When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

In a recent decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was faced with a situation that is the bane of any commercial and business attorney. A legal document contained an error. But in this case, the error was so extreme and obvious that the court was willing to reform the document to correct the error, in the face of other cases where courts refused to let parties escape from their mistakes. In re: Equipment Acquisition Resources (7th Cir., No. 1103905 decided on August 9, 2012)

In a recent contested matter in the case Home Valley Bancorp., Inc., Case No.

In a recent important decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trademark licensor could not use its bankruptcy to deny the rights of a licensee to use the trademark pursuant to a pre-bankruptcy agreement. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-3920, decided July 9, 2012) This decision creates a conflict among the federal circuits, which often means the U.S. Supreme Court must eventually decide the issue.

One of the benefits to a corporate form of entity is the protection of shareholders from liability for obligations of the corporation. Of course, as we all know, there are still legal claims which could impose liability on a corporate shareholder for obligations of the corporation. In a recent case, a former executive of a corporation tried to assert a tortious interference claim against a majority shareholder, when it terminated severance payments that were owed to the executive. (Nation v. American Capital, Ltd., 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No.

On May 24, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) dismissed with prejudice a complaint brought by AT&T California, Inc. against Fones4All Corp. in 2006. AT&T sought to recover alleged overcharges paid to Fones4All for termination of intraLATA toll traffic. Following an evidentiary hearing, the CPUC issued D.07-07-013, granting the relief AT&T requested in its complaint, or approximately $2.6 million, plus interest.

In a recent case, RBC Capital Markets, LLC v. Education Loan Trust IV et al., 2011 WL 6152282 (Del. Ch. Dec. 6, 2011), a holder of notes issued under an indenture claimed that the issuer caused the trust to pay excess and unauthorized fees that allegedly reduced the amount of interest payments to the noteholder.

A years-long political duel over whether California should control local government bankruptcies was resolved on October 9, 2011. Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code provides specifically for the reorganization of cities and towns, taxing districts, municipal utilities, and school districts. California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed legislation prohibiting local municipalities from filing for bankruptcy unless they first negotiate with creditors using a “neutral evaluation process” or vote to declare a fiscal emergency after a public hearing.

As many of you know, on December 19, 2011, Saab Automobile AB and affiliated companies filed for bankruptcy in Sweden. The company issued a bulletin to its dealers that same day, announcing that it immediately suspended processing and payment of all claims, and it is suspending warranty coverage on all new Saab vehicles. What does this mean for dealers? Every dealer’s situation is different, and each dealer will have to evaluate its own circumstances based on consultation with an attorney.

• On December 20, 2011, the South Carolina Public Service Commission (SC PSC) issued a scheduling order for AT&T South Carolina’s complaint against Halo Wireless. AT&T alleges that Halo, which filed for bankruptcy protection after AT&T initiated this action and similar complaints in several other states, was sending AT&T landline-originated traffic but refused to pay terminating access charges. AT&T also alleges that Halo has been manipulating call signaling information to hide the traffic’s true origin and to make it appear as wireless-originated traffic.