcy remoteness was absolute was broken, and lenders who had priced the risk as near zero found it was not.
The decision point: Bankruptcy remoteness is a design that lowers the chance that an SPV is pulled into its sponsor's bankruptcy, through structural features, a single purpose, restrictions on incurring other debt, an independent director whose consent is needed to file, separateness covenants, but it lowers the chance, it does not eliminate it. General Growth is the case that proved the difference: entities engineered to be remote, and treated by the market as reliably so, were nonetheless brought into the parent's bankruptcy and kept there, because a court accepted that group-wide distress and the independent directors' consideration of the group could justify it. Remoteness is therefore a matter of degree, resting on features that reduce risk but can be overcome by a determined sponsor, a sympathetic court, or a group-wide failure. So the decision when structuring or relying on a tokenized asset is to assess the actual strength of the SPV's remoteness, how independent the director truly is, how tight the separateness covenants are, how the relevant law treats such filings, rather than assuming remoteness is a binary that is simply achieved, because a token whose safety rests on the SPV being untouchable by the sponsor's bankruptcy is resting on a probability, not a certainty, as General Growth's lenders discovered.

What you will be able to answer

→What did General Growth (2009) show about bankruptcy-remote SPEs?
→What is bankruptcy remoteness?
→What can overcome an SPV's remoteness?
→How to treat an SPV's remoteness?

Orientation and Year One are open: anyone can read them without an account. From Year Two onward the lessons are for enrolled learners, because progress through the later years only means anything if it is tracked against a record.

It is free. We do not sell the list and there is nothing to buy at the end of it.

Enroll, it is free Sign in Start at the beginning

Sources and review

Confidence high·Volatility low·Reviewed 2026-09-16·Owner unassigned

Contested

The court's August 2009 opinion (In re General Growth Properties, Bankr. S.D.N.Y., Judge Gropper) denied five motions to dismiss and held the filings were not in bad faith, but it also said the fundamental protections the SPE structure represents, including protection against substantive consolidation, remained in place, so what gave way was the expectation that the entities could not be brought into the group case at all, not their separateness from the group's creditors. That lenders had priced the risk as near zero is this lesson's reading; the opinion records an ING Clarion officer testifying that such filings were not anticipated to happen. The court's June 2011 opinion records that GGP emerged on 9 November 2010, restructured more than 15 billion dollars of secured debt, paid in full or reinstated more than 7 billion dollars of unsecured claims, and distributed about 6 billion dollars in value to shareholders.

The loss is recorded as zero because the General Growth entities were reorganized and lenders were not ultimately wiped out; the harm was to the market assumption that remoteness was absolute and to lenders who had priced the risk as near-zero. The case is a bankruptcy-court decision whose reasoning has been debated, but it established that remoteness is not absolute.

Bankruptcy-remoteness practice (independent directors, non-consolidation opinions, separateness covenants) has continued to evolve since General Growth; the lesson uses the durable principle that remoteness is a matter of degree that can be overcome, not the specific post-2009 drafting responses.

← Why the SPV exists The claim the token actually represents →