In a decision that may have implications for holders of community development district bonds and other similar “dirt bonds,” a Florida bankruptcy court has ruled that holders of community development district bonds do not always have plan voting rights when the underlying developer — as opposed to the development district itself — is the bankruptcy debtor.

Following California-based solar manufacturer Solyndra’s announcement August 31 that it intends to file for bankruptcy, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-TX) requested more documents from the White House regarding the Department of Energy’s $535 million loan guarantee to the company, the first to be awarded in September 2009. The bankruptcy is likely to intensify congressional criticism of the agency’s loan guarantee program and other renewable energy subsidies.

Since it was issued three years ago by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the Clear Channel decision (Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008)) has been widely criticized as “an aberration in well-settled bankruptcy jurisprudence.” Before Clear Channel, conventional wisdom (and what most people perceived to be the law) supported the notion that a bankruptcy sale order that contained a good faith finding under Section 363(m) could not be disturbed on appeal.

In a decision that may have significant practical implications to the practice of bankruptcy law, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declared, on constitutional grounds, that a bankruptcy court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a debtor’s state law counterclaims, thus considerably limiting the ability of the bankruptcy court to fully and finally adjudicate claims in a bankruptcy case. Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179 (June 23, 2011).

Under Delaware law, do creditors of an insolvent limited liability company have the same standing as creditors of insolvent corporations to pursue derivative claims against directors on behalf of the LLC? Most commentators, and some courts, have assumed that the answer was “yes.” However, the Delaware Court of Chancery in CML V LLC v. Bax, No. 5373-VCL, 2010 WL 4517795 (Del. Ch. Nov. 3, 2010), determined that the plain language of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the LLC Act) denies derivative standing to such creditors.

Section 330 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a statutory framework for compensation of professionals who are paid from the bankruptcy estate. Compensation awarded under section 330 is afforded administrative expense status under section 503(b)(2) and given second priority in the distribution of an estate pursuant to section 507(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.