Josiah M. Daniel, III
Retired Partner in Residence Visiting Scholar
Vinson & Elkins LLP Department of History, UT Austin
U.S. Mail: 2904 Rosedale Ave., Dallas, TX 75205
B: blog-josiahmdaniel3.blogspot.com/
E: josiahmdaniel3@gmail.com
Re: Your H.R. 9223 (the “Nondebtor Release Prohibition Act of 2024”) would, unintentionally, impair Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, but the solution is simple.
Dear Congressman Nadler:
I respectfully submit my identification of an unintended flaw in your bill that would have an adverse effect upon municipal bankruptcy , along with my recommendation for an easy fix. By copy hereof, I also notify your co-sponsors, Congresspersons Cohen, Norton, Porter, Desaulnier, and Johnson, as well as Senator Warren.
Your bill creates a new § 113 in Chapter 1 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) that will be applicable to cases in all chapters that provide relief to debtors; that includes Chapter 9 (municipal bankruptcy) by virtue of Code § 103(f).
The debtor in Chapter 9 must, of course, be a “municipality,” defined as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State,” i.e., a city, town, public hospital district, irrigation district, or other political subdivision of a State that has the power to tax, spend, and incur debt. Chapter 9 affords such a public debtor an opportunity to conduct and effectuate a restructuring through negotiations with creditors through a plan of adjustment, maintaining vital public services while discharging unpayable amounts of debt. While Chapter 9 case filings are rare, the availability of Chapter 9’s relief is vitally important for the financial health and operational wellbeing of American cities, towns, and special purpose districts
What your H.R. 9223 does not take into account is that a key element of municipal bankruptcy is a broad, automatic (but temporary) stay of debt-collection activities that shields the debtor and also protects certain, worthy, nondebtor third parties. But unlike the “extended automatic stay” that the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy judge ordered to protect the Sacklers, the municipal bankruptcy stay that protects certain third parties is entirely statutory and automatic, not discretionary with a bankruptcy judge—and exists in the Code for a very good purpose for ninety years now.
The municipal bankruptcy stay is found in Code § 922(a)(1):
§ 922. Automatic stay of enforcement of claims against the debtor
(a) A petition filed under this chapter operates as a stay, in addition to the stay provided by section 362 of this title, applicable to all entities, of—
(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against an officer or inhabitant of the debtor that seeks to enforce a claim against the debtor . . . .
As set forth in the first line of § 922(a), the Chapter 9 stay is “in addition to the stay provided by section 362 of” the Code, providing an additional stay for certain, very special and deserving third parties—namely, “an officer or inhabitant of the [municipal] debtor”—against legal process or judicial action “that seeks to enforce a claim against the debtor” by way of process or action.
On fast glance, you might think this Code-based stay of Chapter 9 this stay resembles an extension of the automatic stay of Code § 362(a) or the issuance of a preliminary injunction by the bankruptcy judge in a mass tort Chapter 11 case in that it does protect some nondebtor third parties; but the Chapter 9 stay is fundamentally different—and therefore the Chapter 9 stay ought to be specifically excluded from the ambit of your H.R. 9223.
First, the third parties that are protected—automatically by virtue of the municipality’s commencement of a Chapter 9 case—are not at all analogous to nondebtor third parties such as the Sacklers who caused massive damage and numerous deaths. Contrary to the appalling situation of the Sacklers, the third parties protected by municipal bankruptcy’s automatic stay are, first, the “officers” of the municipality, including elected and appointed officials who are governing, leading, administering, and performing the public-service functions of their city, town, hospital district, other political subdivision, or instrumentality of a State, and, second, all the “inhabitants” of that political entity.
Quite obviously, those nondebtor third persons are not liable on creditors’ claims against the municipal debtor. But prior to Congress’s passage of municipal bankruptcy in 1934, such nondebtor officers and inhabitants of insolvent municipalities had historically been subjected to lawsuits by aggressive creditors, principally holders of defaulted municipal bonds—primarily but not exclusively in mandamus cases seeking to twist as many arms as possible to force a debtor municipality to increase tax rates and to collect defaulted taxes more aggressively in an effort—almost always nugatory—to cause more and faster payments on defaulted municipal bonds.
It was Congressman Hatton W. Sumners (1875-1962), serving as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee (1931 to 1947), who devised the predecessor provision of today’s Code § 922(a)(1) and drafted it into the municipal bankruptcy bill, H.R. 5885, he filed on June 2, 1933. His successor bill, H.R. 5950, carried that stay provision forward into his First Municipal Bankruptcy Act, also known as Chapter IX, that was enacted on May 24, the next year, 1934. That Act was legislatively (i) extended on April 10, 1936, (ii) reenacted as the Second Municipal Bankruptcy Act on August 16, 1937, and (iii) incorporated into the Chandler Act on June 22, 1938. The Chapter IX stay required entry of an order of the court, but when Congress in 1976 revised municipality bankruptcy, it made the municipal-bankruptcy stay automatic in that year’s revisions to Chapter IX, which of course was then adopted as the Arabically numbered Chapter 9 as part of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978.
(For brevity, I have not footnoted my historical presentation above. I am about to submit for publication my archivally researched article on the history of the genesis of municipal bankruptcy. Upon your request, I would be happy to submit my full manuscript, and to point out the relevant archival citations, for the points I summarized above.)
The specific way your H.R. 9223 will operate adversely upon today’s Chapter 9 stay is by forbidding the bankruptcy court to enter an order that would include injunctive relief in favor of nondebtor third parties:
[New] § 113 . . . (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, subsection (a)(3), (g), (h), or (i) of section 524,the court may not—. . . with respect to the liability of an entity other than the debtor or the estate [i.e., of a nondebtor third party] on, or the liability of property of an entity other than the debtor or the estate for, a claim or cause of action of an entity other than the debtor or the estate . . . (2) . . . enjoin—(A) the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding to assert, assess, collect, recover, offset, recoup, or otherwise enforce such claim or cause of action [i.e., against a nondebtor third party]; or (B) any act to assert, assess, collect, recover, offset, recoup, or otherwise enforce such claim or cause of action.
Here specifically is how your bill will thwart Chapter 9’s stay provision:
Under Code §§ 921(b), (c), and (d), after the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals designates the bankruptcy judge to handle the case, and after the bankruptcy judge finds the debtor filed the petition in good faith and that the petition meets “the requirements of this title to conduct the case,” then “the [bankruptcy] court shall order relief under this chapter [9].” So after the filing of the petition, the Chapter 9 case does not commence until after those preliminaries and until a bankruptcy judge “order[s] relief under this chapter.”
At that point your H.R. 9223 would kick in and forbid and prevent (“the court may not”) the bankruptcy court to order Chapter 9 relief because, as Code § 922(a) provides, that order would activate the municipal bankruptcy stay: the Chapter 9 “petition . . . operates as a stay” or injunction during the case’s pendency that, as discussed above, automatically protects those certain statutorily designated nondebtor third parties, i.e., the municipal debtor’s “officers” and “inhabitants,” against litigation and assertion of claims by and from persons who also have claims against the debtor.
Summarizing: under normal Chapter 9 process, the bankruptcy judge must enter an order approving the petition and ordering “relief under this chapter [9]” and that order activates the § 922(a)(1) statutory stay in favor of not only the debtor but also the nondebtor officers and inhabitants of a municipality. Your § 113 would prohibit a court order activating or providing such stay or injunctive relief protecting nondebtor third parties even for the finite pendency of the case.
In conclusion, your H.R. 9223 would turn the clock back 90 years for Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. It would eliminate or render impossible § 922(a)(1)’s protection of a municipal-debtor’s nondebtor officers and nondebtor inhabitants against the inevitable litigation brought by municipal bondholders and creditors who will—just like before 1934—seek to recover their claims against the municipalities by suing the officers and inhabitants for mandamus and other causes of action.
To prevent that, all you have to do is revise H.R. 9223 by adding the following capitalized reference to Code § 922(a)(1):
‘‘§ 113. Prohibition of nondebtor releases
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, subsection (a)(3), (g), (h), or (i) of section 524, SECTION 922(a)(1), section 1201, and section 1301, the court may not—. . . .”
Respectfully submitted,
Josiah M. Daniel, III
cc: Rep. Steve Cohen
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Katie Porter
Mark Desaulnier
Rep. Hank Johnson
Sen. Elizabeth Warren