(Although it is not typically our practice to analyze personal bankruptcy cases if the issues do not also arise in corporate bankruptcy practice, we report on the decision discussed below because it involves the intersection of bankruptcy law and a particularly topical issue – same-sex marriages and domestic partnerships.)
Mark Vacha, Public & Project Finance, summarizes and highlights some of the significant points of the City of San Bernardino's proposed plan for the adjustment of its debts (as proposed and filed on May 29, 2015 in bankruptcy court). Mark also discusses the public finance concern of how different types of bondholders, creditors and other stakeholders are treated and the take-aways from this case for general governmental credits.
California Assemblyman Ken Cooley (D-Rancho Cordova) has introduced and sponsored Assembly Bill No. 597, the Asbestos Tort Claim Trust Transparency Act, which if passed would require asbestos plaintiffs to disclose all asbestos bankruptcy trust claim documents in asbestos tort actions.
I want to share with you a recent development in California asbestos litigation concerning bankruptcy trust disclosures. More specifically, Judge Elias, the Los Angeles Asbestos Supervising Judge, recently issued an order relating to disclosures of bankruptcy trust information.
Buyers of, and lenders upon, distressed California real property can sleep a little better following a recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision: In the Matter of Craig L. Tippett, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18914 (September 4, 2008). In Tippett, the Court upheld the California bona fide purchaser statute against a federal preemption claim and declined to find a violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision in order to affirm an unauthorized real property sale by the Chapter 7 debtor.
California Coastal Commission, etc., et al. v. Michael A. Allen, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___ (Oct. 1, 2008, Case No. B197974)
Under the “American Rule” concerning the recovery of attorney’s fees in pursuing breach of contract litigation, the prevailing party is awarded fees if the contract or an applicable statute provides for such recovery. Some states also allow a judgment creditor to recover fees incurred in enforcing the judgment, if the judgment was based on a contract or statute that authorized fees in the original litigation. See, e.g., California Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040.
In In re City of Vallejo,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California held recently that the City of Vallejo has the authority to reject its collective bargaining agreements with the city’s firefighters and electrical workers as part of its chapter 9 bankruptcy proceeding without going through the process detailed in section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court determined that a municipality does not need to comply with the stringent requirements that corporations face when seeking to reject a collective bargaining agreement (a “CBA”).
The bankruptcy case of the City of Vallejo, Calif., the largest chapter 9 case filed since the Orange County case 15 years ago, continues to produce significant decisions on issues of first impression. First, following a lengthy trial, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, where the City's case is pending, found that the City met all of the qualifications necessary to be a municipal debtor under chapter 9. In re City of Vallejo, 2008 WL 4180008 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008).