The Chapter 9 bankruptcy case of Stockton, California has come to an unexpectedly quick and consensual resolution.

Nearly nine months after it filed for protection under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, a federal bankruptcy judge last week determined that the city of Stockton, California has satisfied the requirements of Section 109(c) of the Bankruptcy Code a

The battle in California municipal bankruptcies between bond investors and Calpers, the California public employee pension system, began in the Stockton Chapter 9 bankruptcy case and continues unabated in the

The Olympics may be over, but a potential clash of titans is gearing up in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case of Stockton, California. Municipal bond insurer National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”) has challenged Stockton’s eligibility to be a debtor under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, and is focusing expressly on the c

Meredith Whitney, one of the first financial analysts to foresee the collapse of the housing market, famously predicted in December 2010 that a wave of municipal bond defaults was on the way. The wave, however, has yet to materialize, and the bankruptcy filing of Stockton, California will likely not change th

The perception that public employee pension obligations cannot be impaired in bankruptcy suffered a damaging blow several months ago in the City of Detroit bankruptcy case, and has now been fatally wounded by 

On April 1, 2013, Judge Christopher Klein, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, ruled that the City of Stockton, California, could proceed with its chapter 9 bankruptcy filing. Judge Klein’s decision affirmed Stockton’s status as the largest US city (population 300,000) to have successfully sought bankruptcy protection and proceed with bankruptcy.1 Judge Klein’s comments on the record may also signal that the resolution of Stockton’s chapter 9 will require the impairment of the city’s pension obligations.

Last year, a California Bankruptcy Court wiped out $10.2 million in default interest (“DRI”) when it ruled that a 5% DRI was an unenforceable penalty in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case where the construction lender fully recovered principal, interest, and other costs of collection.

Adding to the growing split of authority among California’s various state appellate courts, and among various federal courts in California, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District, recently held that a loan servicer may owe a duty of care to a borrower through application of the “Biakanja” factors, even though its involvement in the loan does not exceed its conventional role.

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of an adversary proceeding without leave to amend, holding that:

(a) the debtors failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure under California law;

(b) the debtors failed to state a claim for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not third-party beneficiaries of the pooling and servicing agreement;