The South Bay Law Firm Law Blog highlights developing trends in bankruptcy law and practice. Our aim is to provide general commentary on this evolving practice specialty.

  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
    Comments RSS
    Log in
      Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending October 14, 2016
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending October 7, 2016
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending September 30, 2016
    Bankruptcy and Insolvency News and Analysis – Week Ending September 23, 2016

    Will California Municipalities Have to Obtain State Clearance Before Filing Chapter 9?

    One of the most deeply rooted concepts in American bankruptcy jurisprudence is the idea that, with few exceptions, virtually any private debtor may seek relief under the US Bankruptcy Code.

    Where the debtor is a public entity, however, such relief is not guaranteed.  Instead, municipalities seeking readjustment of their debt must be authorized to do so.  Such authorization is typically provided by state statute.

    In California, Government Code section 53760 gives “local public entities” the power to “file a petition and exercise powers pursuant to applicable federal bankruptcy law.”  To do so, however, these “local public entities” must meet the Bankruptcy Code’s tests for entry into Chapter 9 – the Code Chapter designed to afford “debt readjustment” relief for municipalities.  Specifically, such “local public entities” must be insolvent (i.e., not paying or unable to pay their debts when due) – a status which may be contested before the debtor enters Chapter 9.  They must also propose a debt readjustment plan (as opposed to a plan of liquidation).  Finally, to obtain Chapter 9 relief, they must:

    – have obtained the agreement of creditors holding at least a majority in amount of the claims of each class; or

    – have negotiated in good faith with such creditors and failed to reach agreement with a majority in amount of the claims of each class; or

    – be unable to negotiate with creditors because such negotiation is impracticable; or

    – reasonably believe that a creditor may attempt to obtain a preferential transfer, to the detriment of other creditors.

    It may sound like an awful lot.  But the fiscal impact of the global economic crisis – and of Sacramento’s fiscal crisis – on municipal budgets throughout California has sent local governments scrambling to review these provisions in earnest.

    This week, the California legislature was introduced to what may yet become another barrier to Chapter 9 entry.  The Solano County Times-Herald reported yestereday that State Sen. Pat Wiggins and Democratic Assemblyman Tony Mendoza (whose district includes Los Angeles and Orange counties) have co-authored new legislation that would make it harder for California municipalities to obtain Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.  According to staff writer Jessica York, the proposed legislation – Assembly Bill 155 – would require a municipality to receive filing approval from a 3-person state panel prior to commencing a Chapter 9 proceeding.

    The bill is borne of concerns over the effects a Chapter 9 filing can have on local taxpayers and on a bankrupt municipality’s credit-worthiness in the bond markets.  It is further prompted by a perceived need for state legislators to involve themselves with local deficits.

    But not everyone welcomes that involvement.  As Ms. York reports:

    League of California Cities leaders have some concerns with the bill, including who is sponsoring the legislation and motives behind the bill, said spokeswoman Megan Taylor.  She added that state leaders could do more good by resolving the state budget standoff, thereby providing economic certainty for cities and avoiding a bankruptcy avalanche.  “If the state is concerned with having local agencies getting to the point of bankruptcy, the most important thing that they can do is balance the state budget,” Taylor said.  Marc Levinson, [City of] Vallejo’s [Chapter 9] bankruptcy attorney, said he believed the bill was a bad idea at first glance. The state-appointed committee would likely have partisan political pressures weighing into their decisions, he said. “They’re going to have to spend a lot of time just getting up to speed . . . .”

    Will “local public entities” in California now have to get the state’s permission to commence a Chapter 9?

    Perhaps more importantly, should they?


    Comments are closed.