Ed. Note: It’s been a rather quiet week (enjoy it while it lasts), so we’re taking this opportunity to let you know that we’ll henceforth be publishing Neighborly Insights, which is written by George Friedlander of the Court Street Group. The first issue is here. We won’t be including it in the Highlights, as it is geared more toward the market side, rather than the legal, but it’s otherwise an extraordinary resource. That is all.
Alternatives to Tax-Exempt Advance Refundings Would Cost Issuers.
Have They Got a Bond for You.
Fitch Focuses on Rental Car Facilities in Revised Airport Criteria.
SLGS Will Soon be Unavailable for Subscription: Squire Patton Boggs
San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego – Court of Appeal holds that nonprofit taxpayer organization’s alleged interest – on behalf of taxpayer who was resident of city – would be sufficient to maintain an action for judgment restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of city funds or action for reverse validation, and thus organization had standing under narrower provisions of conflict-of-interest statute to challenge validity of municipal ordinance authorizing issuance of bonds to refund and refinance remaining amount owed by city for construction of professional baseball stadium based on alleged financial interest in the sale of bonds by a member of the financing team that participated in preparation of the bonds.
And finally, You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means is brought to us this week by Oregon State University v. Superior Court, in which the court repeatedly refers to the plaintiff’s “alleged injuries.” When the crane you are operating collapses as you are loading a shipping container, resulting in severe internal injuries and the amputation of your foot, I think it’s safe go ahead and dispense with the “alleged.”

Bond Case Briefs