Category: Municipal Bankruptcy

  • Juliet Moringiello – One of the Greats

    Posted by

    Melissa Jacoby

    Juliet Moringiello was an amazing person. Her alchemy of brain and spirit and energy and heart and common sense made a positive difference for so many people, across disparate places and professions. She could teach you how to navigate a commercial law and to downhill ski.

    Testaments from Widener University Commonwealth Law School and professional organizations illustrate how Juliet served academic and legal communities with distinction. Examples include the Uniform Law Commission (including an instrumental role in the development of the 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code), American Law Institute projects, and as a scholar-in-residence for the American Bankruptcy Institute. Juliet did these things while also serving in critical leadership roles at Widener and offering engaged and committed classroom teaching, including first-year property law and an array of upper level classes and seminars. 

    Chris Odinet's memorial captures beautifully Juliet's commitment to helping others and building communities. As reflected in the mentoring award she recently received from the Commercial and Consumer Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools, Juliet did so much behind the scenes to lift up others and to help them improve their research and analysis. 

    Juliet was ideally positioned for mentoring because her own scholarship was creative and wide-ranging and yet reflected care and attention to detail. She offered important insights on municipal bankruptcy and related state law procedures. Whereas scholars and jurists long have referred to the "Butner principle" in the abstract, Juliet closely studied the case for which the principle is named, which turned out not to match how it was remembered. She explored poorly drafted statutory language that since 2005 has affected the treatment of car loans in Chapter 13 repayment plans for individuals and proposed an analytical framework accordingly. These are just a few of the examples of her writings in which a reader can find careful and sustained attention to the relationship between state and federal law. 

    With respect to state secured transactions law, Juliet comfortably traversed the border between real property and personal property. The problems dwelling from the tangible-intangible divide of personal property particularly attracted her attention. She explored puzzles that arise, for example, when one tries to apply fundamental concepts such as possession to remotely controlled activities.

    And those projects dovetailed with Juliet's longstanding interest in understanding emerging technologies, and her ability to demystify how foundational commercial law concepts can be squared with innovation – from software licensing agreements and electronic contracting, to cyberspace and domain names and Second Life, to non-fungible tokens. As popular subjects for scholarship, writings on hot tech topics risk ephemerality. Juliet's work is built to last. She made these issues accessible while demonstrating how they could and should be situated in broader legal frameworks.

    Of course, these professional interests were part of a rich multi-faceted life of family and friends, of appreciating the sights and nature in Pennsylvania, in Quebec, and anywhere and everywhere she traveled. When there wasn't enough snow for skiis, you might find her on a hike. Or on a bike. Or a paddleboard. 

    Juliet Moringiello offers inspiration to do impactful work, to help others, and to spend time on the the things you love. Deepest condolences to her family. 

  • Unjust Debts on the Road

    Posted by

    Melissa Jacoby

    Unjust_debts_finalFirst, thanks to Bob Lawless for his post about my new book. It has been great to engage with people about Unjust Debts so far, and especially appreciated the book making a new Financial Times best books list (links to that and other coverage here). Wanted to note a few upcoming book events for Credit Slips readers:

    • June 27 (TONIGHT): Greenlight Bookstore, Brooklyn NY, in conversation with Zephyr Teachout. Information and RSVP here. 
    • July 1 (VIRTUAL): Commonwealth Club World Affairs, in conversation with Senator Elizabeth Warren. Information and registration here. 
    • July 8: Politics & Prose, Washington DC, in conversation with Vicki Shabo. Information here. 

  • Just posted: Other Judges’ Cases

    Posted by

    Melissa Jacoby

    This article has been in the works a long time. During the Detroit bankruptcy, I wrestled with some of its topics on Credit Slips.  

    The case studies involve bankruptcy. The mediators in those cases are life-tenured judges.

    The footnotes make it long; the text is short.  

    Other Judges' Cases remains in the edits stage and is scheduled to be published later this year.  

    Please read it. Thank you!

  • Puerto Rico and the Oversight Board

    Posted by

    Stephen Lubben

    The Supreme Court's opinion is out today, and the short answer is that the Board's appointment did not violate the Appointments Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2), and thus the First Circuit is reversed.

    But take a look at Justice Sotomayor's concurrence. She is all but inviting the Commonwealth to argue that Congress had no power to enact PROMESA in the first instance, given that it had arguably given up much of its power over Puerto Rico back in the 1950s. It is an argument I had hoped the Court would take up in connection with the Recovery Act.

    In short, more interesting legal questions to come (maybe).

  • State Bankruptcy

    Posted by

    Stephen Lubben

    So Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says States should be able to file for bankruptcy, to get out of their pension obligations. He'd rather that than give them a federal bailout, given current conditions.

    I have long argued that States don't need bankruptcy, because they have stronger sovereign immunity (under the Eleventh Amendment) than most actual sovereigns. But put that to one side.

    Why does McConnell think that such a bankruptcy will be limited to single class of creditors? Indeed, I doubt such a bankruptcy system would be consistent with the Bankruptcy Clause.

    And quite frankly, I suspect bondholders understand this (even if anti-union activists don't). That is why you never see the municipal bond managers advocating for "State bankruptcy." The bankruptcy of any of the 50 states would look more like Puerto Rico's, where haircuts to bondholders are most definitely on the table. The only question is "how much?"

  • Biden’s Involvement in the Detroit Bankruptcy?

    Posted by

    Adam Levitin

    In the Democratic Primary debate last night, former Vice-President Joe Biden claimed to have been deeply involved in the Detroit bankruptcy: 

    Q (Tapper): What do you say to progressives who worry that your proposals are not ambitious enough to energize the progressive wing of your party, which you will need to beat Donald Trump?

    A (Biden): … Number three, number three, I also was asked, as the mayor of Detroit can tell you, by the president of the United States to help Detroit get out of bankruptcy and get back on its feet. I spent better part of two years out here working to make sure that it did exactly that.

    What on earth is Joe Biden talking about? I followed the Detroit bankruptcy case fairly closely and never once heard of any involvement from Biden. A google search for "Biden Detroit bankruptcy" shows an involvement consisting of all of one lunch with the Mayor of Detroit.  Maybe Biden was deeply involved behind the scenes, but I doubt it, as the federal government simply didn’t do anything to help out Detroit. Perhaps he was referring to the GM/Chrysler bankruptcies? If so, there was important federal involvement as a lender, but Joe Biden was not an important player in those cases either as far as I know.

    If others know more, it would be interesting to hear, but as far as I can tell, Biden is claiming credit for things that he had no involvement in.  

  • PROMESA heads to the U.S. Supreme Court?

    Posted by

    Melissa Jacoby

    In February 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for First Circuit held that the selection process of the Oversight Board in PROMESA, the rather bipartisan Puerto Rico debt restructuring law (and more), is unconstitutional. The reason: its members were not selected with advice and consent of the Senate, in violation of the Appointments Clause. In other words, it held that the Appointments Clause applies even when Congress created the positions through plenary power over territories, and that Oversight Board members constitute "Officers of the United States." The First Circuit also used the de facto officer doctrine to avoid a complete do-over; it did not dismiss the Title III petition of Puerto Rico (parallel to the filing of a bankruptcy petition), it did not invalidate the already-taken acts of the Board, and the Board could continue to act, at least until the court's stay runs out (originally 90 days, then extended to July 15). 

    Given that last remedial twist, even the prevailing parties found reasons to dislike the First Circuit's ruling. Like the Jevic case, the PROMESA dispute invites unlikely bedfellows. Joining Aurelius Capital Management in challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the remedy is the labor union UTIER. They likely have little in common other than wanting a new Oversight Board, or, even better, no Oversight Board. A full bouquet of certiorari petitions followed, including one by the United States/Solicitor General predicting dire consequences if the Appointment Clause ruling stands. On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court consolidated and granted certiorari on the various petitions. Argument is to take place in October.

    (more…)

  • Puerto Rico, the Board, and the Appointments Clause

    Posted by

    Stephen Lubben

    As many will have seen in the press, the First Circuit has said that PROMESA's Oversight Board was appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause. In short, while PROMESA allowed President Obama to appoint members of the Board without Senate confirmation, the Court says such confirmation was required.

    The Board has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the First Circuit's decision is on hold for 90 days. But what happens in 90 days?

    In short, chaos. The title III "bankruptcy" cases for Puerto Rico and its affiliates are all run by the Board. Without the Board, the cases would seem to grind to a halt. If they remain that way for an extended period of time – and who really thinks this Congress and this President are going to get their act together in 90 days? – the District Court may have little choice but to dismiss the cases.

    The appeal was brought by old-friend Aurelius. They presumably assume that they will get better treatment outside of title III.

    But is that right? Maybe Congress will decide to enact a streamlined insolvency process for Puerto Rico, one that "cuts to the chase." After all, even the current President (hardly a friend to the Commonwealth) once suggested it might be necessary to simply cancel Puerto Rico's debt. 

    Congress has a lot of power under the Bankruptcy Clause – and perhaps even more under the Territories Clause. Be careful what you wish for, and all that.

  • The Commonwealth and the GOs, part 2

    Posted by

    Stephen Lubben

    In my last post, I noted that the joint committee-Board objection to the 2012 and 2014 Puerto Rico GOs was at least plausible, and thus is likely headed for more extensive litigation. As Mark and Mitu have also noted, it also matters a good deal that the objectors also have arguments for why the claim on the bonds is not replaced by a similar claim for unjust enrichment or the like (although we might wonder if such a claim would enjoy the special constitutional priority the GOs do, if we think that priority really matters in a sovereign/muni bankruptcy process).

    This past weekend, the FT's John Dizard quoted a hedge fund type as saying that the objectors' argument about the Building Authority's leases (see my prior post) was "nonsense." Not a lot of deep analysis there, but it does confirm there is a fight ahead. And we can assume that the Commonwealth's words will be used against it – after all, at the time of issuance, Puerto Rico and its agents undoubtedly said lots about how assuredly valid these bonds were.

    The obvious conclusion is that the objectors have made this move as an opening shot in a broader play to negotiate a haircut with the GOs. After all, they look like they are almost done dealing with the COFINA debt, the other big chunk outstanding.

    Sure. But what I find really interesting is the more subtle point that with this move, the objectors have also opened up some space between the GOs as a class. That is, presumably the non-challenged GOs will not have to take as severe of a haircut if $6 billion has already been knocked off the GO total. If I'm a holder of 2011 GOs (which I'm not, btw), I might then start to think that I don't really mind if the objectors win. And thus intra-GO warfare might break out.

    Some asset managers are also going to face challenges if they have 2011 GOs in one fund, and 2014 GOs in another. And then there is Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., which insured both the 2011 and 2012 (but not the 2014) … 

  • The Commonwealth and the GOs, part 1

    Posted by

    Stephen Lubben

    While there has been some press coverage of the recent attempts to annul some $6 billion of Puerto Rican general obligation bonds – essentially all such debt issued starting in 2012 onward – the move has not received much deep coverage. Yesterday I took some time to read the claims objection filed in the Commonwealth's article III case, and in this post I'm going to consider the arguments against the bonds' validity. In a further post, I will consider what is going on here from a strategic perspective.

    The objection was jointly filed by the creditors' committee and the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, but the Board only joined in one of the two main arguments that are put forth. (There is a third argument in the objection – about OID and unmatured interest under section 502 fo the Code – that I'm not going to talk about because its rather pedestrian by comparison).

    In sum, the committee argues that GO bonds issued in 2012 and 2014 violated two provisions of Puerto Rico's constitution, and thus the bonds should be deemed void. The Board joins in the objection with regard to the first constitutional provision, but not the second. If successful, this objection would eliminate $6 billion of the $13 billion in GO bonds currently outstanding.

    More details after the break.

    (more…)