Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Chapter 9 Crucible

By Ron Oliner and John R. Weiss
April 02, 2017

Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code is a ghost, of sorts. Everyone knows about it and it's existed for a long time, but there isn't much substantive law there. Any bankruptcy practitioner, upon first contact with a municipal bankruptcy case, may be shocked by the lack of substantive law to be found in Chapter 9. The dearth of detail has long caused bankruptcy lawyers and courts to turn to the far more substantive provisions of Chapter 11 for practical guidance. Even more interesting, and many times frustrating, is that the interests of constituents who are not recognized to have any legal standing will nonetheless have important, and sometimes dramatic, influence over the direction of a municipal case.

Under other chapters of the Bankruptcy Code, the constituents can predictably be corralled and branded: debtor, secured creditors, unsecured creditors, equity security holders, perhaps a trustee and, of course, the Office of the United States Trustee. In a Chapter 9 case, this defined universe of identifiable interests is expanded to include the more amorphous opinions and positions of the public, the media and politicians of various shapes and sizes. Such opinions and positions are often at odds with the legal dictates of the Bankruptcy Code, but recent experience acts as a reminder that such constituents must be “classified” and “treated” during the course of a Chapter 9 case just as if they were creditors holding claims.

This point is often made before a Chapter 9 bankruptcy case has even begun. Section 109(c) of the Bankruptcy Code restricts eligibility under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code to a municipality that is: 1) specifically authorized to be a debtor under such chapter by state law or by a governmental officer or organization empowered by state law to authorize such entity to be a debtor; 2) is insolvent; 3), wishes to effect a plan to adjust its debts; and 4) has sought from its primary creditors an agreement regarding their claims or has negotiated in good faith, or is unable to negotiate because it is impracticable. The nebulous nature of these conditions to entry has provided both economic and non-economic stakeholders an opening to advance their agendas and interests through an eligibility contest.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.