The Connecticut Green Bank has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking repayment of $22.2 million in outstanding loans made to PosiGen, a solar panel leasing company that filed for bankruptcy this past November, and which counted among its executives former Green Bank director energy finance, Ben Healey, who left the quasi-public agency in 2018 and took a job with PosiGen seven months later.
The Green Bank, which receives roughly $23 million per year from Connecticut ratepayers through the public benefits charge to invest in green technology, partnered with PosiGen between 2015 and 2021 to lease solar panels to low and moderate-income households as part of the Green Bank’s Solar for All program.
Overall, the Green Bank has loaned PosiGen a total of $56.7 million “through a variety of loan facilities,” but say they did not lend any ratepayer funds, according to Green Bank Communications Director Rudy Sturk in an email; “The Green Bank has used returns on other investments to provide capital for our loans to PosiGen.”
According to court documents, the Green Bank loaned PosiGen $30 million in 2019, just months after Healey began working for the company as executive vice president of corporate development and finance. The Green Bank then created a revolving credit agreement with PosiGen in 2022, signed by Healey when he was chief commercial officer, as part of the company’s participation in Connecticut’s Energy Storage Solutions program approved by the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority in 2021.
During his tenure at PosiGen, Healey also helped usher in a massive $600 million investment into PosiGen by the investment firm Brookfield Asset Partners. The problem for the Green Bank is that its debt is subordinate to Brookfield’s debt. Second tier status leaves the Green Bank second in line to get their money back.
PosiGen’s debt default, however, is not a typical bankruptcy, according to the Green Bank’s court allegations. Instead, they claim Brookfield engineered a default to take control of PosiGen’s assets. Brookfield then offered an additional “bridge loan” to keep the company operating while allegedly stripping assets to leave other creditors with little to nothing left to recover.
Negotiations between Brookfield and the Green Bank did not appear to go well, according to the initial court complaint, with Brookfield threatening to never answer CGB’s phone calls again and withdraw from other “unrelated business opportunities,” when the Green Bank did not agree to waive certain debt restrictions for Brookfield to keep PosiGen running with the bridge loan.
Brookfield went ahead and did it anyway, which the Green Bank is claiming violates their credit agreement, interfered with their contract with PosiGen, and marks a fraudulent transfer of PosiGen’s assets to Brookfield at a time when PosiGen was insolvent. According to an amended complaint filed in December of 2025, however, it appears CGB and the hedge fund giant are still battling it out.
“Brookfield did exactly what CGB warned it would do,” attorneys for the Green Bank wrote in their December 2025 amended complaint. “Brookfield, having learned of PosiGen PBC’s troubling business practices and financial distress, determined that it would use the Bridge Loan to keep PosiGen and the other Operating Companies alive long enough so that Brookfield could strip all the value out of the companies, abandon remaining employees and customers and leave nothing left for anyone else.”
Brookfield claims they are keeping the company afloat with their bridge loans to avoid a “catastrophic outcome,” that they were the only ones to step up with financing to allow operations to continue, and that CGB’s “recovery position vis-à-vis its outstanding loans could not be any worse than it already was.”
The Green Bank sought an injunction through the court system but was denied. According to Brookfield’s opposition memorandum, the injunction would have forced PosiGen to “cease operations, practically overnight, to the substantial and irreparable of all its stakeholders – CGB included.”
“To be clear, CGB’s actions have nothing to do with preserving and maximizing the value of their $2 million claim at PosiGen, especially considering that CGB’s legal fees in litigating this dispute will approach the value of their outstanding $2 million claim, and given CGB has opted against foreclosing on their collateral,” Brookfield’s attorneys wrote. “Rather, CGB appears intent on holding PosiGen’s capital structure hostage in the hope of receiving a payoff from stakeholders who have more to lose from a disorderly liquidation.”
Healey left the Green Bank in August of 2018 to be president of the Green Bank’s newly created nonprofit entity, Inclusive Prosperity Capital, along with several other Green Bank employees. Healey remained with IPC for seven months before taking the job at PosiGen in February of 2019. CGB loaned PosiGen $30 million in December of 2019, according to the court complaint.
State ethics laws prevent state employees, including employees of quasi-public agencies like the Green Bank, from accepting a position with a state contractor for a minimum of one year after leaving service. CGB Board of Directors meeting minutes from 2017 indicate Healey was involved in securing Green Bank loans for PosiGen.
The Green Bank, however, claims that all ethics rules were followed; Healey had been cleared by the Office of State Ethics to transfer to Inclusive Prosperity Capital in August of 2018. Although they acknowledge that Healey was still subject to the “applicable one-year cooling-off restrictions,” when he joined PosiGen, they claim he had “no involvement in any matters he had previously worked on.”
“We can confirm that the Green Bank’s obligations in this regard were fully upheld. At that stage, ethics compliance was governed by those statutory post-employment restrictions, and no additional notification obligation was triggered for the Green Bank,” Sturk said. “Healey’s position at PosiGen did not have influence over any transactions considered by the Green Bank which were reviewed and approved by our standard staff and Board approval process.”
Interestingly, the Connecticut Green Bank is not the only former employer of Healey who loaned money to PosiGen. Inclusive Prosperity Capital (IPC), the nonprofit created by the Green Bank and managed by Healey for seven months before he took the job at PosiGen, has also invested with the now-bankrupt company, according to press releases.
IPC joined the Green Bank and LibreMax Capital in 2019 to help fund a $90 million investment into PosiGen, according to an IPC press release. The nonprofit then partnered with the Green Bank and ImpactAssets in 2023 “to extend a catalytic $12 million bridge loan” to PosiGen to “instantly boost PosiGen’s cash flow.”
“This bridge loan is essential in advancing our vision and scaling PosiGen’s impact during this interim period,” said PosiGen CEO Ben Healey, according to the press release. “By partnering with ImpactAssets, Connecticut Green Bank, and Inclusive Prosperity, we are better equipped to empower more families with clean energy solutions that reduce their energy burdens, build energy resilience, and address the urgent climate challenges we all face, together.”
Thus far, however, only the Green Bank appears to have filed a lawsuit, and Healey appears to no longer work for the company.
Inclusive Prosperity Capital (IPC) was created by the Green Bank in 2018 ostensibly as a way to keep the General Assembly from raiding their funds, but has since become the Green Bank’s primary lending organization for solar developments, essentially awarding no-bid contracts to its own nonprofit with which the Green Bank shares office space. The Green Bank also pays millions to IPC for administrative and consulting costs.
The financial arrangement between the Green Bank and IPC has angered solar developers in the state, who claim the quasi-public entity designed to help bring the solar industry to Connecticut is now directly competing against them in an already mature market.
According to sources, members of the Connecticut solar industry have put together a website called the CT Green Bank Accountability Project, which levels criticism at the Green Bank for competing with private industry, funneling contracts to IPC, and its investments in PosiGen.
“The Green Bank uses ratepayer money to block private competition, offering below-market rates that crowd out efficient private capital,” the website’s homepage states. “Lost $30 million. All funded by mandatory charges on every Connecticut ratepayer’s utility bill.”
As of this date, Brookfield has filed a motion to transfer the case to Texas, where the bankruptcy proceeding is taking place. The Green Bank objected, claiming that under the terms of their revolving loan agreement, the case should be in the District of Connecticut.
“Simply, Brookfield’s Motion is a transparent effort to avoid this Court’s scrutiny over its misleading conduct so far in this case,” attorney for the Green Bank wrote. “Indeed, as explained in pleadings before this Court and the Texas Bankruptcy Court, through intimidation and financial coercion, Brookfield forced PosiGen to breach its contract with CGB.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
