On September 12, 2012, CalPERS' general counsel released a
public statement setting forth CalPERS'
legal position on the limitations of the power of the
bankruptcy courts to interfere with the relationship between the
state of California and its municipalities regarding the payment of
retirement and other benefits to state employees.
Pensions and other benefits remain at the forefront of the
municipal financial crisis in California, and it appears that
CalPERS may be setting the stage for forthcoming legal battles in
the Stockton case, and perhaps others. CalPERS has previously
proudly boasted that Vallejo
did not take CalPERS on with respect to pension benefits, but only
healthcare retiree benefits.
commentators have predicted a looming constitutional battle
over pension benefits. The acuteness of the pension crisis was made
plain in a Stanford
Institute for Economic Policy Research Report, published
earlier this year, which concluded that aggregate pension costs
have expanded at a rate of 11.4% per year and pension expenditures
represent 10.1% of total municipal spending.
Whether Stockton, San Bernardino or another municipality will
undertake a war of attrition against CalPERS over pension benefits
remains to be seen.
Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law
firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los
Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
The firm combines in-depth legal knowledge with practical business
experience to deliver innovative solutions to complex legal
problems. We provide litigation, corporate law and real estate
services to clients ranging from start-up companies to Fortune 500
multinationals, with a focus on matters involving private equity,
technology companies, real estate capital markets, financial
services, intellectual property and products liability.
On February 11th, the three private plaintiff-appellants and eleven State plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring, et al. v. Jacob J. Lew, et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the District Court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376.
The question of whether a bankruptcy court may "equitably disallow" a creditor's claim-that is, direct that a creditor shall receive no distribution out of a bankruptcy estate on account of an otherwise valid claim-has long divided the courts.