A federal judge ruled
on Friday that Detroit was entitled to casino revenue worth about $15
million a month and could use the money to settle its debts in
bankruptcy, rejecting arguments from a bond insurer that the money was
beyond the city’s reach.
The insurer, Syncora
Guarantee, said it would appeal the decision quickly to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit so the matter could be
resolved before Detroit starts seeking court approval of its
bankruptcy-exit plan in mid-August. An appeals court ruling in Syncora’s
favor could reduce the pot of money that Detroit proposes to distribute
to its many creditors, and that, in turn, could disrupt Detroit’s
planned exit from bankruptcy.
The city’s emergency
manager, Kevyn Orr, has been trying to push the giant bankruptcy case
forward rapidly in the hope of restoring a semblance of normalcy in
Detroit and giving residents a reason to stay and rebuild.
Also on Friday,
Detroit’s bankruptcy judge, Steven Rhodes, asked the United States
attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to provide a brief on whether
Chapter 9 bankruptcy is unconstitutional if it impairs the claims of
property owners whose land has been seized under eminent domain, or the
demands for compensation of people injured in confrontations with the
police. In his request for the brief, Judge Rhodes said people in such
circumstances were objecting to Detroit’s plans for settling its debts
and emerging from bankruptcy, and he asked the attorney general to weigh
in by Aug. 13.
The dispute with
Syncora over casino taxes grew out of a transaction that has been a
serious sticking point for Detroit since before it declared bankruptcy: a
$1.4 billion borrowing of cash to shore up the city’s rickety pension
system in 2005. The debt issued in that deal was the first thing the
city defaulted on as it prepared to file for bankruptcy last summer, and
now Detroit’s plan of adjustment proposes to give the investors who
bought it one of its lowest recovery rates.
Some of the 2005
pension debt had floating interest rates, and Detroit added
interest-rate swaps to protect itself if interest rates rose. Syncora
insured some of the debt as well as some of the swaps and even bought
some of the debt. Its resulting exposure is about $400 million,
according to court filings.
The swaps had to be restructured in 2009, and Detroit agreed with its two counterparties, Bank of America and UBS,
to use its casino-tax revenue to backstop the payments it owed them.
The tax money went into a “lockbox” arrangement, in which Detroit could
not spend it until it made its swap payments.
But with bankruptcy
looming in June 2013, Detroit canceled a $40 million payment on the 2005
debt, setting off a tug-of-war over the money accumulating in the
lockbox. Syncora reported a default and called on the lockbox custodian
to “trap” the casino revenue. But Detroit, which planned to use the
money to help finance its operations in bankruptcy, sued Syncora in
state court and won a temporary order releasing the money. Syncora then
went to federal court, seeking to have Detroit’s order dissolved.
From there, the battle
escalated as the city and the insurer traveled to half a dozen state,
federal and appellate courts, in Michigan, New York and Ohio, both
arguing that the money was rightfully theirs.
Detroit said that once
it had declared bankruptcy, Syncora could no longer lay claim to the
money because the bankruptcy court automatically stayed such efforts by
creditors.
Syncora disagreed,
arguing that Detroit did not in fact have the money when it declared
bankruptcy. It was supposed to stay in the lockbox until Detroit had
corrected its default on the debt instruments. As an insurer of
Detroit’s obligations under the deal, Syncora said it was the
beneficiary of the lockbox arrangements.
In August, Judge
Rhodes ruled that the money was city property and protected by the
bankruptcy stay. Syncora appealed to the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan and both sides submitted their briefs, but
nothing happened for seven months, even as the proceedings in bankruptcy
court went forging ahead.
Finally, this month,
the federal appeals court said that the district court judge had
improperly held up Syncora’s appeal and ordered the judge to rule by
Monday.
Correction: July 12, 2014
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly a request from the judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy for a legal brief from the United States attorney general. He is asking whether Chapter 9 bankruptcy is unconstitutional if it impairs the claims of property owners whose land has been seized under eminent domain or the demands for compensation from people injured in confrontations with the police, not whether it is unconstitutional if it allows cuts to public workers’ pensions.
An earlier version of this article described incorrectly a request from the judge overseeing Detroit's bankruptcy for a legal brief from the United States attorney general. He is asking whether Chapter 9 bankruptcy is unconstitutional if it impairs the claims of property owners whose land has been seized under eminent domain or the demands for compensation from people injured in confrontations with the police, not whether it is unconstitutional if it allows cuts to public workers’ pensions.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου