United States: Chapter 9 Update: Limiting Jurisdiction In Municipal Bankruptcies

Last Updated: March 13 2013
Article by John J. Rapisardi

Most Read Contributor in United States, October 2018

Since the publication of our two-part municipal bankruptcy series (see NYLJ, March 4, 2010, and May 6, 2010), the strain of rising pension costs, declining tax revenues, and onerous debt obligations has become more acute for many struggling municipalities. Recent decisions regarding Bankruptcy Code section 904, which constrains a bankruptcy court's oversight of a municipality's assets and spending power, have affirmed the proposition that a municipal debtor has full discretion to modify its obligations without court approval. Most recently, the courts presiding over the Stockton and Jefferson County cases have clarified the scope of section 904 to afford a municipal debtor the unfettered right to pay creditors on account of their prepetition claims during the pendency of its chapter 9 case.

Statutory Background

Chapter 9 has evolved over the years to keep up with the advances of municipal finance while also ensuring that the provisions of it do not encroach upon the municipal debtor's sovereignty. In drafting chapter 9 and its predecessor under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, chapter IX, Congress had to take care not to violate the Tenth Amendment, which bars Congress from interfering with the sovereign affairs of the states. Indeed, in the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck down a jurisdictional provision of the statutory predecessor to chapter 9 as unconstitutional because it permitted bankruptcy courts to interfere with municipal property or revenues if such property was not necessary "in the opinion of the judge for essential governmental services."1

New York City's fiscal crisis in the 1970s served as the genesis for the liberalization of the municipal bankruptcy laws because, at the time, the existing municipal bankruptcy provisions were woefully inadequate to deal with the restructuring needs of a city as large and complex as New York. In 1976, Congress liberalized and broadened many of the provisions of chapter IX to their current form as set forth in chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978. In particular, Congress further broadened the jurisdictional limitations by enacting section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code, deleting the phrase "necessary for governmental services" from the jurisdictional provision. In its current form, section 904 provides that, absent a chapter 9 debtor's consent, a bankruptcy court "may not...interfere with...(1) any political or governmental powers of the debtor; (2) any property or revenues of the debtor; or (3) the debtor's use or enjoyment of any income producing property."2 Section 904 is a keystone in the interplay between federal bankruptcy powers and municipal sovereignty, and imposes significant limitations on the court's ability to issue orders that would "interfere" with the debtor's use of its property or revenues.

Recent Decisions

Over the past year, multiple bankruptcy courts have addressed the interplay of section 904 with other provisions in the Bankruptcy Code and the Judicial Code, and all have broadly interpreted section 904 to prohibit any court interference with the debtor's use of its property during the pendency of its case.3

  • Jefferson County I. The chapter 9 filing by Jefferson County, Ala., in November 2011 - the largest such filing as measured by total liabilities (over $3 billion) - was precipitated by a default on its sewer warrant obligations and declining revenue. The warrants were secured by the net revenues of the sewer system, which the county was obligated to transfer to a revenue fund account. The indenture required the county to transfer such revenues to a debt service account controlled by the indenture trustee.

Prior to the commencement of the county's chapter 9 case, the indenture trustee for the county's sewer warrants commenced a state court action seeking to enforce the terms of the indenture. The state court appointed a receiver and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the indenture trustee, finding that the county breached the terms of the indenture. Subsequently, the county commenced its chapter 9 case, and the indenture trustee requested that the bankruptcy court find, among other things, (i) that the state court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the sewer system such that a receiver was entitled to continue to manage the sewer system and (ii) that the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code did not apply to the receiver.

Among other things, the court held that abstention from the county's bankruptcy case was not warranted under section 904. The indenture trustee and the receiver argued that, because the receiver, acting in its sovereign capacity, controlled the entire sewer system at the instruction of the state court, section 904 prohibited the bankruptcy court from doing anything that would impair or limit the receiver's or the state court's exercise of control over the sewer system properties. The court disagreed and held that section 904 applies only to municipal debtors. The receiver, according to the court, was not the debtor and, therefore, "literal interpretation of section 904 does not sustain abstention from the County case."4 Furthermore, the court noted that the receiver did not act in a sovereign capacity because its actions were taken by it on behalf of a private party, the indenture trustee, seeking to enforce the county's obligations under the indenture. Therefore, the court held that the provisions of section 904 did not apply to the receiver. Jefferson County I clarifies that section 904 applies only to a chapter 9 debtor, regardless of whether a third party controls the debtor's property.

  • Jefferson County II. On Dec. 19, 2012, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the exception to the automatic stay under section 959 of the Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. §959) does not apply to a municipal debtor because of the jurisdictional limitations imposed on courts by section 904.5 Section 959(a) provides that "trustees, receivers, or managers of any property, including debtors in possession, may be sued, without leave of the court appointing them, with respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on business connected with such property."6 This decision resolved a dispute between the city of Birmingham and Jefferson County over the county's decision to close an inpatient care unit at a county-owned hospital in Birmingham.

The city argued that the county's closure of the inpatient care unit without having another health care option in place for indigent citizens would violate the Alabama Health Care Responsibility Act (AHCRA). The city also argued that section 959 of the Judicial Code permitted the city to sue the debtor and certain of its officers to enforce the provisions of AHCRA.

The court disagreed, holding that, consistent with the Tenth Amendment's reservation of certain powers to states, Bankruptcy Code section 904 prohibits a bankruptcy court from interfering with a municipal debtor's political or governmental powers, property, and revenues without the debtor's consent. The court found that the absence of federal court control over a municipal debtor supported the proposition that Judicial Code section 959 should not be applied to constrain a chapter 9 debtor's ongoing operation of its assets, such as the county's operational decisions regarding the hospital unit.7 Accordingly, the court held that section 959 does not apply to chapter 9 cases and rejected the city's attempt to enjoin the county's closure of the hospital unit.

  • Stockton I. In the face of severely declining tax revenues and rising pension costs, the city of Stockton, Calif., filed for chapter 9 on June 28, 2012. Along with its chapter 9 petition, Stockton implemented a pendency plan, pursuant to which the city would reduce certain benefits of the retirees during the pendency of the case. A group of retirees objected to Stockton's unilateral reduction of retiree benefits under the pendency plan and filed an adversary proceeding seeking to enjoin the city from unilaterally reducing their benefits, contending that such a reduction in benefits violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On Aug. 6, 2012, Judge Christopher Klein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed the retirees' proceeding, holding that, under its pendency plan, a chapter 9 debtor has the power to modify and impair certain creditors' interests during the pendency of a chapter 9 case with little, if any, limitation or oversight from the bankruptcy court.8 Klein stated that section 904 expressly "forbids the court from using any of its powers" to interfere with any property or revenues of the debtor. The court noted that section 904 contains such broad language that the court cannot use remedies that it may otherwise employ in chapter 11 (e.g., "no inherent authority power, no implied equitable power, no Bankruptcy Code section 105 power, no stay, no order, no writ") to interfere with a municipality regarding its political powers or the use of its property.9

As applied to this case, the court found that an injunction would prohibit Stockton from using the "contents of its treasury," which brought the proposed relief within the ambit of section 904(2).10 Accordingly, the court held that section 904 prohibited the court from granting injunctive relief because "section 904 prevents any federal court" from interfering with the debtor's property and revenues.11

  • Stockton II. On Feb. 5, 2013, Klein held that section 904 gives a chapter 9 debtor the freedom to decide whether to ignore or to follow the compromise approval procedure set forth in Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.12 Accordingly, the court held that a municipal debtor is not required to seek court approval under Rule 9019 before entering into settlements with its prepetition creditors.

The history and plain language of section 904 compelled the court to conclude that the "bankruptcy court cannot prevent a chapter 9 debtor from spending its money for any reason, even foolishly or in a manner that disadvantages other creditors, unless the municipality consents to such judicial oversight."13 According to the court, a municipal debtor's settlement authority would necessarily fall within the purview of section 904 because it would involve the use of the municipality's property and revenues. The court's power to disapprove that settlement would constitute "the power to interfere," and the power to interfere with a municipality's property is precisely what Congress has withheld from the scope of federal courts' authority in chapter 9 cases.14 Accordingly, the court found that based on section 904, a municipal debtor "can pay any debt in full without permission of this court."15

The court disagreed with creditors who argued that a spate of unapproved settlements would lead to a creeping plan of adjustment. While the court acknowledged this possible outcome, the court ultimately concluded that "the day of reckoning comes at the plan confirmation hearing."

Although the municipal debtor has unfettered discretion to enter into settlements with its creditors during the pendency of its case, the court noted that an unfair settlement with a substantial creditor would likely make it difficult for the debtor to later confirm a plan of adjustment. Specifically, if any impaired class of claims does not accept the plan, then the city would be required, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 943 and 1129(b), to prove that the plan "does not discriminate unfairly" and that the plan is "fair and equitable" with respect to the non-accepting impaired class. Furthermore, the city would also bear the burden of proving that the plan is proposed in good faith. According to the court, evidence of untoward settlements would be probative of these issues and would likely cast into doubt the confirmability of any proposed plan of adjustment.

Analysis

The Stockton and Jefferson County decisions illustrate the difficult position encountered by many creditors during the pendency of a chapter 9 case and further underscore the free reign that a municipal debtor enjoys during such period. Stockton II, however, should serve as a reminder that chapter 9 debtors will have to account for their actions during the chapter 9 case on the "day of reckoning," which will occur at the time that confirmation of a plan of adjustment is sought.

Presumably, if a court finds that a debtor entered into any untoward settlements with its creditors during the pendency of its case, it would likely cast into doubt the confirmability of the plan of adjustment. Specifically, a municipal debtor must establish that its plan of adjustment satisfies a broad panoply of statutory provisions in the Bankruptcy Code, including: (i) section 943(b)(7), which requires that a plan is in the best interests of creditors and is feasible; (ii) section 1129(a)(2), which requires that the "proponent of the plan complies with the applicable provisions of this title"; and (iii) section 1129(a)(3), which requires that a debtor file its plan in good faith.

If the plan of adjustment violates any of these provisions, a bankruptcy court could reject the plan of adjustment and instruct the debtor to draft a plan that would be more acceptable. Furthermore, as the court noted in Stockton II, if a plan of adjustment is not confirmable because the debtor entered into unfair settlements with other prepetition creditors, the court may dismiss the case pursuant to section 930(a)(5). Ultimately, a municipal debtor might not want to risk having its case dismissed or prolong the confirmation of its plan of adjustment due to its inequitable behavior during the pendency of its case.

Conclusion

Based on the recent clarification of the scope of section 904, it will be interesting to see how courts continue to apply the section in other instances. Even though the Jefferson County and Stockton decisions may seem disheartening for creditors in chapter 9 cases, creditors should bear in mind that a municipal debtor will be held accountable for its actions once it seeks confirmation of its plan of adjustment.

Footnotes

1. Ashton v. Cameron Cnty. Water Improvement Dist. No. 1, 298 U.S. 513, 532 (1936) (emphasis added). Congress later deleted the phrase "in the opinion of the judge" from the statutory limitation on judicial interference with the municipal debtor's property. The Supreme Court ruled that this prohibition was constitutional. United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).

2. 11 U.S.C. §904.

3. While a plethora of cases have dealt with section 904 over the past year, such cases' broad interpretation of section 904 is not novel. Indeed, courts have previously recognized that, consistent with the Tenth Amendment, a bankruptcy court may not interfere with a municipal debtor's use of its property. See, e.g., In re New York City Off-Track Betting, 434 B.R. 131 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010); In re Addison Comty. Hosp. Auth., 175 B.R. 646 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1994).

4. In re Jefferson County, Ala., 474 B.R. 228, 289 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012) (Jefferson County I).

5. In re Jefferson County, Ala., 484 B.R. 427 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012) (Jefferson County II).

6. 28 U.S.C. §959(a).

7. In re Jefferson County, Ala., 484 B.R. at 462.

8. In re City of Stockton, Cal., 478 B.R. 8 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012) (Stockton I).

9. Id. at 13.

10. Id.

11. Id.

12. In re City of Stockton, Cal., No. 12-32118, 2013 WL 611060 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) (Stockton II).

13. Id. at *4.

14. Id.

15. Id.

Previously published in the New York Journal

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions