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.

Since it was decided in June 2011, countless scholars and courts have weighed in on the impact and implications of the Supreme Court’s seminal opinion in Stern v. Marshall.

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. 

Part 2: Amendments Affecting Mortgage Lenders and Landlords

As discussed in a previous post, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 27, 2020 in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, amended numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. This post discusses amendments specifically affecting landlords.

As many traditional private company buyers take a “wait and see” approach to dealmaking, pausing or cancelling their active transactions, many are scanning the horizons for new opportunities outside of their traditional comfort zones. In addition to scoping targets in COVID-19–relevant industries, many are looking for unique value propositions and approaching historically healthy and stable targets that are experiencing distress during the pandemic.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.

A few reactions to today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the validity of Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act: