Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsProtecting Detroit pensions may violate bankruptcy code: judge
Source: Reuters
Protecting Detroit pensions may violate bankruptcy code: judge
By Joseph Lichterman
DETROIT | Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:39pm EDT
(Reuters) - The federal judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy filing called the city's pension funds "unsecured creditors" and stated that any special protections for them would violate federal bankruptcy law.
The statement by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes, in an exchange with an attorney representing Detroit's two pension funds, came in the closing session of a three-day hearing examining legal issues in the bankruptcy case.
The judge will hold a trial, starting Wednesday, to determine if Detroit is eligible for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code while it tries to restructure $18.5 billion in debt and other liabilities including pension funds the city says are underfunded by $3.5 billion. The city filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history on July 18.
Robert Gordon, the pension funds' attorney, argued that the city should not be eligible for bankruptcy protection because Michigan's constitution protects pensions from impairment and the city did stipulate in its filing that pensions could not be cut.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
By Joseph Lichterman
DETROIT | Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:39pm EDT
(Reuters) - The federal judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy filing called the city's pension funds "unsecured creditors" and stated that any special protections for them would violate federal bankruptcy law.
The statement by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes, in an exchange with an attorney representing Detroit's two pension funds, came in the closing session of a three-day hearing examining legal issues in the bankruptcy case.
The judge will hold a trial, starting Wednesday, to determine if Detroit is eligible for protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code while it tries to restructure $18.5 billion in debt and other liabilities including pension funds the city says are underfunded by $3.5 billion. The city filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history on July 18.
Robert Gordon, the pension funds' attorney, argued that the city should not be eligible for bankruptcy protection because Michigan's constitution protects pensions from impairment and the city did stipulate in its filing that pensions could not be cut.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/us-usa-detroit-bankruptcy-idUSBRE99K19W20131021
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 588 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Protecting Detroit pensions may violate bankruptcy code: judge (Original Post)
Eugene
Oct 2013
OP
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)1. Nice try, dirtbags
But now is the time to review every other pension and change it so that pensions become secured creditors always.
Igel
(35,320 posts)2. How, exactly? n/t
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)3. If I knew that, I'd be a lawyer
But the point is, these are contracts. This is a threat. We need to see the language and, wherever possible change it to remove the threat. And, going forward, not allow this kind of out clause to be made part of the contract.