Governor Corbett is almost certain to sign legislation that places a Receiver in charge of Harrisburg‟s finances after the House agreed to Senate changes and sent the bill to the Governor‟s desk.

The General Assembly acted despite a recent move by Harrisburg City Council to file for bankruptcy. The architects of the Harrisburg „Receiver‟ plan, State Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland and State Senator Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin, both maintain that the bankruptcy move was illegal.

A measure that places a Receiver in charge of Harrisburg’s finances is expected to be approved by the Senate on October 17, despite the recent move by City Council to file for bankruptcy.

“From our point of view nothing has changed,” said State Rep. Glen Grell, R-Cumberland, who worked on the Receiver legislation with State Senator Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin. “The bankruptcy move is specifically forbidden under legislation we passed in June. I don’t think there’s any doubt it will be challenged and pretty quickly dismissed.”

On February 23, 2009, Pennsylvania became the second state to recognize an "ordinary course of business" exception to preference actions brought under a state insolvency statute where the defense is not expressly provided for in the statute. In Joel S. Ario, Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in His Official Capacity as Liquidator of Reliance Insurance Company, Appellant v. H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., H.J. Heinz Finance Company, and Portion Pac, Inc., et al., Appellees, No. 21 MAP 2006 (Pa. Feb.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.

Courts have applied various standards for determining when a “claim” arises for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, particularly in the tort context. A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania illustrates that the standard may differ depending on whether the claim in question is a creditor’s claim against the debtor’s estate or a debtor’s claim against a third-party.

The Bankruptcy Blog previously published an extensive guide to evaluating and purchasing director and officer (”D&O”) liability insurance for individuals at the helm of troubled companies.  But what happens when a policy is in place and the directors and officers seek to obtain the proceeds of that policy to cover defense costs or related expenses? 

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

Among the many protections afforded creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the estate’s ability to avoid transfers made before the petition date that benefit certain creditors at the expense of others. These so-called avoidance actions are primarily governed by Sections 544, 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, which set forth the requirements for challenging prepetition transfers as preferential or fraudulent.