Categories
Tags
-
Recent Posts
- Court Finds Investment Advisor’s Payments to Customers Are Not Exempt From Avoidance Under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code
- Vitro Update: “Savings Clause” Fails to Save Vitro Subsidiaries From Involuntary Bankruptcy
- SDNY Denies Payment of Administrative Expense Claim by Relying on the Operative Document as a Whole and Rejecting a Statutory Rule of Construction
- Gaming Alert – New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Conditionally Supports Online Gambling – Boyd Gaming and Caesars Stocks Rally as a Result
- In re Hostess Brands, Inc.: Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Send Cash Collateral Dispute to Arbitration
Archives
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
Category Archives: Chapter 9
UPDATE: Court Rejects CalPERS’ Efforts to Lift Stay In San Bernardino Case
In a ruling predicted by the Restructuring Review Blog last month, Judge Meredith A. Jury of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California rejected arguments by CalPERS that the Bankruptcy Court should lift the automatic stay and … Continue reading
Posted in Analysis, Chapter 9
Tagged Automatic Stay, Chapter 9, Jefferson County, municipal bankruptcy
California Dreaming? CalPERS Seeks Payment in Full of All Pension Obligations During Pendency of San Bernardino’s Chapter 9 Case
California has seen a string of three Chapter 9 filings this year and faces a long line of distressed municipalities. Given this backdrop, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) figures to play a prominent role in the resolution of many of these situations (in or out of bankruptcy). Thus, the bond‑buying public will scrutinize closely any steps that CalPERS takes to protect its claims in the Bankruptcy Court. Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9
Distressed Investing – 19th Annual Conference
Doug Mintz spoke at the 19th annual Distressed Investing Conference on November 26th. He helped moderate a panel regarding Municipal Debt Restructuring, drawing on his experience in the Jefferson County, Stockton and San Bernardino bankruptcies and other out of court matters. Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9
Stockton: Bankruptcy Court Upholds Municipal Debtor’s Power to Impair Retiree Contracts
On August 6, 2012, Judge Christopher M. Klein of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed a group of retirees’ adversary proceeding and held that under its pendency plan, a chapter 9 debtor has the power to … Continue reading
Posted in Analysis, Chapter 9
Tagged 10th Amendment, California, Chapter 9, Constitution, stockton
Jefferson County: Court Rejects Expansive Carve Out of “Net Operating Expenses” From Special Revenue Bond Payments
On June 29, 2012, Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that operating expenses as determined under Jefferson County’s sewer warrants indenture do not include (i) a reservation for depreciation, amortization or future expenditures or (ii) an estimate for professional fees and expenses and that the monies remaining in the sewer system’s revenue account after the payment of actual operating expense should be paid to the warrant holders in accordance with the Indenture. This decision represents an unequivocal win for special revenue lenders because it ensures that special revenue bonds will continue to be secured and serviced in accordance with the underlying indenture during a municipality’s Chapter 9 case. The Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson Co., Ala. (In re Jefferson Co., Ala.), Case No. 12-00016-TBB (Bankr. N.D. Ala. June 29, 2012). Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9
Jefferson County: “Fear not each sudden sound and shock; Tis of the wave and not the rock”
On April 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that Ala. Cod. § 11-81-3 (1975) does not require that an Alabama municipality have prepetition bond indebtedness as a condition of eligibility to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 9. The Supreme Court of Alabama issued its decision in response to a certified question from the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama regarding whether the City of Prichard, Alabama was authorized to file for Chapter 9 under Alabama law. See City of Prichard v. Scott A. Balzer, Case No. 1:10-0622-KD-M (Ala. Apr. 4, 2012). Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9
Jefferson County: To Save A Mockingbird
On March 4, 2012, Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that Alabama law specifically authorized Jefferson County to adjust its debts under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. Through a detailed analysis of Alabama law, Judge Bennett demonstrated that while the barriers to Chapter 9 may be daunting, they are not insurmountable (at least not in Alabama). Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9
Jefferson County: The Bankruptcy Court Always Wins
On January 6, 2012, Judge Thomas B. Bennett of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that (i) the Alabama state receivership court lost possession and control over Jefferson County’s property interests in its sewer system immediately upon the filing of the County’s chapter 9 bankruptcy case and (ii) special revenue warrants are exempt from the automatic stay and must continue to be serviced during the course of a chapter 9 case. This decision highlights the loss of control that municipal bondholders face when a municipality files for bankruptcy relief under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code and the special treatment afforded to special revenue bonds in chapter 9. Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9, Standing/Jurisdiction
Tagged Jefferson County
Harrisburg: A Case Study in State Law Barriers to Chapter 9
On November 23, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s chapter 9 bankruptcy petition because Harrisburg was not specifically authorized to file for Chapter 9 as required by the Bankruptcy Code. Harrisburg’s failed attempt to remain in Chapter 9 highlights the political factors and state law constraints that municipalities must consider prior to seeking bankruptcy relief.[1] This article will discuss the origins of Harrisburg’s debt crisis, the Harrisburg City Council’s attempt to file for Chapter 9 without the Mayor’s approval, the legal obstacles placed in the path of the City Council’s bankruptcy filing, and the lessons that other distressed municipalities and creditors can learn from Harrisburg’s experience. Continue reading
Posted in Chapter 9
Tagged 10th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Act 26, Act 47, Chapter 9, Constitution, Harrisburg, municipal bankruptcy, Pennsylvania
Chapter 9 Update: Harrisburg Files for Bankruptcy Amid Political Dispute
Harrisburg, Pa., the state capital, filed for chapter 9 bankruptcy on October 12, 2011. The City Council authorized the filing without approval of the mayor, leaving the validity of the filing in doubt. The state of Pennsylvania has challenged the … Continue reading
Posted in Analysis, Chapter 9
Tagged Chapter 9, Harrisburg, municipal bankruptcy

