Gibbons Law Alert -

Gibbons Law Alert Blog

Delaware Bankruptcy Court Recognizes Crédito Real’s Prepacked Plan, Including Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases Allowed Under Mexican Law

On March 19, 2025

In a case of first impression since the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in Purdue prohibiting nonconsensual third-party releases, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware granted recognition of Crédito Real’s prepacked plan, which contains nonconsensual third-party releases approved by a Mexican court. In overruling the objection of the U.S. International Development Finance Corp. (DFC), which argued that the Mexican plan would be contrary to U.S. public policy and the court lacked authority to recognize the plan in light of Purdue, Judge Thomas M. Horan found that “Purdue only goes so far,” its holding is limited to Chapter 11, and it “does not create an impediment” to recognition. Emphasizing that “comity is key,” the court found that Crédito Real’s “plan does not implicate the public policy exception.” It will be interesting to observe what broader or long-term implications, if any, the court’s decision will have. Will debtors attempt to utilize Chapter 15 as a vehicle to circumvent Purdue to gain approval in the U.S. of nonconsensual third-party releases allowed under the laws of foreign jurisdictions, or is the court’s ruling limited to the facts of this case? The answer to this question is unclear at the moment. Following his ruling, Judge Horan acknowledged that this is an “issue of significance” and indicated...

CIPA Litigation and the “Technological Capability” to Violate California’s Privacy Laws

by Michael R. McDonald and Caroline E. Oks

Posted in Class Action

On March 7, 2025

In Ambriz v. Google, LLC, a court in the Northern District of California refused to grant Google’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under Section 631(a) of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) for (i) “intentional wiretapping,” and (ii) “willfully attempting to learn the contents or meaning of a communication in transit.” The lawsuit challenges Google’s AI-powered product, Google Cloud Contact Center AI (“GCCCAI”), which is used to support the customer service centers of other businesses by providing a virtual agent with whom callers can interact. The plaintiffs alleged that they placed customer service calls to businesses that use the GCCCAI service – specifically, Verizon, Hulu, GoDaddy, and Home Depot – and spoke with a “virtual agent” and human representative but did not know that Google would be listening in on and transcribing the call. Nor did the plaintiffs consent to Google’s alleged eavesdropping. Google moved to dismiss the CIPA claims on the ground, among others, that it simply provides a software tool to its business clients and was not “an unauthorized third-party listener to the communications between the named Plaintiffs and the customer service centers they called.” In denying Google’s motion to dismiss, the court began its analysis by explaining the split that has emerged in cases interpreting CIPA 631(a): Some courts require...

California’s Ban on Reverse Payment Settlements Held Not To Apply to Settlements Negotiated or Entered Outside of California

by Michael E. Hamburger

Posted in Antitrust

On March 6, 2025

Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California entered an order on February 13, 2025, that dramatically limits the geographic scope of a California law attempting to ban “reverse payment” settlement agreements of patent infringement claims, but upheld the law as it relates to settlements that are “negotiated, completed, or entered into within California’s borders.” A “reverse payment” settlement may result if a branded drug manufacturer sues a potential generic entrant for infringing its patents and then settles that litigation by making a payment to the generic defendant in exchange for that defendant agreeing to drop its challenges to the branded plaintiff’s patents for some period of time (often until the patents expire). In such circumstances, the payment is said to be “reverse” because it flows from the plaintiff in the patent suit (the branded manufacturer) to the defendant (the generic manufacturer), rather than flowing from the defendant to the plaintiff as in most litigation. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in FTC v. Actavis that such settlements may violate the antitrust laws if they involve “large, unjustified” reverse payments rather than reflecting “traditional settlement considerations, such as avoided litigation costs or fair value for services.” In 2019, California’s governor signed into law Assembly Bill 824 (AB...

Governor Murphy Proposes FY 2026 Budget Focused on Fiscal Responsibility and Planning for New Jersey’s Future

by Alexandra C. Hayes

Posted in State Budget

On February 26, 2025

Governor Phil Murphy presented his State FY 2026 Budget to a joint session of the Legislature on Tuesday, February 25. This year’s address marks the final budget of Murphy’s eight years in office. The proposed budget totals $58.05 billion, which is $70 million less than the FY 2025 adjusted budget appropriation. The FY 2026 budget includes a $6.3 billion surplus and a structural deficit of $1.2 billion. The Governor’s budget address was centered around themes of fiscal responsibility and planning for future economic security and opportunities for all New Jerseyans. Governor Murphy reaffirmed his administration’s intentions to work in concert with the Trump administration. He noted, however, that there is a distinct possibility that New Jersey may need to adopt a “break the glass” strategy if New Jersey faces the harsh reality of losing billions of federal dollars for state programs. Affordability and Property Tax Relief Governor Murphy addressed rising costs and inflation in his address. The proposed budget aims to improve affordability by addressing property taxes and increasing access to housing. The budget includes $28.5 billion in direct and indirect property tax relief, including nearly $4.3 billion in direct property tax relief through programs such as the Affordable New Jersey Communities for Homeowners and Renters (ANCHOR) Property Tax Relief Program and the Senior Freeze...

“Emergency” Amendments to UHAC Significantly Alter Affordable Housing Landscape Ahead of Fourth Round

by Cameron W. MacLeod

Posted in Development/Redevelopment

On February 21, 2025

On December 19, 2024, the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency released “emergency” revisions to the Uniform Housing Affordability Controls (UHAC), N.J.A.C. 5:80-26.1 et seq., which represent a sweeping change to the established affordable housing development landscape. Instead of being strictly limited to the updates required by the recent updates to the Fair Housing Act, these revisions are far more extensive. As of this writing, it does not appear the regulations have been proposed for notice and comment under the standard procedures pursuant to New Jersey’s Administrative Procedures Act. A copy of those regulations are available here. These new “emergency” rules went into effect immediately and will apply to any project not part of an existing Third Round settlement. There is no express grandfathering provision allowing projects that were approved as of December 19, 2024, much less those that were administratively complete, to continue to comply with the former UHAC regulations. Accordingly, all New Jersey developers should be aware of these changes and be sure to incorporate them into their pipeline of proposed inclusionary projects. The below is meant only as a summary of the high-level changes. Among the changes are the following: Unit mixes and bedroom distribution are changed. At minimum, the number of bedrooms must be at least twice the number of...

Fourth Circuit Rockets Certified Class Due to Lack of Article III Standing

by Michael R. McDonald and Caroline E. Oks

Posted in Class Action

On February 7, 2025

In a 2-1 recent published decision, the Fourth Circuit decertified a class, holding that every class member must be concretely harmed by an alleged statutory violation under the Supreme Court’s seminal holding on Article III standing in TransUnion v. Ramirez. Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC involved statutory and common law claims under West Virginia law by a proposed class of consumers against Quicken Loans, Inc. (now Rocket Mortgage, LLC), alleging that, in refinancing their home-mortgage loans, the consumers paid for “independent appraisals” that were not “independent” at all. In fact, the defendants provided to the appraisers the homeowners’ own estimates of their homes’ values, which they had provided in their loan application. The plaintiffs claimed that the inclusion of the borrowers’ own estimates inflated the appraisals and so compromised the integrity of the appraisal process as to render their appraisals unreliable and worthless. The District Court certified a class of “‘[a]ll West Virginia citizens who refinanced mortgage loans with Quicken, and for whom Quicken obtained appraisals through an appraisal request form that included an estimate of value of the subject property,’” which amounted to 2,769 loans. The court then granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and class members and awarded them more than $10.6 million in statutory damages, among other relief. On the first appeal, the...

Dog Doesn’t Hunt: After Plaintiff Drops Federal Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Says Dog Food Case Must Be Remanded to State Court

by Bassam F. Gergi

Posted in General Litigation

On February 4, 2025

The United States Supreme Court clarified this month in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that when a plaintiff amends her complaint, following removal from state to federal court, to “cut[] out all her federal-law claims, federal-question jurisdiction dissolves” and the case must be remanded “to the state court where it started.” In Royal Canin, Anastasia Wullschleger purchased “a brand of dog food available only with a veterinarian’s prescription” and “sold at a premium price,” thinking that the dog food “contained medication not found in off-the-shelf products.” When Ms. Wullschleger learned that, despite its trappings, the dog food was just “ordinary dog food,” she brought suit in Missouri state court, filing a complaint that included asserted violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as well as factually intertwined state-law claims. The defendant dog food company removed Ms. Wullschleger’s complaint from state to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction resulting from the FDCA. In response, Ms. Wullschleger amended her complaint to remove any reference to the FDCA, and she asked the federal court to remand the case back to state court, arguing that there was no longer federal jurisdiction over the “amended, all-state-law complaint.” The district court denied Ms. Wullschleger’s petition. It reasoned that federal jurisdiction could not be unilaterally eliminated by a plaintiff’s...

The End of a New ADR Era? Ninth Circuit Affirms Finding of Mass Arbitration Rules as Unenforceable

by Caitlyn Coyle

Posted in Class Action

On January 22, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s ruling denying a motion by Live Nation and Ticketmaster to compel arbitration of claims by ticket purchasers, finding that the arbitration agreement contained in Ticketmaster’s website Terms of Use was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable under California law. Notably, the arbitration clause required arbitration with a digital arbitration vendor (New Era ADR) under New Era’s rules for Expedited/Mass Arbitrations. Mass arbitration, a developing dispute resolution system, involves a large group of demands filed on behalf of or against a common party, out of which one plaintiff may be chosen to represent the larger group of plaintiffs, otherwise known as a “bellwether plaintiff.” The plaintiffs in Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. filed a putative class action alleging that the defendants engaged in predatory ticket pricing. In response, the defendants sought to enforce Ticketmaster’s Terms of Use, which required the dispute to be resolved through arbitration. These Terms specifically provided that claims stemming from current or prior online ticket purchases be decided by an arbitrator employed by New Era, who, under its delegation clause, also had the authority to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration. In affirming the district court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the lack...

“We’re from Jersey, Baby!” Governor Murphy Delivers the 2025 State of the State Address

by Courtney A. Johnson and Alexandra C. Hayes

Posted in State Government

On January 15, 2025

Yesterday afternoon, Governor Phil Murphy delivered his seventh State of the State address at a joint session of the New Jersey Legislature. This address re-invoked the “stronger and fairer” New Jersey theme that marked Governor Murphy’s first term, imbued with the subtext of innovation. During the address, the Governor looked back at some of the events that have occurred while he has been in office, including a global pandemic, record high inflation, and the outbreak of two international conflicts. He also highlighted the State’s accomplishments as the “medicine chest to the world,” its growing entertainment and film industry, and its winning bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup Final. In all, Governor Murphy presented a broad scope of issues his administration seeks to work on during his final year in office. Those priorities include affordability and economic opportunity; childcare and education; healthcare and reproductive rights; transportation and infrastructure; the environment; the protection of fundamental rights; and criminal justice reform. Affordability and Economic Opportunity The Governor acknowledged the rising cost of living and efforts to make New Jersey more affordable. He highlighted programs such as ANCHOR (geared toward property tax relief) and RetireReady NJ (a publicly run retirement savings program), as well as a higher minimum wage rate that has nearly doubled since he took...

New Jersey Just Increased Its Campaign Contribution Limits for 2025

by Gibbons P.C. Government and Regulatory Affairs Group

Posted in Elections

On January 6, 2025

The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (NJELEC) announced that effective January 1, 2025, campaign contribution limits will increase for all non-gubernatorial candidate committees, political committees, continuing political committees, legislative leadership committees, and political party committees. The Elections Transparency Act (P.L. 2023, c. 30), signed into law in April 2023, requires NJELEC to adjust for inflation the contribution limits for non-gubernatorial candidates and committees every two years. The following chart provided by NJELEC shows the new contribution limits that are now in effect. This is the first time that NJELEC has adjusted for inflation non-gubernatorial candidates and committees. Contribution limits for gubernatorial elections, along with thresholds related to the Gubernatorial Public Financing Program, have been subject to inflation adjustment every four years since 1992.