It is said that muddy water is best cleared by leaving it be.  The Supreme Court’s December 4 decision to review the legality of Puerto Rico’s local bankruptcy law, the Recovery Act, despite a well-reasoned First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the U.S. District Court in San Juan’s decision voiding the Recovery Act on the grounds that it conflicts with Section 903 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, suggests, at a minimum, that at least four of the Justices deemed the questions raised too interesting to let the First Circuit have the last word.

A Delaware bankruptcy court recently limited a secured creditor’s right to credit bid an acquired claim to the purchase price of that claim. In In re Fisker Auto. Holdings, Inc., 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 230 (Bankr. D. Del. January 17, 2014), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware addressed a motion by Fisker Automotive, Inc. (“Fisker”) to sell substantially all of its assets (the “Sale Motion”) to Hybrid Tech Holdings, LLC (“Hybrid”).

Electric vehicle battery manufacturer A123, which received a $249 million stimulus grant from the Department of Energy, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection October 15 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to facilitate an agreement in which Johnson Controls will purchase its automotive business assets for $125 million. The company has drawn down roughly $131 million of its grant, and has faced problems with batteries supplied to Fisker as well as low demand for electric vehicles.

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 discussed in previousposts, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, largely to address the harsh economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

President Trump signed the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”) into law in August of last year and it became effective on February 20, 2020. The SBRA amended the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and is designed to simplify and shorten the reorganization process for “small businesses” and to make the entire process more cost effective. At the same time that the SBRA was coming online, the U.S. economy experienced a severe downturn as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judge Swain’s decision in the PROMESA Title III bankruptcy proceeding of the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) that a federal bankruptcy court cannot compel a municipal debtor to apply special revenues to post-petition debt service payments on special revenue bonds has generated controversy and caused some market participants to question whether, if the decision is upheld by the First Circuit on appeal, the perception that special revenue bonds have special rights in bankruptcy remains justified.

Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”

At first glance, Stanziale v. MILK072011, looks like someone suing over a bad expiration date and conjures up images of Ron Burgundy proclaiming “milk was a bad choice.” But in actuality Stanziale is much more interesting: it answers whether one can breach their fiduciary duty by exposing an employer to a claim under the aptly-named WARN Act, which requires employers to tip off their workers to a possible job loss.

In a recent decision by the influential Third Circuit Court of Appeals, In re KB Toys Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23083 at *17 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2013), the Court decided that “the cloud on the claim” stemming from a preferential payment made to the original claimant continues with the claim, which then could be disallowed.