In re City of Vallejo
Decision Date | 13 March 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 08-26813-A-9.,Docket Control No. OHS-4.,08-26813-A-9. |
Citation | 403 B.R. 72 |
Parties | In re CITY OF VALLEJO, Debtor. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of California |
Katherine Thomas, Washington, DC, Marc A. Levinson, Norman C. Hile, Sacramento, CA, for Debtor.
James C. Paul, Sacramento, CA, for Creditor Committee.
On June 17, 2008, the City of Vallejo filed a Motion for Approval of Rejection of Collective Bargaining Agreements. The collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) affected by the motion are between the City and the Vallejo Police Officers Association ("VPOA"), the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1186 ("IAFF"), the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2376 ("IBEW"), and the Confidential, Administrative, Managerial and Professional Association of Vallejo ("CAMP").
VPOA, IAFF, and IBEW filed opposition to the motion, as did the California Public Employees' Retirement System ("CalPERS"), the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO ("California Labor Federation") and the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee of Retirees ("Retirees' Committee").
The court commenced an evidentiary hearing on February 3, 2009 and concluded it on February 10, 2009. Marc A. Levinson, Norman C. Hile and Michael Weed appeared for the City. Kelly A. Woodruff, Dean M. Gloster, Laura Roche, and Racheal Turner appeared for IAFF and IBEW. Steven H. Felderstein and Joan S. Huh appeared for CalPERS. R. Dale Ginter appeared for the Retirees' Committee. Donald C. Carroll appeared for California Labor Federation. Robert Kaplan and Nicolas DeLancie appeared for creditor Union Bank. Mike C. Buckley appeared for creditor Wells Fargo Bank.
On January 27, 2009, the Vallejo City Council approved a supplemental agreement between the City and VPOA. At the evidentiary hearing, the City voluntarily dismissed the motion with respect to VPOA.
On January 30, 2009, CAMP approved a proposed supplemental agreement with the City. On February 10, 2009, the City Council approved the supplemental agreement, and the City then voluntarily dismissed the motion as to CAMP.
Consequently, the motion before the court seeks to reject only the CBAs between the City and the IAFF and the IBEW.
This Memorandum addresses whether chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a municipality to reject collective bargaining agreements with its public employee unions.
The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact uniform bankruptcy laws. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4. By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, federal laws are the supreme law of the land, notwithstanding state laws to the contrary. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
The Constitution also reserves certain powers to the states. The Tenth Amendment provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
To harmonize these two competing interests — reservation of powers to the states and the supremacy of federal bankruptcy law — Congress enacted 11 U.S.C. § 903. Section 903 provides, in relevant part:
"This chapter does not limit or impair the power of a State to control, by legislation or otherwise, a municipality of or in such State in the exercise of the political or governmental powers of such municipality. . . ."
11 U.S.C. § 903.
Section 903 ensures the constitutionality of chapter 9, but does not provide an independent substantive limit on the application of chapter 9 provisions. As explained in 6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 903.02[2] ( ):
Id. at ¶ 901.09[9][a]. See also Ryan Preston Dahl, "Collective Bargaining Agreements and Chapter 9 Bankruptcy," 81 Am Bankr.L.J. 295, 329-338 (Summer 2007) ("constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty are not violated by a municipal debtor's independent exercise of bankruptcy-specific rights.") that .
Section 903, together with 11 U.S.C. § 109(c)(2), allows states to act as gatekeepers to their municipalities' access to relief under the Bankruptcy Code. When a state authorizes its municipalities to file a chapter 9 petition it declares that the benefits of chapter 9 are more important than state control over its municipalities.
Therefore, "[b]y authorizing the use of chapter 9 by its municipalities, California must accept chapter 9 in its totality; it cannot cherry pick what it likes while disregarding the rest." In re County of Orange, 191 B.R. 1005, 1021 (Bankr. C.D.Cal.1996) ("Orange County III"); see also Collier, at ¶ 903.02[4].
Consequently, if a municipality is authorized by the state to file a chapter 9 petition, it is entitled to fully utilize 11 U.S.C. § 365 to accept or reject its executory contracts. See 11 U.S.C. § 901 ( ). See also 81 Am. Bankr.L.J. at 333 () ; cf. In re County of Orange, 179 B.R. 185, 191 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1995) ("Orange County II") ( ).
The California statute authorizing its municipalities to file bankruptcy petitions provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, a local public entity in this state may file a petition and exercise powers pursuant to applicable federal bankruptcy law." Cal. Gov't Code § 53760. "This section is intended to provide the broadest possible state authorization for municipal bankruptcy proceedings, and thus provides the specific state law authorization for municipal bankruptcy filing required under federal law." Cal. Gov't Code § 53760 (Law Revision Comm'n Comments, 2002 Addition) (emphasis added).
With respect to the prefatory phrase, "Except as otherwise provided by statute," in section 53760, neither it nor any other California law imposes pre-filing limitations or post-filing restrictions requiring compliance with, or making applicable, public sector labor laws. The 2002 Comments to section 53760 identify various California statutes that do impose such limitations, and state labor law is not among them:
As recognized in the introductory clause of subdivision (a), this broad grant of authority is subject to specific limitations provided by statute. See, e.g., Ins. Code § 10089.21 ( ); Sts. & Hy.Code § 9011 ( ). See also Educ.Code § 41325 ( ); Health & Safety Code § 129173 ( ).
Cal. Gov't Code § 53760 (Law Revision Comm'n Comments, 2002 Addition).
Assuming for sake of argument that California law superimposes its labor laws onto section 365, such law would be unconstitutional. As noted above, only the federal government may enact uniform bankruptcy laws. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4. "[I]ncorporat[ing] state substantive law into chapter 9 to amend, modify or negate substantive provisions of chapter 9 would violate Congress' ability to enact uniform bankruptcy laws." Collier, at ¶ 903.01; see also Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 126 S.Ct. 990, 163 L.Ed.2d 945 (2006); 81 Am. Bankr.L.J. at 334 (); Randolph J. Haines, "The Uniformity Power: Why Bankruptcy is Different," 77 Am. Bankr. L.J. 129, 174 (2003) ().
The Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that "`interfere with or are contrary to federal law.'" U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2; Baker & Drake, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Nev., 35 F.3d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir.1994) ).
Under the Contracts Clause, modification of contracts is within the exclusive province of the federal government. U.S. Const. art. VI; see Cont'l Illinois Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 680-81, 55 S.Ct. 595, 79 L.Ed. 1110 (1935).
In the exercise of this exclusive power, Congress enacted section 365 to provide debtors the authority to reject executory contracts. 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). This authority preempts state law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, the Bankruptcy Clause, and the Contracts Clause. U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 4; U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2; U.S. Const., art. IV.
Therefore, the court must reject the assertion that Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma, 23 Cal.3d 296, 152 Cal.Rptr. 903, 591 P.2d 1 (1979), or any state labor law, provides the applicable standard controlling the rejection of the City's collective bargaining agreements.
Where a state law "unduly impede[s] the operation of federal bankruptcy policy, the state law [will] have to yield." Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 649, 91 S.Ct. 1704, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971); Sherwood Partners Inc. v. Lycos,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In Re New York City Off-track Betting Corporation
...371 B.R. 412, 419 n. 4 (9th Cir.BAP2007) (observing that “there is no property of the estate in chapter 9”); In re City of Vallejo, 403 B.R. 72, 78 n. 2 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2009) (“In a chapter 9 case there is no estate.”). Commentators agree with this approach. 6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 901.04[......
-
In re Old Carco LLC
...contracts. This authority preempts state law by virtue of the Supremacy Clause [and] the Bankruptcy Clause." In re City of Vallejo, 403 B.R. 72, 77 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2009). "Where a state law `unduly impede[s] the operation of federal bankruptcy policy, the state [will] have to yield.'" Id. (q......
-
Ass'n of Retired Emps. of the City of Stockton, Corp. v. City of Stockton (In re City of Stockton)
...Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 2376 v. City of Vallejo (In re City of Vallejo), 432 B.R. 262, 268–70 (E.D.Cal.2010), aff'g,403 B.R. 72, 76–77 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2009). For the same reason, the plaintiffs' other theories also fall. In sum, even if the plaintiffs' benefits are vested property inter......
-
In re City of Stockton
...Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 2376 v. City of Valle j o (In re City of Valle j o), 432 B.R. 262, 268–70 (E.D.Cal.2010), aff'g 403 B.R. 72, 76–77 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.2009) ; Stockton II, 478 B.R. at 16.BHistory of Chapter 9As explained in prior decisions in this case, municipal debt adjustment und......
-
New California Law Will Restrict Cities' Access To Bankruptcy Under Chapter 9
...its debts as due within the next 60 days. 4 In re City of Bridgeport, 128 B.R. 688, 691 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1991). 5 In re City of Vallejo, 403 B.R. 72, 76 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los An......
-
The Next Financial Hurricane? Rethinking Municipal Bankruptcy in Louisiana
...the United States , J. PUB. BUDGETING, ACCT. & FIN. MGMT., July 1, 2004, at 228. 13. Avery, supra note 2; see also In re City of Vallejo, 403 B.R. 72 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d , 432 B.R. 262 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Vallejo has a population of 120,000 and is located across the bay from San Fr......
-
An analysis of the treatment of employee pension and wage claims in insolvency and under guarantee schemes in OECD countries: comparative law lessons for Detroit and the United States.
...law of labor contract discharge under NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513 (1984), applies instead. See In re City of Vallejo, 403 B.R. 72, 77-78 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2009) ("Unexpired collective bargaining agreements are executory contracts subject to rejection under section 365. Con......