In February and March 2009, the US economy was in the midst of a terrifying financial and economic crisis. Between the beginning of 2008 and early 2009, four of the 25 largest U.S. financial institutions had failed, and nine of these 25 institutions had taken extraordinary steps to avoid failure -either receiving one-off government support, merging with another firm, or submitting to heightened regulation to qualify for future government support. Led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government had to quickly devise policies to stabilize the financial system and the economy. The case explores the details of policies, and the decision making process that led to them, that Geithner and his team devised under immense time pressure to stabilize the system. The case features an extended discussion of Geithner's innovative "stress test", which would reveal the longer-term health of the country's largest banks.

On the afternoon of Monday October 13, 2008, Hank Paulson Jr., the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, walked into the large conference room across the hall from his office in the Treasury Department. Joining him were Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Timothy Geithner, Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporate Sheila Bair, and the Chief Executive Officers of nine of the largest banks in the United States. This distinguished group had been brought together by the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Financial panic was pushing the U.S. and European financial systems to the brink of failure. Paulson hoped his meeting with the bank CEOs would be a turning point. U.S. financial markets were closed for Columbus Day, and Paulson was planning to announce the latest government actions to stabilize the financial system before markets reopened on Tuesday.

Keith Sherin, CEO of GE Capital, faced a decision on which hinged billions of dollars and the fate of one of America's most storied companies. On his desk sat two secret analyses: Project Beacon, a proposal to spin off most of GE Capital to GE shareholders, and Project Hubble, a proposal to sell off GE Capital in parts. A third document sketched out the implications should GE "stay the course" on its present strategy: a continued, massive build-up of regulatory and compliance personnel to meet GE Capital's obligations as a "SIFI"-systemically important financial institution-in the wake of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. No path forward was clear. A divestiture, either through a spin-off or sell-off, would reduce GE's size and financial connectedness and address market unease about GE's position as the seventh-largest U.S. financial institution. It would also unlock substantial value not currently reflected in the stock. Each faced major obstacles and execution risks, however. In particular, no one knew the precise cut-off for a SIFI designation or the time required to shed the designation. If the process took too long, or generated unexpected costs, a divestiture might destroy more value than it would create. Retaining GE Capital was risky, too, of course. Which set of risks was the right one to propose that the GE board accept?

Because of the deepening Greek crisis, in October 2015, National Bank of Greece (NBG) was required to sell one of its most valuable assets, Finansbank, the eight largest Turkish bank. There were three potential buyers: Garanti Bank. Turkey's second largest private bank, which was owned by the Spanish bank BBVA; Qatar National Bank, with a strong footprint in in the Middle East; and a private equity consortium led by Finansbank's previous owner and founder, Husnu Ozyegin. Each of these potential buyers had different motivations for the purchase. NBG's motivations were to obtain the highest price and to close the deal as quickly as possible. The identity of the winning bidder would be critically important to the to the future of Finansbank and its employees. Who is likely to the bidding and will the winner be best for Finansbank's future?