Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney Blog

Jefferson County is suffering, a roughly four billion dollar debt they cannot pay is forcing them to take the road many other cities are already debating: Chapter 9 Bankruptcy.

Since they are just north of FOUR BILLION dollars in debt, they have set both a record and have assisted in establishing a precedence that politicians and lawmakers have been worried about. The record for most substantial Chapter 9 to date was previously held by Orange County, California and their debt was just shy of two billion dollars making Jefferson County the largest Chapter 9 bk in the nation to date.

The precedent, however, is that cities following in this direction will have and example to drawn upon should similar investment have blown their debt out of control. Jefferson County's debt woes are primarily tied to a sewer system investment, similar to other costly attempts to better a city that led down this same path.

That said, expect to hear about two or three more cities making the same announcement within the next few months simply because it's still an option; that is until the Lobbyists persuade a new set of amendments out of Washington.

I hope that I'm wrong, but we'll find out regardless.

The poor folks in Harrisburg, PA have had it pretty rough.

Massive flood damage that led to an exodus of over 10,000 people, huge unemployment and a big investment that never panned out.

They are taking the matter into their own hands in dealing with over 300 Million Dollars in debt.

There appears to be some dissent in the ranks, including the Mayor who insists that the city council went over her head and that the Bankruptcy is going nowhere.

More as it develops!

Bishop Olmstead is a brave man, and has strong beliefs.

In the video above, he responded to prior criticism.

But the criticism that he received previously may be dwarfed by the coming storm.

Because Bishop Olmstead has recently declared that wine will not be available at most Masses in Phoenix.

Many Catholics will be aghast and angry at the decision: after all, the relevant scripture says eat AND drink, and communion is the purpose of Mass.

Even priests are, well, surprised:

"The majority of priests were stunned and aghast at the announcement, and I hear some are planning to meet to see how best to respond. While the bishop has the authority to make this policy change, there is no scriptural, theological or sacramental rationale that makes any sense."

How angry will parishioners be at what many will see as a clear error?

Will it be enough to cause Catholics to seek other Churches, and drive the Diocese into bankruptcy?

Well, he who lives the longest sees the most; but I can't see a way that Bishop Olmstead will avoid reaping the whirlwind for this decision.

I know that a lot of bankruptcy lawyers read my blogs, and some of them read my blogs so they can find bankruptcy topics and bankruptcy analysis for their own blogs.

How do I know? Well, mostly because they told me!

But there's a very, very smart bankruptcy lawyer named Jay Fleischman who is a nationally known marketing and practice management expert, and he's bringing a road show to Phoenix, along with Cathy Moran, another well-known name in the consumer bankruptcy field.

You'll notice that part of the seminar is about improving service to consumer debtor bankruptcy clients, and I'm all over that!

So I've already signed up.

And if you practice consumer bankruptcy law in Arizona, and you want to hear from the best how to make your practice run more smoothly, and how to harvest more client happiness (I want all my clients to be happy all the time, although that's an impossible goal; but if I pick up one idea I can apply to my practice as a bankruptcy lawyer in Arizona, that's worth it to me!), you'll sign up also.

Here's the information about the seminar, and I'm as serious as I can be: be there or be square, if you're a consumer bankruptcy attorney in Arizona!

Truth in Advertising spoiler: Jay is a friend of mine. Mind you, he's so smart I'd tell bankruptcy lawyers about this anyway. But he's a great guy, and generous with his knowledge.

Germany is a very serious country.

The people there work hard, and they have good engineers.

After the Weimar Republic, which overprinted money so much that you needed a wheelbarrow to do your grocery shopping (to take your paper money to the store, not to take your food home), Germany generated a war machine that required the combined efforts of the Allies to defeat.

But it was much easier to defeat German resolve to bail-out Greece.

Germany produces industrial products. A lot of 'em. So when it sells them, Germany makes a lotta Euros. A lotta, I tell you.

Greece makes sheep and wine and some cheese and tomatoes. They're all good, but they don't sell for as many Euros as a Mercedes.

Germany has begun the retreat from Greece, having bailed out the insolvent country one too many times to make German taxpayers happy.

In the retreat, Germany is opening up a discussion that has moved from theoretical to extremely practical: how does a country go bankrupt?

When a country goes bankrupt, how to the creditors file Proofs of Claim?

Where is the First Meeting of Creditors for Greece going to be held?

Inquiring minds want to know!

An anti-bankruptcy statute is headed toward California Governor Jerry Brown's desk.

It's designed to prevent insolvent municipalities in California (is that redundant?) from using Chapter 9 Bankruptcy to restructure their debts.

The cute part of Assembly Bill 506, which was proposed by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski with support from the California Labor Federation, is a required statement that the municipality is unable to meet its obligations within 60 days.

That means, as I see it, that long range bankruptcy-planning for California Cities is about to be outlawed; the municipality will now be required to spend itself into penury before using the appropriate tool to fix the problem: a bankruptcy!

I am attaching what I believe to be the most-amended version of the statute. I don't guarantee that this is the version that will become law, because I'm just a simple back-country bankruptcy lawyer, and not an expert in using the California statute-finder thingamajig.

But here's what may well become law in California almost immediately, the No-escape for California Municipalities Statute:

BILL NUMBER: AB 506 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 2, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 31, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 15, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 12, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 29, 2011
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2011
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 31, 2011

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Wieckowski

FEBRUARY 15, 2011

An act to amend Section 53760 of, and to add Sections 53760.1,
53760.3, and 53760.5 53760.5, and 53760.7
to, the Government Code, relating to local government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 506, as amended, Wieckowski. Local government: bankruptcy:
neutral evaluation.
Under existing law, any taxing agency or instrumentality of the
state may file a petition and prosecute to completion bankruptcy
proceedings permitted under the laws of the United States.
This bill would prohibit a local public entity from filing under
federal bankruptcy law unless the local public entity has
participated in a specified neutral evaluation process with
interested parties, as defined, or the local public entity has
declared a fiscal emergency and has adopted a resolution by a
majority vote of the governing board at a noticed public hearing that
includes findings that the financial state of the local public
entity jeopardizes the health, safety, or well-being of the residents
of the local public entity's jurisdiction or service area absent
bankruptcy protections.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Filing for Chapter 9 can reduce service levels to the
taxpayers and residents of a municipality. In some circumstances, it
can have major short- and long-term fiscal consequences for the
municipality, the surrounding municipalities, and the state. Filing
for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 9 should be considered a last
resort, to be instituted only after other reasonable efforts have
been made to avoid a bankruptcy filing or otherwise appropriately
plan for it. It is in the interest of the state, local governments,
and the public that local governmental entities have sufficiently
sound financial capacity to provide required services to the public
and meet their contractual and other obligations during any
restructuring or financial reorganization process. Furthermore, it is
in the best interest of the public, the state, and local
governmental entities that employees, trade creditors, bondholders,
and other interest holders be included in an appropriate
restructuring process and have an adequate understanding of the
financial capacity of local governmental entities and their
obligations, as a clear understanding of both is necessary for any
restructuring or reorganization process.
(b) To the extent financial relief granted through Chapter 9 can
affect debt service payments, the bondholders have a direct interest
in the Chapter 9 process, particularly prior to filing. Therefore, it
is important for those parties to be able to participate in a
prefiling confidential neutral evaluation process that could assist
parties in reaching a settlement and avoiding a bankruptcy filing or
otherwise lead to a prenegotiated consensual plan of readjustment as
clearly contemplated by Section 109(c) of Title 11 of the United
States Code.
(c) To the extent financial relief granted through Chapter 9 could
affect public employee compensation, employees have a direct
interest in the Chapter 9 process, particularly prior to filing.
Therefore, it is important for those parties to be able to
participate in a prefiling confidential neutral evaluation process
that could assist parties in reaching a settlement or otherwise lead
to a prenegotiated, consensual plan of adjustment and avoid a Chapter
9 filing.
(d) Given the connection between state allocations and local
budgets, the state has a role in assisting municipalities to address
potential insolvency with the goal of averting municipality
bankruptcy filings where possible and providing a process designed to
make the debt restructuring process in or outside of a Chapter 9
bankruptcy as cost effective and efficient as possible for all
participants.
(e) California's taxpayers who rely on public safety, senior,
recreational, municipal health, library, and other public services,
as well as those who own and operate businesses in our communities,
deserve every reasonable and appropriate effort that state and local
government can make to avoid adverse consequences of Chapter 9
bankruptcy filings, particularly where a neutral evaluation may lead
to the avoidance of Chapter 9 filing by an out-of-court resolution of
outstanding obligations and disputes.
(f) Resolving municipal and state business and financial issues in
a timely, fair, and cost-effective manner is an integral part of a
successful government and is in the public interest. It has long been
recognized that alternative dispute resolution proceedings, like a
neutral evaluation, offer an economical, discreet, and expeditious
way to resolve potentially devastating situations.
(g) Through the neutral evaluation process, the neutral evaluator,
a specially trained, neutral third party, can assist the
municipality and its creditors and stakeholders to fully explore
alternatives, while allowing the interested parties to exchange
information in a confidential environment with the assistance and
supervision of a neutral evaluator to determine whether the
municipality's contractual and financial obligations can be
renegotiated on a consensual basis.
SEC. 2. Section 53760 of the Government Code is amended to read:
53760. A local public entity in this state may file a petition
and exercise powers pursuant to applicable federal bankruptcy law if
either of the following apply:
(a) The local public entity has participated in a neutral
evaluation process pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 53760.3.
(b) The local public entity declares a fiscal emergency and adopts
a resolution by a majority vote of the governing board pursuant to
Section 53760.5.
SEC. 3. Section 53760.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
53760.1. As used in this article the following terms have the
following meanings:
(a) "Chapter 9" means Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 901) of
Title 11 of the United States Code.
(b) "Creditor" means either of the following:
(1) An entity that has a noncontingent claim against a
municipality that arose at the time of or before the commencement of
the neutral evaluation process and whose claim represents at least
five million dollars ($5,000,000) or comprises more than 5 percent of
the local public entity's debt or obligations, whichever is less.
(2) An entity that may would have a
noncontingent claim against the municipality
arising out of upon the rejection of an
executory contract or unexpired lease in a Chapter 9 case and whose
claim represents would represent at
least five million dollars ($5,000,000) or comprises more than 5
percent of the local public entity's debt or obligations, whichever
is less.
(c) "Debtor" means a local public entity that may file for
bankruptcy under Chapter 9.
(d) "Good faith" means participation by a party in the neutral
evaluation process with the intent to negotiate toward a resolution
of the issues that are the subject of the neutral evaluation process,
including the timely provision of complete and accurate information
to provide the relevant parties through the neutral evaluation
process with sufficient information, in a confidential manner, to
negotiate the readjustment of the municipality's debt.
(e) "Interested party" means a trustee, a committee of creditors,
an affected creditor, an indenture trustee, a pension fund, a
bondholder, a union that, under its collective bargaining agreements,
has standing to initiate contract or debt restructuring negotiations
with the municipality, or a representative selected by an
association of retired employees of the public entity who receive
income from the public entity convening the neutral evaluation. A
local public entity may invite holders of contingent claims to
participate as interested parties in the neutral evaluation if the
local public entity determines that the contingency is likely to
occur and the claim may represent five million dollars ($5,000,000)
or comprise more than 5 percent of the local public entity's debt or
obligations, whichever is less.
(f) "Local public entity" means any county, city, district, public
authority, public agency, or other entity, without limitation, that
is a municipality as defined in Section 101(40) of Title 11 of the
United States Code (bankruptcy), or that qualifies as a debtor under
any other federal bankruptcy law applicable to local public entities.
For purposes of this article, "local public entity" does not include
a school district.
(g) "Local public entity representative" means the person or
persons designated by the local public agency with authority to make
recommendations and to attend the neutral evaluation on behalf of the
governing body of the municipality.
(h) "Neutral evaluation" is a form of alternative dispute
resolution that may be known as mandatory mediation. A "neutral
evaluator" may also be known as a mediator.
SEC. 4. Section 53760.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
53760.3. (a) A local public entity may initiate the neutral
evaluation process if the local public entity is or likely will
become unable to meet its financial obligations as and when those
obligations are due or become due and owing. The local public entity
shall initiate the neutral evaluation by providing notice by
certified mail of a request for neutral evaluation to all interested
parties as defined in Section 53760.1.
(b) Interested parties shall respond within 10 business days of
receipt of notice of the local public entity's request for neutral
evaluation.
(c) Interested (1)
The local public entity and the interested parties agreeing to
participate in the neutral evaluation shall , through a mutually
agreed upon process, select the neutral evaluator to oversee
the neutral evaluation process and shall
facilitate all discussions in an effort to resolve their disputes.

(2) If the local public entity and interested parties fail to
agree on a neutral evaluator within seven days after the interested
parties have responded to the notification sent by the public entity,
the public entity shall select five qualified neutral evaluators and
provide their names, references, and backgrounds to the
participating interested parties. Within three business days, a
majority of participating interested parties may strike up to four
names from the list. If a majority of participating interested
parties strikes four names, the remaining candidate shall be the
neutral evaluator. If the majority of participating parties strikes
fewer than four names, the local public entity may choose which of
the remaining candidates shall be the neutral evaluator.
(d) A neutral evaluator shall have experience and training in
conflict resolution and alternative dispute resolution and shall meet
at least one of the following qualifications:
(1) At least 10 years of high-level business or legal practice
involving bankruptcy or service as a United States Bankruptcy Judge.
(2) Professional experience or training in municipal finance and
one or more of the following issue areas:
(A) Municipal organization.
(B) Municipal debt restructuring.
(C) Municipal finance dispute resolution.
(D) Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
(E) Public finance.
(F) Taxation.
(G) California constitutional law.
(H) California labor law.
(I) Federal labor law.
(e) The neutral evaluator shall be impartial, objective,
independent, and free from prejudice. The neutral evaluator shall not
act with partiality or prejudice based on any participant's personal
characteristics, background, values or beliefs, or performance
during the neutral evaluation process.
(f) The neutral evaluator shall avoid a conflict of interest or
the appearance of a conflict of interest during the neutral
evaluation process. The neutral evaluator shall make a reasonable
inquiry to determine whether there are any facts that a reasonable
individual would consider likely to create a potential or actual
conflict of interest. Notwithstanding subdivision (n), if the neutral
evaluator is informed of the existence of any facts that a
reasonable individual would consider likely to create a potential or
actual conflict of interest, the neutral evaluator shall disclose
these facts in writing to the local public entity and all interested
parties involved in the neutral evaluation. If any party to the
neutral evaluation objects to the neutral evaluator, that party shall
notify all other parties to the neutral evaluation, including the
neutral evaluator, within 15 days of receipt of the notice from the
neutral evaluator, the neutral evaluator shall withdraw and a new
neutral evaluator shall be selected pursuant to subdivisions (a) and
(b) of Section 53761.3.
(g) Prior to the neutral evaluation process, the neutral evaluator
shall not establish another relationship with any of the parties in
a manner that would raise questions about the integrity of the
neutral evaluation, except that the neutral evaluator may conduct
further neutral evaluations regarding other potential local public
entities that may involve some of the same or similar constituents to
a prior mediation.
(h) The neutral evaluator shall conduct the neutral evaluation
process in a manner that promotes voluntary, uncoerced decisionmaking
in which each party makes free and informed choices regarding the
process and outcome.
(i) The neutral evaluator shall not impose a settlement on the
parties. The neutral evaluator shall use his or her best efforts to
assist the parties to reach a satisfactory resolution of their
disputes. Subject to the discretion of the neutral evaluator, the
neutral evaluator may make oral or written recommendations for
settlement or plan of readjustment to a party privately or to all
parties jointly.
(j) The neutral evaluator shall inform the local public entity and
all parties of the provisions of Chapter 9 relative to other
chapters of the bankruptcy codes. This instruction shall highlight
the limited authority of United States bankruptcy judges in Chapter 9
such as the lack of flexibility available to judges to reduce or
cram down debt repayments and similar efforts not available to
reorganize the operations of the city that may be available to a
corporate entity.
(k) The neutral evaluator may request from the parties
documentation and other information that the neutral evaluator
believes may be helpful in assisting the parties to address the
obligations between them. This documentation may include the status
of funds of the local public entity that clearly distinguishes
between general funds and special funds, and the proposed plan of
readjustment prepared by the local public entity.
(l) The neutral evaluator shall provide counsel and guidance to
all parties, shall not be a legal representative of any party, and
shall not have a fiduciary duty to any party.
(m) In the event of a settlement with all interested parties, the
neutral evaluator may assist the parties in negotiating a
prepetitioned, preagreed plan of readjustment in connection with a
potential Chapter 9 filing.
(n) If at any time during the neutral evaluation process the local
public entity and a majority of the representatives of the
interested parties participating in the neutral evaluation wish to
remove the neutral evaluator, the local public entity or any
interested party may make a request to the other interested parties
to remove the neutral evaluator. If the local public entity and the
majority of the interested parties agree that the neutral evaluator
should be removed, the parties shall select a new neutral evaluator.
(o) The local public entity and all interested parties
participating in the neutral evaluation process shall negotiate in
good faith.
(p) The local public entity and interested parties shall provide a
representative of each party to attend all neutral evaluation
sessions. Each representative shall have the authority to settle and
resolve disputes or shall be in a position to present any proposed
settlement or plan of readjustment to the
parties participating in the neutral evaluation.
(q) The parties shall maintain the confidentiality of the neutral
evaluation process and shall not disclose statements made,
information disclosed, or documents prepared or produced, during the
neutral evaluation process, at the conclusion of the neutral
evaluation process or during any bankruptcy proceeding unless either
of the following occur:
(1) All persons that conduct or otherwise participate in the
neutral evaluation expressly agree in writing, or orally in
accordance with Section 1118 of the Evidence Code, to disclosure of
the communication, document, or writing.
(2) The information is deemed necessary by a judge presiding over
a bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to Chapter 9 of Title 11 of the
United States Code to determine eligibility of a municipality to
proceed with a bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to Section 109(c) of
Title 11 of the United States Code.
(r) The neutral evaluation established by this process shall not
last for more than 60 days following the date the evaluator is
selected, unless the local public entity or a majority of
participating interested parties want to continue and
elect to extend the process for up to 30 additional
days. The neutral evaluation process shall not last for more than 90
days following the date the evaluator is selected unless the local
public entity and a majority of the interested parties agree to
an extension.
(s)The
(s) The local public entity shall
pay 50 percent of the costs of neutral evaluation, including but not
limited to the fees of the evaluator, and the creditors shall pay
the balance, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
(t) The neutral evaluation process shall end if any of the
following occur:
(1) The parties execute an settlement agreement.
(2) The parties reach an agreement or proposed plan of
readjustment that requires the approval of a bankruptcy judge.
(3) The neutral evaluation process has exceeded 60 days following
the date the neutral evaluator was selected, the parties have not
reached an agreement, and the parties do not agree on
extension of neither the local public entity or a
majority of the interested parties elect to extend the neutral
evaluation process past the initial 60 day time period.
(4) The neutral evaluator confirms that a neutral evaluation was
initiated by the local public entity but that no interested parties
participated.
(4) The local public entity initiated the neutral evaluation
process pursuant to subdivision (a) and received no responses from
interested parties within the time specified in subdivision (b).

(5) The fiscal condition of the local public entity deteriorates
to the point that a fiscal emergency is declared pursuant to Section
53076.5 and necessitates the need to file a petition and exercise
powers pursuant to applicable federal bankruptcy law.
(u) If the 60 day time period for neutral evaluation has expired,
including any extension agreed to by the local public entity
of the neutral evaluation past the initial 60 day
time period pursuant to subdivision (r) , and the neutral
evaluation is complete with differences resolved, the neutral
evaluation shall be concluded. If the neutral evaluation process does
not resolve all pending disputes with creditors the local public
entity may file a petition and exercise powers pursuant to applicable
federal bankruptcy law if, in the opinion of the governing board of
the local public entity, a bankruptcy filing is necessary.
SEC. 4. SEC. 5. Section 53760.5 is
added to the Government Code, to read:
53760.5. Notwithstanding Section 53760.3, a local public entity
may file a petition and exercise powers pursuant to applicable
federal bankruptcy law, if the local public entity declares a fiscal
emergency and adopts a resolution by a majority vote of the governing
board at a noticed public hearing that includes findings that the
financial state of the local public entity jeopardizes the health,
safety, or well-being of the residents of the local public entity's
jurisdiction or service area absent the protections of Chapter 9. The
resolution shall make findings that the public entity is or will be
unable to pay its obligations within the next 60 days. Prior to a
declaration of fiscal emergency and adoption of a resolution, the
local public entity shall place an item on the agenda of a noticed
public hearing on the fiscal condition of the entity to take public
comment. The board of supervisors of a county that int
ends to take action pursuant to this section and places a notice
on an agenda regarding a proposed resolution to declare a fiscal
emergency may require local agencies with funds invested in the
county treasury to provide a five-day notice of withdrawal before the
county is required to comply with a request for withdrawal of funds
by that local agency.
SEC. 6. Section 53760.7 is added to the
Government Code , to read:
53760.7. This article shall not impose any liability or
responsibility, in law or equity, upon the state, any department,
agency, or other entity of the state, or any officer or employee of
the state, for any action taken by any local public entity pursuant
to this article, for any violation of the provisions of this article
by any local public entity, or for any failure to comply with the
provisions of this article by any local public entity. No cause of
action against the state, or any department, agency, entity of the
state, or any officer or employee of the state acting in their
official capacity may be maintained for any activity authorized by
this article, or for the act of a local public entity filing under
Chapter 9 of Title 11 of the United States Code, including any
proceeding following a local public entity's filing.
SEC. 5. SEC. 7. The Legislature
finds and declares that Section 4 of this act which adds Section
53760.3 to the Government Code, impose a limitation on the public's
right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of
public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of
Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that
constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following
findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and
the need for protecting that interest:
To facilitate the process to avoid municipal bankruptcy, it is
necessary to provide for secure documents.

I have another bankruptcy blog (actually, I have several. Fickle, I guess).

But I like my Bankruptcy Crossroads blog particularly because I built it myself, with my own little hands. So I have some foolish pride about it.

Now, a bankruptcy blog is just a platform to write articles about bankruptcy and insolvency, so I shouldn't be all that proud. But still.

And here are the top ten most-liked bankruptcy posts from that bankruptcy blog this month.

I hope you like them!

And I can count. Really! I just threw in an extra post, as a bonus!

There are a bundle of insolvent cities in the United States.

Some file bankruptcy, some don't.

We'll get to compare how the residents of those cities fare.

My guess is that the folks who live in Harrisburg will be downright cranky that they didn't file bankruptcy when they had a chance, instead of dithering, and dithering, and dithering, with some dither sauce.

At this point, Harrisburg is facing bond defaults, missed payrolls, and a takeover by the State.

None of those would make me a happy camper if I lived in Harrisburg, I think.

On the other hand, things are pretty rosy, by comparison, in Central Falls. Payrolls are being met, and the bond payments are being met, as well.

Elections will be won or lost in the future by politicians who promise to file, or not file, bankruptcy for cities.

Imagine the campaign speech:

"My friends, if I am elected, I will immediately put this city in a bankruptcy! I promise!"

The Dodgers have been a team of legend in the United States since 1928.

The Dodgers won the World Series, when led by Jackie Robinson, the first black major-league baseball player.

The Dodgers rivaled the Yankees during a golden age of baseball in the United States.

And now it looks as though the Dodgers may have a new owner: the Government of China.

A 1.8 billion dollar cash offer has reportedly been made to Frank McCourt by a group backed by Chinese Government-backed investment banks.

Investors fail, and banks fail.

Will we see the day when the Dodgers are owned by the Chinese Government?

Makes you wonder about that whole Globalism Thing, you know?

Private enterprise uses the word "billion" with a "b" far more than the governmental "trillion" with a "t".

But for a start up, a billion dollars is a lot of money.

A bankruptcy joke may be in the transmogrification process.

The gag used to be "how to make a small fortune? Start with a large fortune, and open a restaurant!"

Then it became, "...and start a dot-com!"; then it was "and invest in consumer real estate!"

The newest iteration seems to be "and build solar panels!"

And the newest poster child for that gag is Solyndra, which has announced that it will file a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case.

Solyndra is the third solar company to file a bankruptcy in August of this year, following Spectrawatt Inc. and Evergreen Solar Inc.

Now, there was a half a billion dollar loan guarantee made by the Federal Government on behalf of Solara, and there will probably be political fallout from this bankruptcy.

There will also be more bankruptcy cases, simply because 1,100 employees are now laid off, and that will give rise to more bankruptcy cases.

The City of Freemont, California will also feel a pinch, because stuff rolls downhill. A company that was spending a billion dollars was paying Freemont Restaurants, and there will also be more foreclosures and defaulted rental agreements in Freemont, because when the spigot is turned off with no warning, everybody in the vicinity is left holding the bag.

It appears that the bankruptcy was filed one step ahead of regulators, because the half-billion dollar Solara loan was the subject of a subpoena from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

There is now something that's been called "The Solara Effect", which is the reluctance of investors to jump into solar energy start-ups.

Because investors aren't dumb!

Terry Collins wrote a nice article for the Associated Press about Vallejo and it's emergence from Chapter 9 Bankruptcy.

But reading the article did not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

There was discussion of a report that was ignored by the City Council, which report predicted the bankruptcy unless Vallejo changed its free-spending ways.

The part of the article that scared me was the wistful way people talked about the free spending past, and the rueful tone addressing the stay-inside-the-budget present.

See, with a governmental entity of any kind, there's just no excuse for needing to file a bankruptcy.

You KNOW in advance what your income is going to be. You KNOW in advance what the costs are going to be, and you KNOW your historic debt.

You OWN a bean-counter or twenty, and their job description certainly ought to include figuring out when you're in the zone of insolvency, and beating the drums and sounding the alarms.

But the seductive power of giving away other people's money is just too much for politicians, apparently.

Now, I'm a lawyer. A bankruptcy lawyer, to be specific.

And lawyers are trained to be able to argue either side of any argument.

So I can make excuses for Vallejo and talk about how nobody expects tax revenues to go down.

Except.

All you have to do when tax revenues go down is to cut spending immediately, and intelligently (for heaven's sake, don't cut cops and firemen and garbagemen and teachers first. That's just stupid).

Ordinary people have to live within their means.

Why not cities?

And while we're at it, why not countries?

p.s. so it'll be harder for Vallejo to borrow in the future? Well, does anybody think that's a bad thing? Really?

Let's suppose you're an embezzler.

Well, it stands to reason that you won't be able to scrape off your debts incurred by embezzlement, because consumer bankruptcy under Chapter 7 is designed and intended to provide an honest debtor relief from overwhelming debt.

And so it often goes. As it does in this article about Dawn Solomon, for instance, by Leslie H. Dixon.

Turns out that milking a healthcare system is pretty easy, at least for Dawn; she skedaddled with four million dollars from MaineCare, and was ultimately discovered, and then she was prosecuted, and then she filed bankruptcy.

Her ordinary, garden-variety debts have been discharged; it's a little misleading to suggest that she was "granted" a discharge, because that's a fairly automatic process in the U.S. Bankruptcy System.

And there was unintentional bankruptcy humor in the article, which points out that an Attorney General spokesperson repeatedly declined to answer how the money would be recovered.

Let's think about this for a minute. A currently unemployed health care provider is sitting in a prison cell after filing a bankruptcy. Her real estate holding company is also in Bankruptcy Court.

If you were asked to bid for the restitution judgment against Dawn Soloman, would you pay a lot of dough?

Yeah, me neither.

Unless Dawn Soloman comes out of prison and becomes the world champion Sugar Baby, my guess is that the four million dollars in debt is gone forever.

There are a lot of other debts that will, in most cases, survive the bankruptcy process. They include HOA Fees incurred post-petition, tax debts that aren't quite ripe enough, and student loans unless (in most jurisdictions) you pass the dreaded Brunner Test.

And you really don't want to be so bad off that you pass the Brunner Test.

I recently read an article about Spa One, and that article told me that the Spa One locations had "suddenly" closed.

I never hope that any business files a bankruptcy, and sometimes it's not a good idea to file a bankruptcy for a business.

Why?

Well, if you file a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for a business that has a lot of very angry customers, especially customers who paid for something they didn't get, or who were charged for services they didn't get, the bankruptcy case can get interesting.

"Interesting" is a bad, bad word in the context of a bankruptcy of any kind. "Boring" is my favorite word.

Mind you, I am listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as the "World's Most Boring Man", but that's a story for another day.

Today's story, however, has a moral.

If you continue to take money from spa members by automatic withdrawal after you close the doors of a business, whether the closure is temporary or permanent, you get a lot of very cranky customers.

If you file a bankruptcy on a day when your customers are still cranky because they'd paid for something they couldn't use, like a closed spa, your First Meeting of Creditors will have a strong resemblance to a scene from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", involving people crying, shaking with anger, and screaming "Burn the Witch!".

This applies to 341 Meetings of all sorts, including cases where contractors owe money on houses they didn't finish, wedding planners who didn't plan after they were paid, and caterers who didn't cate.

And while I'm going to hope that the business reopens immediately and makes all the profit in the world, the smart money always bets against that when a business stops responding to complaints from the Better Business Bureau.

SpectraWatt was a one-year wonder, and as a spin-off from Intel, opened like Gangbusters, and quickly hired more than a hundred workers.

Then everything went wrong with the local economy, the State Economy, the U.S. Economy, and the World Economy, and then the specter of competition raised its ugly head.

Seems like there are some countries where solar gets bigger subsidies and there are lower costs of production.

So after getting real big real fast, SpectraWatt hit the wall, and has been trying to find a buyer.

But this is a depression, or something that walks like a depression and quacks like a depression, so no buyer came forth; so a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy became the exit strategy of choice.

"Due to various operational issues, disputes with vendors and others, and most recently, deteriorating market conditions in the solar cell industry, the Debtor has idled its manufacturing facility, closed its operations in Oregon, retained only a skeleton staff, and has been marketing its assets for sale," said CEO and Chief Restructuring Officer Brad Walker.

And while the schedules list about $34 million in assets and more than $38 million in liabilities, my guess is that there was a lot of optimism associated with valuing the assets.

When you buy a horse, it costs a LOT. When you have to sell a horse fast, everybody looks in its mouth, and tells you it's long in the tooth. And it's about half-lame and half-blind. They'll take it off your hands, but only because they like you.

And that's the nature of selling during hard, hard times.

Oh, yeah. The saddest thing is that taxpayers coughed up huge economic inducements. Those appear to be yesterdays news.

You know?

I like all my Arizona Bankruptcy Blogs, but one that I'm very fond of right now is my Bankruptcy Crossroads blog.

It has more topical discussions about news of the world, and municipal insolvency, and how "Sugar Babies" are finding "Sugar Daddies" to help out with non-dischargeable student loans.

I guess it was inevitable that an economic depression would have bad effects, but I was never creative enough to think that anybody would suggest online gambling to fix governmental insolvency, or that pretty young graduates would list themselves on "Seeking Arrangement" to find rich, old guys.

Between the gambling and drug use and what some would describe as prostitution, it seems to me that things are a little darker than I would have imagined a few years ago.

And I've read that Greece was extremely progressive in the area of online gambling.

But it was also addicted to spending, so that didn't, in the end, help either Greece or its citizens.

What do I hope for the rest of the year?

Well, I hope that news in bankruptcy is that we have many fewer consumer bankruptcy cases in Phoenix, and Scottsdale, and Mesa, and Glendale, and Chandler, and all over Arizona.

But I don't think I'm going to get my wish.

Now, you'd think that I'd be delighted with online gambling, because it will lead addicts directly into bankruptcy, and you'd think that I'd be delighted that Sugar Babies will file bankruptcy to discharge their credit card debts so that more of the Sugar goes to student loans, and you'd think that I'd be happy that governments are borrowing and spending at a rate that the next municipal bankruptcy cases will make Central Falls look like a piker.

Faithful readers know that you'd be wrong.