Checklist · Local Government Finance

Advising a Distressed Local Government or a Municipal Creditor: A Practical Checklist

11 U.S.C. § 903

Type
Checklist
Jurisdiction
National
Date
2024-12-14
Topic
Local Government Finance

This checklist covers two positions: advising a local government whose finances are deteriorating, and advising a creditor of one. The government track runs from the early warning assessment through the structural analysis, the state route, the eligibility elements, the negotiation record, the filing decision, and plan development. The creditor track runs from security characterization and monitoring through negotiation, eligibility objections, and confirmation objections. A final section covers the cash flow model that both sides litigate and the indicators that make early intervention possible.

Advising a Distressed Local Government or a Municipal Creditor: A Practical Checklist

Local Government Finance > Municipal Fiscal Distress, Receivership, and Chapter 9 | Published 14 December 2024 - Updated 27 February 2026 | UpLaw - uplaw.us

Government: the early assessment

Read the audit, the multi-year forecast, and the actuarial valuation together. Each alone understates the position; together they show it.

Compute the structural gap — recurring revenues less recurring expenditures — separately from the total gap that one-time measures currently close.

Identify every one-time measure used in the last five budgets: asset sales, fund transfers, reserve draws, deferred payments, and debt restructurings extending maturities. Each works once.

Check the indicators. Budgets balanced by interfund transfer; multi-year fund balance decline; growing accounts payable and vendor delay; rising cash flow borrowing; pension contributions below the actuarially determined amount; late or qualified audits; and capital spending below depreciation.

Compute the legacy cost trajectory against the revenue trajectory. This is the dominant driver of modern distress and it is arithmetic.

Quantify deferred maintenance, because it is invisible in the budget until infrastructure fails.

State the conclusion plainly to the governing body. The value of this work lies entirely in its being delivered while ordinary options remain.

Government: the structural options, in order

Ordinary measures first. Revenue increases within existing authority; expenditure restraint; full pension funding; and capital catch-up. Politically difficult, not catastrophic, and available only early.

Revenue authority. Whether new revenue requires a referendum, a state authorization, or a charter amendment, and how long each takes.

Service restructuring. Consolidation, shared services, and functional transfer to another jurisdiction.

Asset monetization, with attention to whether an asset generates revenue that is pledged.

Labor negotiation outside a filing, which is faster and preserves relationships.

State assistance and oversight, which may be voluntary or compelled.

Consensual creditor restructuring, which requires unanimity or near-unanimity because 11 U.S.C. § 903 bars a state mechanism binding dissenters.

A filing, only where authorization exists and only where a holdout blocks consent.

Government: the state route

Determine what the state's regime provides: monitoring, conditional assistance, a control board, an emergency manager or receiver, or functional takeover.

Determine what triggers each level and whether the municipality can request intervention voluntarily, which is frequently better than having it imposed.

Determine the board's or manager's powers, particularly any authority to modify obligations, which raises Contract Clause exposure under Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co. with heightened scrutiny where the municipality is the obligor per United States Trust Co. of New York v. New Jersey.

Confirm the limit. No state mechanism may bind nonconsenting creditors to a composition — 11 U.S.C. § 903; Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust.

Note what oversight can do that a plan cannot: governance, management capacity, and revenue structure.

Note the accountability question where elected officials are displaced, and address transition back to elected governance at the outset.

Government: eligibility

Compute every element before filing, from documents.

  • [ ] Municipality under 11 U.S.C. § 101 — a political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality, confirmed under state law
  • [ ] Specifically authorized by state law or by an empowered officer or organization; silence is not authorization
  • [ ] Any condition on authorization satisfied — state approval, board consent, or specified findings
  • [ ] Insolvent on the cash-flow test: generally not paying debts as they come due, or unable to; documented with the model, not asserted
  • [ ] Desires to effect a plan
  • [ ] One negotiation prerequisite under 11 U.S.C. § 109: majority agreement obtained; good faith negotiation and failure; negotiation impracticable; or reasonable belief of a preference attempt

Build the negotiation record. Proposals with actual numbers; information provided sufficient for evaluation; a realistic response period; engagement with counterproposals; and documentation of all of it. A take-it-or-leave-it proposal shortly before filing does not satisfy the requirement in most courts.

Understand the consequence of failure. Dismissal after the stay issued and costs incurred, with a worse negotiating position.

Government: the case and the plan

Understand the stay's breadth. 11 U.S.C. § 362 plus 11 U.S.C. § 922, which bars actions against officers and inhabitants and forecloses mandamus.

Understand the court's limits. 11 U.S.C. § 904 forecloses interference with political and governmental powers, property, revenues, and income-producing property. 11 U.S.C. § 903 preserves state power.

Identify what is not impaired. Pledged special revenues continue to be applied to the bonds they secure, subject to system operating expenses.

Assess contract rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365, including collective bargaining agreements and the interaction with state labor law.

File the plan — only the debtor may, under 11 U.S.C. § 941.

Satisfy confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 943: legality, including whether state law prohibits any action the plan requires; disclosure of professional amounts; regulatory or electoral approvals; best interests, measured against the alternative reasonably available rather than a liquidation; feasibility; one accepting impaired class; and no unfair discrimination.

Justify any discrimination with evidence — relative legal position, essentiality, and capacity — because pension versus bondholder treatment is where plans are contested.

Build feasibility on the model, with realistic base trends, deferred maintenance funded, and pension contributions at the actuarially determined amount.

Address effect and retained jurisdiction under 11 U.S.C. § 944 and 11 U.S.C. § 945.

Creditor: before distress

Characterize the security under state law. Whether a general obligation pledge creates a lien surviving a filing is a state law question — Butner v. United States — and the answer varies. Read the authorizing instrument, the statute, and the state's characterization.

Prefer pledged special revenues where the choice exists, because those payments continue after a filing.

Confirm the state's authorization posture, because it sets the debtor's leverage and therefore yours.

Monitor the indicators: budgets balanced by transfer; fund balance decline; one-time revenue reliance; payables growth; cash flow borrowing; underfunded pension contributions; late or qualified audits; and capital spending below depreciation.

Read the continuing disclosure filings, which are where these indicators appear and where a deteriorating position becomes visible before it is announced.

Creditor: in a negotiation

Engage substantively and document it. A creditor that refused to engage weakens its own eligibility objection.

Obtain the cash flow model, not the summary. The feasibility fight is fought on it.

Obtain the actuarial valuation and reconcile the plan's pension assumptions to it.

Understand the pension constraint, because whatever pensioners receive is the ceiling for everyone else.

Assess the alternative honestly. The best interests comparison is to continued nonpayment by an entity that cannot pay, which is worse than it looks.

Evaluate whether a state-supervised consensual restructuring serves you better than a filing would. Frequently it does, because it is faster and the recoveries are similar.

Creditor: in a case

Object to eligibility immediately where the negotiation record is thin. The good faith prong under 11 U.S.C. § 109 is where objections have succeeded, and leverage may be worth more than dismissal.

Test the insolvency showing against the model.

Contest class construction where classes appear gerrymandered to produce an accepting impaired class.

Object on unfair discrimination with evidence about relative legal position and about capacity, not with characterization.

Attack feasibility on the model: growth assumptions against the regional trend; deferred maintenance; pension contributions; collection rates; and one-time items carried forward.

Recognize the stay's breadth under 11 U.S.C. § 362 and 11 U.S.C. § 922 — collection and mandamus are both foreclosed.

Preserve the special revenue position if you hold enterprise debt, and confirm that operating expenses are not being used to divert pledged revenue.

The cash flow model

Both sides litigate it, so both sides should build or test it the same way.

  • [ ] Multi-year, by fund, with the general fund detailed and enterprise funds separate
  • [ ] Revenue by source with the driver stated: assessed value and rate; taxable sales; wages; state aid formula; charges by volume and rate
  • [ ] One-time items identified and not carried forward
  • [ ] Personnel by headcount and contract, including escalators
  • [ ] Pension and retiree health at the actuarially determined contribution, not the budgeted amount
  • [ ] Debt service on the existing schedule
  • [ ] Capital replacement and deferred maintenance funded, not omitted
  • [ ] Collection rate consistent with recent experience
  • [ ] Scenarios: base, downside, and no-intervention continuation
  • [ ] Sensitivity on the three or four drivers that matter
  • [ ] Reconciled to the audited statements and to the actuarial valuation
  • [ ] Structural gap stated separately from the total gap

The short version

One — read the audit, the forecast, and the valuation together, and say what the trend implies while ordinary options remain.

Two — determine state authorization first. It decides whether the federal chapter exists for this municipality.

Three — the insolvency test is cash flow, and it must be documented with a model.

Four — the eligibility fight is about good faith negotiation, and the record is built before filing.

Five — the state route is faster, cheaper, and better at governance problems, but cannot bind dissenters.

Six — pledged special revenues are protected, which is the most important structural fact for a creditor.

Seven — feasibility and unfair discrimination are where plans are contested, and both are fought on the model and the valuation.

Eight — pensions resolve by negotiation, not by adjudication, in nearly every case.

The negotiation record

The document set that decides eligibility. Build it deliberately, from the first contact.

Item Content Why it matters
Creditor identification Every class the municipality intends to impair, with holders identified to the extent possible Establishes who was negotiated with
Initial contact Date, method, and to whom Establishes engagement began
Information provided Financial statements, the cash flow model, the actuarial valuation, and debt schedules, with transmittal dates The most common creditor complaint is that information was withheld
Proposals Each proposal with actual numbers, dated, with the transmittal record A proposal without numbers is not a proposal
Response period The time allowed for each proposal A period too short to permit analysis undermines good faith
Meetings Dates, participants, and agendas Establishes actual engagement
Counterproposals received And the municipality's response to each Engagement is bilateral; ignoring counterproposals is the classic failure
Impasse The point at which negotiation failed and why Establishes the failure element
Impracticability, where relied upon The number and dispersion of creditors, and the efforts made Supports the alternative prong

The test a court applies. Whether the municipality made a genuine effort to reach agreement, judged by whether it proposed something creditors could evaluate, gave them the information to evaluate it, and responded to what they said.

The failure mode. A municipality that decided to file, then conducted a brief negotiation to satisfy the element, and produced a record showing exactly that.

Monitoring for a state or an overseer

  • [ ] Annual financial report filed on time and unqualified
  • [ ] Unassigned general fund balance as a percentage of expenditures, trended
  • [ ] Structural gap: recurring revenues less recurring expenditures
  • [ ] One-time revenues as a percentage of the budget
  • [ ] Interfund transfers used to balance
  • [ ] Accounts payable aging and vendor payment days
  • [ ] Short-term cash flow borrowing, amount and frequency
  • [ ] Pension contribution as a percentage of the actuarially determined contribution
  • [ ] Pension funded ratio and the discount rate used
  • [ ] Retiree health liability and the funding approach
  • [ ] Debt service as a percentage of the operating budget
  • [ ] Capital spending relative to depreciation
  • [ ] Assessed value and population trend
  • [ ] Tax collection rate and delinquency trend
  • [ ] Employment concentration in a single employer or sector

Thresholds trigger the ladder. The value of a monitoring regime lies in defined thresholds that trigger defined responses, because a discretionary regime intervenes late.

A closing note

Every mechanism described here is a response to a failure that was visible earlier. The state oversight regimes exist because municipalities reached crisis; the federal chapter exists because oversight cannot bind dissenters; and the constitutional structure of the chapter exists because Congress's first attempt went too far.

For a practitioner, the practical consequence is a division between two kinds of engagement. The first is the annual review that reads the audit, the forecast, and the valuation together and states the trend. It is inexpensive, it is rarely requested, and it is the only intervention that leaves everyone better off.

The second is everything else in this checklist, which is expensive, slow, and damaging, and which becomes necessary only when the first was not done.

Two conversations worth having early

With the governing body, about the trend. Not about bankruptcy, which is premature and alarming, but about the structural gap and the trajectory of legacy costs against revenue. Present three numbers: the recurring gap; the amount of one-time measures used in the current budget; and the year in which, on current trend, the ordinary options run out. Those three numbers are more persuasive than any narrative, and they can be produced from documents the municipality already has.

With the state, about the ladder. Most oversight regimes permit voluntary requests for assistance, and the terms available to a municipality that asks are consistently better than those imposed on one that waits. A conversation held two years early frequently produces technical assistance and conditional aid; the same conversation held two years late produces an emergency manager.

Neither conversation is comfortable. Both are substantially less uncomfortable than the alternatives described in the rest of this checklist, and both are available only while the trend is still a trend rather than a crisis.

For counsel: managing the engagement

Separate the roles. Bond counsel, disclosure counsel, labor counsel, pension counsel, and restructuring counsel have different perspectives and sometimes different clients within the same government. Clarify who represents the municipality as an entity and who represents individual officials.

Address the disclosure obligation. A municipality in distress has continuing disclosure undertakings and, if it comes to market, an official statement to prepare. Deteriorating condition is material, and a misstatement about it is the most commonly enforced municipal securities violation.

Preserve privilege deliberately where the analysis is sensitive, understanding that public meeting and public records requirements may reach documents counsel expects to be confidential.

Document the advice. In a matter that may be examined years later by an oversight board, a court, or a regulator, contemporaneous memoranda establishing what was analyzed and when are worth more than any later reconstruction.

A note on what the client actually needs

Municipal officials facing fiscal deterioration receive a great deal of advice that is technically accurate and practically useless: that the situation is serious, that difficult choices lie ahead, that the options narrow over time. All true, and none of it tells anyone what to do on Monday.

What is useful is narrower. The structural gap, computed. The year the ordinary options run out, on the current trend. The specific revenue authority available and what it takes to use it. The specific state assistance available and how to request it. The eligibility posture, computed from documents. And a clear statement of which of the options in this checklist remain open and which have already closed.

That set of answers can be produced in a few weeks from documents the municipality already has. It is the deliverable that changes decisions, and it is the reason to be engaged early rather than at the point when the only remaining questions are the expensive ones.

And it is the reason that, in this field more than most, the value of counsel is measured by how early the engagement began rather than by how skillfully the case was tried.

That is an unusual way to measure legal work, and in municipal distress it is the only honest one.

Clients rarely ask for it in those terms, which is why the offer has to come from counsel.

Related Documents