As a result of the sheer number of legal and factual issues involved in many chapter 11 cases, bankruptcy judges can sometimes find themselves as captives of the parties; they may not appreciate the significance of an issue or a provision buried in a longer document unless it is properly presented. Thus, it is imperative that counsel flag the key issues for the court.

Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code caps the amount of a lessor’s claim against a debtor-lessee for damages arising from the termination of a real property lease. The statutory cap is calculated according to a formula that considers, among other things, the date on which the lessor “repossessed” or the debtor-lessee “surrendered” the leased property. Because those terms are not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, however, courts disagree as to whether state or federal law should determine their meanings for the purpose of calculating the allowed amount of the lessor’s claims.

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for the Aged), 659 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held, among other things, that the “deepening insolvency” cause of action, which the Third Circuit previously recognized in Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 267 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2001), remains an independent cause of action under Pennsylvania law.

Background

As many are already aware, the City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania filed a Chapter 9 bankruptcy late Tuesday evening, October 11 in advance of a Pennsylvania state senate vote that may have put the city on the path to a receivership.  The Chapter 9 petition (http://www.publicfinancematters.com/Harrisburg%20Petition%20.pdf) is the result of a 4-3 vote “authorizing” the filing by the Harrisburg city council without the support of Harrisburg’s Mayor Linda Thompson.  Pr

Pennsylvania’s legislature recently approved House Bill No. 1773, an overhaul to its Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, commonly known as “Act 47.”  HB 1773 was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett on October 31, 2014.

The bankruptcy court ruled today that the City of Harrisburg’s Chapter 9 petition filed by the Harrisburg City Council was not specifically authorized under Pennsylvania law.  After extensive briefing from the parties concerning, among other things, the constitutionality of Act 26 – the law passed in June 2011 to prohibit “third class” cities like Harrisburg from filing Chapter 9 -- the court ruled the law was constitutional and prohibited Harrisburg from becoming a Chapter 9 debtor.  The case has been dismissed.

As expected the Harrisburg City Council has filed a reply to the numerous objections to the Chapter 9 filing of Harrisburg initiated by the City Council.  The City Council’s brief (harrisburg response.pdf) appears to be the only timely filed reply to the objections to the Chapter 9 filing. 

The Bankruptcy Court held a status conference in the Harrisburg Chapter 9 earlier today.  The principal purpose of the hearing was for the court to set a schedule for objections to Harrisburg’s chapter 9 eligibility.  Objections to eligibility and supporting briefs are to be filed by October 28, a response by the City Council is to be filed by November 7, and replies on behalf of the objecting parties are to be filed by November 12.  The judge made it clear that the City Council has the burden of showing eligibility.  Th

Applying Pennsylvania law, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has held that an insured’s failure to notify its insurer of a potential claim violated the notice provision of the policy.  Pelagatti v. Minn. Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3213796 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2013).  In  so doing, the court held that the insurer was not required to show that it was prejudiced by the late notice and that whether the insured’s failure to provide timely notice negates coverage is determined under a “hybrid subjective/objective test.”

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has held that an E&O policy issued to a now-bankrupt credit counseling company did not cover claims arising under unfair trade practices statutes, but did cover claims arising under fair debt collection statutes. Hrobuchak v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2291875 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2013). The court also held that carve-outs from the policy’s definition of loss did not preclude coverage for statutory damages or damages representing the return of fees paid to the insured.