- The good folks at Baker Donelson have kindly provided us with the entire Order Granting Indenture’s MSJ from their win in In re Memorial Corrections, LLC, which we covered last week. The pdf is appended to the case brief. Should you encounter items that may be of interest to the BCB community, please feel free to send them our way and we’ll do our best to make them available to all.
- Ashton Urban Renewal Agency v. Ashton Memorial, Inc., In a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court of Idaho holds that urban renewal agency had a pecuniary interest in board of equalization’s decision to issue tax exemption, such that it had standing to appeal decision to board of tax appeals as an aggrieved person.
- In re City of San Bernardino California, Bankruptcy court confirms city’s eligibility to file a petition under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, overruling CalPERS’ objections that the city did not desire to effect a plan of adjustment (§109(c)(4)) and did not file the petition in good faith (§921).
- U.S. v. Murphy, Court applies ten year statute of limitations in bond bid-rigging scheme pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3293(2), which extends the statute of limitations from five years to ten “if the offense affects a financial institution.”
- Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Com’n, Supreme Court of Arkansas upholds class certification in action by city and county agencies against online travel companies for failure to collect and/or remit full amount of gross-receipts taxes imposed by government entities on hotel accommodations.
- Reuters: U.S. Reopens Bond Sales to State, Local Governments.
- NFMA: Introduction to Municipal Bond Credit Analysis.
- FINRA Publishes Report on Conflicts of Interest.
- NLC Report Finds City Finances Improving, but Remain Tenuous.
- Another fairly quiet week as we stagger off the carnival ride, “Adventures in Constitutional Democracy.” Be sure not to overlook Jimmy Carter vs. Scrooge McDuck (wait, that’s City of Asheville v. Resurgence Developent Co., LLC) in which the court wrestled with the thorny question of whether the granting of a 435 sq. ft. easement to allow a Habitat for Humanity project to connect with the public sewer system “confers a public benefit.” In a shocking twist, turns out it does.
