of funds from that account, which included loan proceeds.” (Id. at 23.) The transfers, commingling, and exchanges of loan proceeds and other assets by and between GDC and its subsidiaries, including USW and the Borrower Subsidiaries, give rise to Amalgamate,d’s claim that, pursuant to the 2008 Security Agreement, it possesses a security interest in the Subject Funds as Collateral of the Borrower Subsidiaries. The cases extensively cited by the Watts Petitioners which hold that general creditors possess no specific interest in property subject to forfeiture and therefore lack standing to bring a petition in an ancillary proceeding are simply inapplicable to the circumstances giving rise to Amalgamated’s claims. See, e.g., DSI Assocs. LLC v. United States, 496 F.3d 175, 184 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Ribadeneira, 105 F.3d at 834 ([a]s holders of
holding that  1823e applies only when the fdics interest in a specific asset would be impaired by the alleged secret agreement holding that a cause of action for wrongful death is an asset of an estate holding that a plaintiff lacks standing to challenge legislation created outside of plaintiffs district absent specific evidence of personal harm holding that a claimant without an interest in a particular specific asset lacks standing to initiate ancillary proceeding holding that a general creditor does not have a property interest superior to defendants in any particular asset or funds until he has obtained some judgment and secures that asset or those funds