ILNews

Indiana funds want SCOTUS review

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Three Indiana pension and construction funds are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider their objections to the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings that earlier this year resulted in the sale of most of the American automaker's assets to an Italian company.

Filing a 42-page writ of certiorari with the nation's highest court on Thursday, the Indiana State Police Pension Trust, Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, and the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund are jointly arguing that the justices should decide whether bankruptcy proceedings similar to Chrysler should be allowed in the future. The goal is not to stop what's already been put in motion.

"We are not asking for the bankruptcy sale of Chrysler to be reversed, which is legally impossible, but the losses to our funds are very real. I can't cease to act in gaining equitable treatment that is consistent with longstanding bankruptcy law. From the beginning, I have consistently stated that the federal government must follow the law and that is why the appeal was filed," Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock said in a written statement.

In June, the Supreme Court initially stayed the bankruptcy sale but then allowed it to proceed, extinguishing all claims from Indiana and other secured creditors. That move to block the automaker's sale came after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had given it the green light. However, the high court at that time did not consider the merits of the opponents' arguments and left the door open for this certiorari request.

With this week's petition, Indiana officials are claiming the sale unfairly favored Chrysler's unsecured stakeholders like the United Auto Workers ahead of the secured debt holders like the pension funds.

At a minimum, Indiana's funds lost $6 million in value during the bankruptcy sale, according to the state treasurer's office.

The question presented is whether Section 363 of the bankruptcy code may freely be used as a "side door" to reorganize a debtor's financial affairs without adherence to the creditor protections provided by the Chapter 11 plan confirmation process.

The case is In re: Chrysler LLC, Debtor, Indiana State Police Pension Trust, et al., v. Chrysler LLC, et al. Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher is lead counsel in the case, since it involves the treasurer's office - a statewide elected position and client of the Indiana Attorney General's Office. The treasurer's outside counsel, Thomas Lauria with White & Case in Miami, Fla., is also listed along with Glenn Kurtz, who is based in the firm's New York office.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT