Advertisement

May 19, 2013

First Bankruptcy Filed by a Public Pension Fund

On April 17, 2012, the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund (the “Fund”) became the first United States public pension fund to seek formal bankruptcy protection. The Fund, which provides retirement benefits to government employees of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the “Commonwealth”) a U.S. territory, listed $256 million in assets and $1 billion in liabilities and has alleged it will exhaust its claims paying ability by as early as 2014.

Various parties including the Commonwealth itself and the United States Trustee’s Office (a division of the United States Department of Justice responsible for overseeing the administration of bankruptcy cases) have challenged the Fund’s eligibility to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The Fund concedes that Chapter 9 is unavailable (a Chapter 9 Debtor must be a “municipality”, and because the Commonwealth is not a state the Fund cannot be a municipality as that term is defined in the Bankruptcy Code.)  The Fund’s Chapter 11 eligibility is arguably a closer call.  A debtor must be a “person” to be eligible to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. “Person” is defined to include individuals, partnerships, and corporations, but explicitly excludes governmental units. The dispute is whether the Fund is a “governmental unit.”

The objecting parties argue that the Fund’s structure and statutory existence establish that it is a “governmental unit” of the Commonwealth. They argue that providing retirement security and other benefits to government employees is a “traditional governmental function”, that the governance of the Fund is controlled by the Commonwealth both through the passage of legislation and the appointment of the Board of Trustees, and that the Commonwealth’s statutory designation of the Fund clearly confirms the “governmental unit” classification: “The Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund shall serve in a fiduciary capacity with respect to employer and employee contributions and shall serve as a fiscal and administrative agent of the government.”

On May 18, 2012, the Fund responded to the motions to dismiss, arguing that it is not a “governmental unit” and therefore Chapter 11 is an available remedy. The Fund’s argument relies primarily on the recent decision in the Las Vegas Monorail case, in which the court found that the Las Vegas Monorail was an eligible debtor under Chapter 11 despite its ties to the state.  That decision introduced a three-part test to identify a “governmental unit”: (a) whether the entity has traditional governmental powers and/or performs traditional governmental functions; (b) the nature and extent of governmental control over the operations of the entity; and (c) the government’s designation of the entity. Focusing on this test, the Fund disputes that actively managing and investing employee and employer contributions is a “traditional governmental function” as such services are regularly performed by private financial institutions. The Fund argues that “governmental control” is determined by governmental involvement in the daily affairs of the entity and that, in this case, the Commonwealth only has the authority to regulate the Fund and that regulation, even if “extensive and intrusive,” does not transform a heavily regulated entity into a governmental unit. Finally, the Fund argues that the government’s designation of the Fund as a “public corporation and autonomous agency” classifies it clearly as a regulated entity, not a governmental unit.

The Fund also advances a secondary argument under the “Alternate Relief Test.” This policy-based analysis favors Chapter 11 eligibility because no other remedy is available to the Fund, other than “maintaining the status quo and barreling headlong towards financial oblivion or receivership.”

Given the increasing number of such “quasi-governmental” entities and the decreasing solvency of pension funds, the case is being closely watched by the market. The hearing on the motions to dismiss is on June 1, 2012.  Expect a blog update upon the court’s ruling.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Member

Bill is a Member in the firm’s Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Commercial Law Section. He practices primarily in the area of commercial law, workouts, and corporate reorganization, and has represented various institutional lenders, indenture trustees, bondholders, and other creditors, debtors, and trustees in all manner of insolvency proceedings in courts throughout the United States. His industry experience encompasses municipalities, airlines, hospitals and other health care facilities, retail, telecom, energy and clean tech, waste disposal, military housing, hotels...

(617) 348-1665

About the Author

Associate

Eric is an Associate in the Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Commercial Law Section and is based in the firm's Boston office.

Prior to joining the firm, he served as legal counsel at the Massachusetts State House. There, he worked for the State Representative for Marshfield and Scituate where he researched and reported on issues such as: affordable housing, end-of-life health care, court-appointed attorney regulations, the tax-expenditure budget and pension reform. Eric also drafted legislation regarding issues ranging from freedom of speech rights to nuclear power plant...

(617) 348-4913

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.