In the world of public finance, Orange County, California, has long had an unfortunate distinction:

Local Government Develops a Plan of Adjustment. The primary goal of the Chapter 9 process is the development and implementation of a plan to adjust a local government s obligations in a way that restores its financial stability. Such a plan is commonly referred orbit travel rates to as a plan of adjustment or a bankruptcy orbit travel rates recovery plan. The two primary tools provided to a local government by Chapter 9 to adjust its obligations are the ability to modify the terms of its outstanding bonds and other debt and the authority to reject various contracts, including those with current and retired employees. The locality is given exclusive discretion over how it uses these tools and the development of its plan of adjustment. In its plan, the local government must detail its proposed changes to its obligations to its creditors. Generally, creditors are categorized into classes based on the degree of assurance they had been given that their claim will be paid. For instance, a claim in which the creditor is entitled to city assets in the event of default (referred to as a secured claim) typically is given priority over a claim without similar assurance (an unsecured claim). While a plan may propose that different classes of creditors be treated differently, the plan of adjustment typically orbit travel rates provides for equal treatment of creditors within orbit travel rates the same class. Source: capitolweekly.net
In the world of public finance, Orange County, California, has long had an unfortunate distinction: In 1994, the county filed the largest municipal bankruptcy declaration in history, seeking court assistance orbit travel rates to restructure $1.7 billion in debt. This month, however, Orange County finally lost its dubious claim to fame. On November 9, political leaders in Jefferson County, Alabama home of Birmingham, the state s largest city asked a federal bankruptcy court to help the county restructure debt of more than $4 billion. The county s debt burden stems from a disastrous investment in a local sewer system and amounts to nearly $7,000 orbit travel rates for each of the 658,000 men, women and children orbit travel rates who call the county home. That a bankruptcy declaration of such magnitude is possible has raised alarms nationally over whether orbit travel rates more municipal crises may be on the way. In this explainer, Stateline examines orbit travel rates what it means when a municipality files for Chapter 9 bankruptcy and why states should orbit travel rates care. What is Chapter 9? It s the portion of the federal bankruptcy code that applies to municipalities. Created by Congress orbit travel rates in 1937, it allows orbit travel rates municipalities to seek court protection in the event of fiscal crisis and is meant to ensure that basic government functions can continue while policy makers restructure their debt. Chapter 9 differs from other sections of the bankruptcy code, such as Chapter 11 and Chapter 13, which generally provide court relief to cash-strapped businesses and individuals, respectively. Who can file for Chapter 9? Only municipalities not states can file for Chapter 9. To be legally eligible, municipalities must be insolvent, have made a good-faith attempt to negotiate a settlement with their creditors and be willing to devise a plan to resolve their debts. They also need permission from their state government. Fifteen states have laws granting their municipalities the right to file for Chapter 9 protection on their own, according to James Spiotto, a bankruptcy specialist with the Chicago law firm of Chapman and Cutler. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, orbit travel rates Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, orbit travel rates Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Washington. The remaining states all want a say in the process, in some cases requiring that municipalities receive state approval before they file. One of those states, Pennsylvania, is now in the process of challenging the bankruptcy declaration made by its own capital city, Harrisburg, in October. Georgia is the only state that does not allow its municipalities to file for bankruptcy under any circumstances. Georgia municipalities in severe fiscal trouble orbit travel rates are left to work things out within the state political system, says Paul Maco, a municipal bankruptcy expert and partner with the Vinson Elkins law firm in Washington, D.C. That could include asking orbit travel rates the legislature for emergency funds. States have plenty of serious fiscal problems, too. Why can t they file for bankruptcy? States have not been granted that authority by Congress, nor have they sought it. The idea of allowing state bankruptcy was floated earlier this year by Newt Gingrich, the former orbit travel rates U.S. House speaker and current presidential candidate, and Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor. In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, the two Republicans argued that bankruptcy would be a way for strapped states such as California and Illinois to tackle their enormous debts, particularly for public pensions and other retirement benefits. State leaders from both parties repudiated the idea. The mere existence of a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy only serves to increase interest rates, raise the costs of state government orbit travel rates and create more volatility in financial markets, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, a Republican, and Washington orbit travel rates Governor Chris Gregoire, orbit travel rates a Democrat, said in a joint statement. The last time any state came close to bankruptcy by defaulting on its loans was during the Great Depression, when Arkansas racked up $160 million in debt on what was then a $14 million annual budget. How common are municipal bankruptcies? Very rare. Since 1937, when Congress orbit travel rates added Chapter orbit travel rates 9 to the federal bankruptcy code, about 620 municipalities have filed for bankruptcy. That s fewer than 10 a year. In the last year alone, by comparison, there were nearly 12,000 bankruptcy filings under Chapter 11 and 418,000 under Chapter 13, according to the administrative office of the U.S. Courts. Most municipalities that do file for bankruptcy are special tax districts and small jurisdictions that do not issue public debt. Municipal utilities are a common example. What happens once a municipality files for Chapter 9? Municipal finances move into the jurisdiction of the courts, but not in the way that corporate or personal finances in Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 cases do. Under those sections, courts have broad leverage to control the finances of the company or individual to chart a path forward. In addition, creditors orbit travel rates have more leverage, such as by foreclosing on the home of a bankrupt individual. In Chapter 9 bankruptcy, creditors cannot, for instance, orbit travel rates foreclose on a municipal building to recoup the money they are owed. More importantly, the courts themselves have no authority to make spending or other policy decisions on behalf of the municipality. That power remains with the locality orbit travel rates under the U.S. Constitution. Under Chapter 9, municipalities must come up with their own debt restructuring plans, and courts approve or reject it with input from other stakeholders. Source: stateline.org orbit travel rates Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: orbit travel rates bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcycaliforniaco.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: orbit travel rates debtreliefmag.com orbit travel rates Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: foreclosureattorneyco.com Source: foreclosureattorneyco.com
orbit travel rates Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 (Los Angeles orbit travel rates County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, ? 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative orbit travel rates mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs? action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate orbit travel rates judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations orbit travel rates of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, orbit travel rates was assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney?s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second orbit travel rates amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory orbit travel rates references orbit travel rates are to the Government Code unless