- Ed Note: UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Association, Inc. knocked us a bit sideways this week when the Supreme Court of Colorado held a very hard line in enforcing the 10-day deadline to challenge the formation of a special district and to contest the resulting bonds and property taxes in what appears to be a clearly fraudulent scheme. The case was remanded for consideration of issues not included in the opinion, so we do not yet know how consequential this will be. We’ll keep you posted and invite any/all of the fine firms involved in this case to weigh in.
- NFMA Releases Recommended Best Practices in Disclosure for Local General Obligation Debt Disclosure.
- NFMA Releases White Paper on General Obligation Bond Payment Protections: Statutory Liens and Related Disclosure.
- NFMA Releases Recommended Best Practices in Disclosure for Water and Sewer Bonds.
- NABL: The Bond Lawyer – Fall 2017 – In particular, “Federal Securities Law” by
Paul S. Maco of Bracewell LLP.
- MSRB to Amend Requirements for Obtaining CUSIP Numbers.
- Surge in Private Muni Issuance Leaves Disclosure Black Hole.
- When Climate Change Becomes a Credit Problem.
- Final Tax Reform Legislation Saves PABs and Stadium Bonds, Kills Advance Refundings and Tax Credit Bonds.
- UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Association, Inc. – Supreme Court of Colorado holds that challenge by homeowners’ association – which represented condominium owners whose properties were included in special district – to district’s creation was a challenge to the means by which results of the election creating the district were obtained, rather than a challenge to the substance of a ballot issue, and thus ten-day period specified in statute on filing a statement of intent to contest an election applied to association’s challenge, where association’s contentions were that illegal voters participated in the election and that eligible electors did not receive notice of the election.
- And finally, No Equitable Tolling For You! is brought to us this week by the aforementioned UMB Bank, N.A. v. Landmark Towers Association, Inc., in which a newly-created special district held an election to issue $35 million in bonds. To create “voters,” the proposed development created a 10-foot by 10-foot “director’s parcel” and issued purchase options to six people. Voila. Voters. Of course the whole scheme eventually ends in tears. It strikes us that a fitting punishment would be to require these six folks to serve their sentences together in a 10′ x 10′ condo. We’ll let you decide if they should be joined by the rotting corpse of the developer who (R.I.P.) killed himself.
Copyright © 2026 Bond Case Briefs | bondcasebriefs.com