Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/255588614/2-12-15-Fees-Decision
Timestamp: 2019-01-20 06:58:42
Document Index: 579685883

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 903', '§ 943', '§ 326', '§ 901', '§ 330', '§ 901', '§ 330', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 156', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 101', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 109', '§ 921', '§ 15', '§ 15', '§ 362', '§ 101', '§ 365', '§ 942', '§ 943', '§1129', '§ 943', '§943', '§1129', '§ 1123', '§ 125', '§ 5333', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 105', '§ 141', '§ 38', '§ 943', '§ 943', '§ 943', 'art 1', '§ 943']

2.12.15 Fees Decision | Bankruptcy In The United States | Bankruptcy
Uploaded by WDET 101.9 FM
Here is Judge Steven Rhodes's decision on the reasonableness of fees in the Detroit bankruptcy case.
10000003193
10000021414
IRS Tax Primer
DEAI Release, May 2018
Keego Harbor Ballot, Nov. 7, 2017
Opinion and Order Regarding the Reasonableness
of Fees Under 11 U.S.C. § 943(b)(3)
Section 943(b)(3)1 of the bankruptcy code requires the Court to find, as a condition of
confirmation of a plan of adjustment of municipal debts, that “all amounts to be paid by the
debtor or by any person for services or expenses in the case or incident to the plan have been
fully disclosed and are reasonable.” For the reasons stated in this opinion, the Court finds that
the City has met this confirmation requirement.
In its opinion confirming the City of Detroit’s eighth amended plan of adjustment of
debts, the Court held that § 943(b)(3) requires the Court to independently review all professional
fees and expenses for which the City is responsible to pay and which were incurred between the
filing of the petition and the effective date of the plan, regardless of whether the fees were paid
or unpaid at the time of confirmation. See Trial Tr. 35:17-22, Nov. 7, 2014 (Dkt. #8257);
Supplemental Op. at 81-93. (Dkt. #8993) This includes the professionals who represented and
advised the City generally as well as those who advised specific departments, such as the police
All references to code sections in this opinion are to the bankruptcy code, title 11 of the
Doc 9256
Filed 02/12/15
Entered 02/12/15 13:59:27
department and the water and sewerage department. It also includes the professionals who
represented and advised the Official Committee of Retirees, the court-appointed professionals,2
and the court-appointed mediators.3 Subsequently, the Court held that the review mandate in
§ 943(b)(3) extends to the fees paid in connection with the City’s bankruptcy case to US Bank in
its capacity as trustee for certain DWSD bonds, see Order Amending and Clarifying Fee Review
Order, ¶ 2 at 1 (Dkt. #5150), and professionals retained by the City’s two retirement systems.
See Op. and Order at 5. (Dkt. #8470)
The Court further determined it was necessary to delay consideration of the § 943(b)(3)
issue until after the plan was confirmed, as the plan’s post-confirmation implementation required
substantial effort on behalf of City-paid professionals. Supplemental Op. at 93. (Dkt. #8993)
On November 12, 2014, the Court entered an order confirming the City’s plan (Dkt.
#8272), and the plan became effective on December 10, 2014. See Notice of Effective Date, ¶ 1
at 1. (Dkt. #8649)
To facilitate the Court’s review of professional fees under § 943(b)(3), the Court ordered
“all professionals to submit to the City final statements for fees and expenses incurred through
the plan effective date” by December 22, 2014, and ordered the City to file its final disclosure of
fees and expenses by December 30, 2014. See Scheduling Order at 1. (Dkt. #8710) In the
The City consented to paying fees and expenses incurred by the Official Committee of
Retirees and its professionals, see Order Directing Appt. of Committee of Retired Emp’ees (Dkt.
#279); Order Authorizing Retention of Lazard (Dkt. #2250), and did not object to paying the fees
and expenses incurred by the fee examiner professionals, see Fee Review Order, ¶ 27 at 7-8
(Dkt. #810), or the Court’s appointed expert witness on feasibility and her team, see Order
Appt’ing Expert Witness, ¶ 12 at 2. (Dkt. #4215)
The City was required to pay a portion of the fees and expenses of “any non-judicial
mediator,” as directed by Chief Judge and Judicial Mediator Gerald Rosen. Mediation Order, ¶ 3
at 1. (Dkt. #322)
meantime, and in the midst of a wave of negative publicity regarding the fees charged, the
professionals and the City, represented by its elected leadership rather than the emergency
manager, successfully mediated reductions in fees.
The City timely filed its disclosure of fees and expenses (Dkt. ##8986, 8997), and the
Court subsequently invited parties to the case, as well as any professional subject to the fee
review process, to submit comments on the reasonableness of the disclosed fees. See Order re:
Fee Process at 1. (Dkt. #8999)
Several professionals filed comments supporting a finding of reasonableness, including:
Jones Day, the law firm that represented the City throughout the bankruptcy
proceedings (Dkt. #9076);
Pepper Hamilton, the City’s local counsel (Dkt. #9074);
Miller Buckfire, the City’s investment banking and financial advisory firm (Dkt.
#9078);
Dentons LLP, the law firm that represented the Official Committee of Retirees
(Dkt. ##9080, 9081);
Lazard, the Retiree Committee’s financial advisor (Dkt. #9057);
the Segal Company, which provided actuarial services to the Retiree Committee
(Dkt. #9075);
Clark Hill, the law firm that represented the City’s two retirement systems
throughout the bankruptcy proceedings (Dkt. #9068); and
Greenhill, the retirement systems’ financial advisor (Dkt. #9079).
Christie’s, which appraised a portion of the art collection housed at the Detroit Institute
of Arts Museum, also filed a comment in support of Debevoise & Plimpton, the law firm that
represented Christie’s during the discovery phase of the confirmation hearing. (Dkt. #9077)
Only one party filed a comment against the reasonableness of the fees, Ms. Angles Hunt.
(Dkt. #9002)
Consistent with the limitations placed on this Court’s authority by §§ 903 and 904, and
the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, see U.S. Const. amend. X (“The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”), the Court’s review of professional fees
and expenses in chapter 9 is limited to a determination of whether they have been “fully
disclosed,” and whether they are “reasonable.” 11 U.S.C. § 943(b)(3).
The chapter 9 fee review process is therefore not accompanied by the detailed statutory
framework found in other sections of the bankruptcy code. See, e.g., §§ 326-331; see also § 901
(incorporating provisions of other chapters of the bankruptcy code into chapter 9, but not
including § 330); In re Cnty. of Orange, 241 B.R. 212, 216 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1999) (holding
that, “[b]ecause [§ 901] excludes § 330 from the list of statutes applicable to chapter 9 cases, it
does not apply here.”).
Moreover, few courts have expanded upon § 943(b)(3)’s sparse language; they often
confirm municipal debt adjustment plans with little discussion of how or why they found the fees
at issue are “fully disclosed” or “reasonable.” See, e.g., Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order Confirming Chapter 9 Plan, ¶ 7 at 42-43, In re Jefferson Cnty., No. 11-05736-TBB9
(Bankr. N.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2013) (Dkt. #2248) (“The Court has reviewed and considered such
amounts paid and to be paid and has determined, based on the unique facts, circumstances, and
context of the Case, the Plan, and the transactions contemplated by the Plan, that all such
amounts are reasonable . . . . The Plan therefore satisfies Bankruptcy Code section 943(b)(3).”);
In re Barnwell Cnty. Hosp., 471 B.R. 849, 868 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2012) (“There have been no
objections to the Plan based upon these disclosures [of fees]. The foregoing amounts are
reasonable and necessary to effectuate the Plan and reorganization in this complex case, and thus
§ 943(b)(3) is satisfied.”).
Collier on Bankruptcy describes a court’s role under § 943(b)(3) as follows:
The courts will monitor the payment of fees and the reimbursement
of expenses in or in connection with a chapter 9 case to insure that
the fees and expenses are reasonable, that there is no overreaching
by attorneys or agents either of the debtor or of creditors, and that
there is full disclosure so that those whose rights are affected
directly by the plan and directly or indirectly by compensation
arrangements are aware of the practice in a particular case and can
determine whether the plan is being proposed for the benefit of the
debtor and its creditors or is a scheme to benefit private interests
at the expense of the debtor and/or its creditors.
6 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 943.03 (emphasis added).
This interpretation from Collier aligns with the Court’s conclusions regarding § 943(b)(3)
set forth in the Court’s Supplemental Opinion confirming the City’s plan:
[A]s a court of equity, a bankruptcy court has the authority,
“guided by equitable doctrines and principles,” to “safeguard the
public interest” as a condition of granting relief, unless the
condition is inconsistent with the bankruptcy code. Id. at 145. It
also has the authority, inherent in its jurisdiction and “not
dependent on express statutory provisions” to remedy the
“existence of unfair dealing, a breach of fiduciary obligations,
profiting from a trust, special benefits for the reorganizers,” all as
part of the Court’s responsibility to ensure that the plan is “fair and
equitable” and “devoid of overreaching.” Id. at 146. Of course, as
much in the professional fee context as in another context, a
bankruptcy court must zealously protect against “unfair dealing, a
breach of fiduciary obligations, profiting from a trust, [or] special
benefits for the reorganizers.” Id.
Supplemental Opinion at 91 (quoting Am. United Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Avon Park, 311
U.S. 138, 145-46 (1940)). (Dkt. #8993)
The fee examiner in this case identified the following considerations in his quarterly fee
Due to the magnitude and complexity of the Case, the novelty of
the legal issues, the extremely tight time frames imposed by the
Court and the strong differences in opinion between the various
parties about what to do and how to do it, it was (and continues to
be) inevitable that the costs associated with the services provided
by the various Professionals were going to be significant. It is
impossible (and inappropriate) to view [the amount of the
professional fees and expenses] in the abstract. They must be
tested against the circumstances of the Case, such as the amount of
debt being addressed, the number of competing interests that have
to be considered, the number of diverse problems and public
interest issues that must be simultaneously considered and solved
and the uncharted waters of a Chapter 9 case of this magnitude.
Fee Examiner’s Quarterly Report, ¶ 13 at 8. (Dkt. #2642)
The Court agrees, and with these principles in mind, will turn to the fees at issue in this
III. THE FEES
The grand total for professional fees and expenses subject to the Court’s review under
§ 943(b)(3) in this case is $177.91 million.4 See City of Detroit’s Disclosure of Fees & Expenses
at 3-4 (“City Disclosure”). (Dkt. #8997) This amount includes payments made from the City’s
general fund as well as from certain enterprise funds and the City’s retirement systems. For the
general fund, the breakdown per professional is as follows:
City Professionals & Advisors
$57.90 (in millions)
The actual total is $183.2 million; however, the State of Michigan reimbursed the City
$5.29 million, bringing the total down to $177.91. City Disclosure at 2-3. (Dkt. #8997)
Manhattan Institute & Bratton
Christie’s Appraisals Inc.
Galardi Rothstein Group
Nowling & Company
Total retiree committee:
Court-Appointed Professionals
Kapila Mukamal LLP
The Court has been advised that Shaw Fishman intends to file a final fee request
shortly. Therefore, this amount may not be the final fee amount for this professional. Upon
receipt of that request, the Court will review it for reasonableness under § 943(b)(3) and enter an
Total Court-appointed professionals:
Thus, the total amount paid from the City’s general fund for professional fees and
expenses is $164.91 million. See City Disclosure 3-4. (Dkt. #8997) The per-professional
breakdown for fees and expenses paid from enterprise funds and the retirement systems is as
City Professionals & Advisors Paid from Enterprise Funds
$0.42 (in millions)
Ottenwess, Allman & Taweel
Total enterprise funds:
Retirement Systems Professionals
Total retirement systems:
IV. THE FEES ARE REASONABLE
The Court finds that the fees are reasonable. This finding is based primarily on the
number and complexity of the issues in the case, the City’s extreme financial challenges, the
results obtained, the substantial reductions to which many professionals have agreed, and the
lack of objections or negative comments regarding fees filed with this Court.
A. The Complexity of the Case
Motions were filed on a daily basis, totaling in the thousands. A list of the substantive
motions is set forth below:
1. Motion to assume Lease or Executory Contract /Motion of Debtor for Entry of an
Order (I) Authorizing the Assumption of that Certain Forbearance and Optional
Termination Agreement Pursuant to Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, (II)
Approving Such (Dkt. #17)
2. Motion of Debtor for Entry of an Order Appointing Kurtzman Carson
Consultants, LLC as Claims and Noticing Agent Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 156(c),
Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 2002 (Dkt. #19)
3. Motion of Debtor, Pursuant to Section 1102(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, for
Entry of an Order Directing the Appointment of a Committee of Retired
Employees (Dkt. #20)
4. Motion of Debtor for Entry of an Order Establishing Case Management and
Scheduling Procedures (Dkt. #39)
5. Motion of Debtor, Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, for Entry
of an Order Confirming the Protections of Sections 362, 365 and 922 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Dkt. #53)
6. Motion of Debtor, Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, for Entry
of an Order, Extending the Chapter 9 Stay to Certain (A) State Entities, (B) NonOfficer Employees and (C) Agents and Representatives of the Debtor (Dkt. #56)
7. Motion by Syncora for Clarification Regarding the Court’s July 22, 2013 Order
and Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery (Dkt. #142)
8. Syncora Guarantee Inc.’s Emergency Motion to Dissolve the Temporary
Restraining Order and Conduct Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #317)
9. Motion of Debtor, Pursuant to Sections 105(A) and 107 of the Bankruptcy Code,
for Entry of an Order (A) Authorizing and Directing City Officials to Release
Certain Information Regarding Potential Tax Creditors and (B) Authorizing Filing
of Such Info (Dkt. #706)
10. Motion for Withdrawal of Reference re: Objection to Eligibility to Chapter 9
Petition filed by Retiree Committee Official Committee of Retirees (Dkt. #806)
11. Motion To Stay Objection to Eligibility to Chapter 9 Petition Deadlines and the
Hearings Concerning a Determination of Eligibility Pending decision on Motion
to Withdraw the Reference (Dkt. #837)
12. Motion of The Michigan Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County
& Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and Sub-Chapter 98, City of Detroit Retirees
Motion to Compel Testimony of Kevyn Orr and All Other City and State
Witnesses Regarding City-State Communications (Dkt. #920)
13. Objectors’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Debtor from Offering Evidence
Regarding the Likelihood of Success, Complexity, and Expense of Claims the
City Seeks to Settle with the Forbearance and Optional Termination (Dkt. #933)
14. The Objectors’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Debtor from Offering Evidence
Regarding the City’s Need to Obtain Casino Revenues in Connection with Its
Debtor-In-Possession Financing Efforts (Dkt. #935)
15. Motion of Debtor for Entry of an Order Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs
of Claim and Approving Form and Manner of Notice Thereof (Dkt. #1146)
16. Police and Fire Retirement Systems’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Withheld on the Grounds of Privilege (Dkt. #1269)
17. Official Committee of Retirees’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Opinions or
Conclusions as to the City of Detroit, Michigan’s Underfunding of Pension
Liability (Dkt. #1276)
18. Debtor’s Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Authorizing the Debtor to Enter into
and Perform under Certain Transaction Documents with the Public Lighting
Authority and (II) Granting Other Related Relief (Dkt. #1341)
19. Motion of the Debtor for a Final Order Approving Post-Petition Financing (Dkt.
#1520)
20. Motion of Syncora for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery in Connection with
Motion of the Debtor for Post-Petition Financing (Dkt. #1640)
21. Motion of Debtor, Pursuant to Sections 105 and 502 of the Bankruptcy Code, for
Entry of an Order Approving Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures to
Promote the Liquidation of Certain Prepetition Claims (Dkt. #1665)
22. Motion of Creditors for Entry of an Order Pursuant to Section 105(A) of the
Bankruptcy Code Appointing and Directing the Debtor to Cooperate with a
Committee of Creditors and Interested Persons to Assess the Art Collection of
The Detroit Institute of Arts (Dkt. #1833)
23. Motion by Syncora to Compel the Production of Privilege Log (Dkt. #1899)
24. Motion by Syncora to Stay Pending Appeal (Dkt. #2516)
25. City of Detroit’s Motion for Entry of an Order Vacating the Appointment of
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (Dkt. #2626)
26. Motion of the City of Detroit for Approval of the Proposed Disclosure Statement
(Dkt. #2713)
27. Motion of the City of Detroit for Entry of an Order (I) Establishing Procedures for
Solicitation and Tabulation of Votes to Accept or Reject Plan of Adjustment and
(II) Approving Notice Procedures Related to Confirmation of the Plan of
Adjustment (Dkt. #2789)
28. Motion of Debtor for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Approving a Settlement and Plan
Support Agreement with SWAP Counterparties and Granting Related Relief (Dkt.
29. Motion by Committee of Retirees to Compel the Production of Documents
Requested in Connection with the Deposition of Kevyn Orr as Relates to the
City’s Proposed Settlement and Plan Support Agreement with the Swap
Counterparties (Dkt. #3072)
30. Motion to Extend Time to Assume or Reject Unexpired Leases of Nonresidential
Real Property (Dkt. #3079)
31. Motion by Financial Guaranty Insurance Company for Entry of an Order Pursuant
to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code Directing the Debtor to Cooperate with
Interested Parties Seeking to Conduct Due Diligence on the Art Collection
Housed at the Detroit Institute of Arts (Dkt. #3923)
32. Motion of the City of Detroit Water & Sewerage Department for an Order
Amending and Clarifying Fee Review Order (Dkt. #3929)
33. Motion by City of Detroit for Entry of an Order Establishing Supplemental
Procedures for Solicitation and Tabulation of Votes to Accept or Reject Plan of
Adjustment with Respect to Pension and OPEB Claims (Dkt. #3932)
34. Joint Motion by Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and Berkshire Hathaway
Assurance Corporation to Amend the Solicitation Procedures Order (Dkt. #3954)
35. Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. Motion to Compel the Debtor to Provide More
Specific Descriptions of the Subjects That Each Fact Witness Will Address (Dkt.
#4409)
36. Motion by Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. to Compel Full Clawback of
Debtor’s Document Production (Dkt. #4560)
37. Syncora Guarantee Inc. Motion to Compel the Production of Documents (Dkt.
#4565)
38. Motion for Temporary Allowance of Claim of the Macomb Interceptor Drain
Drainage District Pursuant to Rule 3018(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure for Purposes of Accepting or Rejecting the Plan (Dkt. #5155)
39. Motion by Hyde Park Co-Operative, et al. for Class Certification of Proof of
Claims ## 2638, 2651, 2654, 2659, 2676, 2683, 2689 and 2692 (Dkt. #5157)
40. Motion of The City of Detroit for Site Visit by Court in Connection With The
Hearing on Confirmation of The City’s Plan of Adjustment (Dkt. #5250)
41. Motion For Entry of an Order Approving Claim Objection Procedures (Dkt.
#5270)
42. Motion by Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. for Costs Relating to Clawback of
Debtor’s Document Production (Dkt. #5326)
43. Motion by Hyde Park Co-Operative, et al. for Class Certification of Proof of
Claims ## 2638, 2651, 2654, 2659, 2676, 2683, 2689 and 2692 (Dkt. #5354)
44. Motion by Syncora Guarantee Inc. to View Or, in the Alternative, Unseal
Supplemental Order Regarding Mediation Confidentiality (Dkt. #5358)
45. Motion to Compel Full and Fair Responses to Syncora’s Interrogatories (Dkt.
#5436)
46. City of Detroit’s Motion for Entry of a Protective Order Striking Syncora’s
Demand in Its Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice for the Personal Financial
Information of All City Retirees (Dkt. #5442)
47. Motion of Syncora to Enforce the Solicitation Procedures Order (Dkt. #5444)
48. Motion to Assume Lease or Executory Contract of Nonresidential Real Property
(Dkt. #5461)
49. Motion of the General Retirement System to Designate and Determine Additional
Legal Issue Regarding Methodology for ASF Recoupment From Retirees (Dkt.
#5478)
50. Motion of the City of Detroit for an Order (A) Establishing Procedures with
Respect to the Proposed Assumption and Rejection of Executory Contracts and
Unexpired Leases and (B) Approving Notice (Dkt. #6008)
51. Motion by Michigan Welfare Rights Organization for Permissive Intervention,
Etc. (Dkt. #6143)
52. Motion Of The Debtor For A Final Order (A) Approving Postpetition Financing
And (B) Granting Liens (Dkt. #6644)
53. Motion by Jamie Fields to Participate in the Confirmation Hearing (Dkt. #6778)
54. Motion by Syncora to Exclude the Testimony of Kenneth A. Buckfire Regarding
Creditor Recoveries Upon Dismissal of the Bankruptcy Case (Dkt. #6787)
55. Motion by Michael Joseph Karwoski for Participation in Confirmation Hearing
(Dkt. #6811)
56. Financial Guaranty Insurance Company’s Motion to Exclude the Opinion of
Kenneth Buckfire Regarding Plan Treatment Compared to Treatment Upon
Dismissal (Dkt. #6826)
57. Motion by Syncora Guarantee Inc. for Clarification of Post-Confirmation
Procedures (Dkt. #6946)
58. Motion in Limine by Syncora Guarantee Inc. Barring the City from Introducing
Evidence Regarding the Combined Recoveries of Pension and OPEB Claims
(Dkt. #6975)
59. Motion in Limine by Syncora Guarantee Inc. Barring the City and Plan
Supporters from Introducing Evidence Regarding the Potential Personal Hardship
of Pensioners (Dkt. #6982)
60. Financial Guaranty Insurance Company’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinion
of Michael Plummer Regarding Discount Factors (Dkt. #6983)
61. Financial Guaranty Insurance Company’s Motion in Limine to Preclude the
Introduction of Evidence or Testimony Regarding Matters Withheld from
Discovery on the Basis of the Mediation Order (Dkt. #6985)
62. Financial Guaranty Insurance Company’s Motion in Limine to Preclude the
Introduction of Evidence or Testimony Regarding Certain Matters Previously
Deemed Irrelevant by the Court or the City of Detroit (Dkt. #6990)
63. Motion by Oakland County To Exclude Testimony Of Martha Kopacz Under Fed.
R. Evid. 702 In Connection With Certain Of Her Expert Opinions Contained In
Her Expert Report (Dkt. #6993)
64. Motion by Syncora Guarantee Inc. and Syncora Capital Assurance Inc.’s Motion
to Exclude the Testimony of John W. Hill (Dkt. #6997)
65. Motion by Syncora to Exclude Certain of the Expert Opinions of Martha Kopacz
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Dkt. #6999)
66. Motion by City of Detroit to Exclude Testimony of Victor Wiener (Dkt. #7000)
67. Motion in Limine by City of Detroit to Preclude Its Counsel, Evan Miller, from
Being Called as a Trial Witness (Dkt. #7001)
68. Motion in Limine by City of Detroit to Preclude Its Counsel, Heather Lennox,
From Being Called as a Trial Witness (Dkt. #7002)
69. Motion by Syncora Guarantee Inc. to Exclude the Testimony of the City’s
Forecasting Experts Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (Dkt. #7004)
70. Motion by General Retirement System of the City of Detroit and Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit to Exclude Portions of Martha Kopacz’s
Testimony (Dkt. #7061)
71. The Detroit Retirement Systems’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Relating
to Alleged Historical Mismanagement/Misconduct (Dkt. #7062)
72. City of Detroit’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Deposition Testimony of Gary
Evanko and Michael Hall (Dkt. #7848)
73. Motion For Summary Judgment filed by City of Detroit In Further Support Of Its
Objection To Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage Districts Claim No. 3683 (Dkt.
#7885)
74. Joint Motion of the City of Detroit, FGIC and COP Holders for a Limited Order
Modifying the Mediation Order (Dkt. #7963)
75. Motion of the City of Detroit, Pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,
for an Order Confirming that the Automatic Stay Does Not Apply to Disciplinary
Proceedings Initiated by the City Against City Officers and Employees (Dkt.
#8060)
76. Motion by Michigan Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO for Abstention and to Remand the Claims
Contained in Proof of Claim #2958 (Dkt. #8492)
77. Motion by Coalition of Detroit Unions for Abstention and to Remand the Claims
Contained in Proof of Claim #2851 (Dkt. #8493)
In addition to the motions listed, there were over 50 motions for relief from the automatic
stay, or to enforce or clarify the automatic stay, approximately 45 objections to claims, and
hundreds of random motions and objections filed by pro se creditors.
The City’s eligibility for chapter 9 relief was highly contentious. Over one hundred
unrepresented parties filed objections to the City’s eligibility. Parties represented by attorneys,
both individuals and organizations, filed dozens of briefs in several rounds. The United States
Attorney General and the Michigan Attorney General both intervened and actively participated.
Between oral argument and presentation of factual proof, the parties litigated the City’s
eligibility over the course of nine days. The myriad legal and factual issues raised, and the
parties who raised them, are as follows:
1. Chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code violates the United States constitution;
specifically, the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause, the
Contracts Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.
Asserted by:
Dkt. #484 Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers
#486 Local 517M, Service Employees International Union
#505 Michigan Council 25 of The American Federation of State,
County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and SubChapter 98, City of Detroit Retirees
#805 Official Committee of Retirees
2. The bankruptcy court does not have the jurisdiction to determine the
constitutionality of chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code.
#484 Local 324, International Union of Operating Engineers
3. Michigan Public Act 436 of 2012 violates the Michigan constitution and
therefore the City was not validly authorized to file this bankruptcy case as
required for eligibility by § 109(c)(2). Creditors raising this issue argued that
Michigan voters’ rejection of Public Act 4 prohibited the legislature from
enacting Public Act 436, that the statute is unconstitutional because the
legislature included an appropriations provision to evade the voters’ right to a
referendum, and that the statute violates the Home Rule provisions and the
Pension Clause of the Michigan constitution.
#504 Robbie Flowers, Michael Wells, Janet Whitson, Mary
Washington and Bruce Goldman
#506 International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
#519 General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Police
and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
#520 Retired Detroit Police Members Association
4. The bankruptcy court does not have the jurisdiction to determine the
constitutionality of Michigan Public Act 436 of 2012.
#384 Krystal Crittendon
5. Detroit’s emergency manager is not an elected official and therefore did not
have valid authority to file this bankruptcy case as required for eligibility by
§ 109(c)(2).
6. Because the Governor’s authorization to file this bankruptcy case did not
prohibit the City from impairing the pension rights of its employees and
retirees, the authorization violates the Michigan Constitution and is therefore
not valid, as required for eligibility by § 109(c)(2).
#495 David Sole
#502 Retired Detroit Police & Fire Fighters Association, Donald
Taylor, the Detroit Retired City Employees Association,
and Shirley V. Lightsey
Michigan Council 25 of The American Federation of State,
The Detroit Fire Fighters Association, the Detroit Police
Officers Association, the Detroit Police Lieutenants &
Sergeants Association, and the Detroit Police Command
General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Police
7. Because of the proceedings and judgment in Webster v. State of Michigan,
Case No. 13-734-CZ (Ingham County Circuit Court, filed July 3, 2013), the
City is precluded by law from claiming that the Governor’s authorization to
file this bankruptcy case was valid, as required for eligibility by § 109(c)(2).
8. The City is not “insolvent,” as defined in § 101(32)(c), and as required for
eligibility by § 109(c)(3).
9. The City does not desire “to effect a plan to adjust such debts,” as required for
eligibility by § 109(c)(4).
10. The City did not negotiate in good faith with creditors, as required (in the
alternative) for eligibility by § 109(c)(5)(B).
#512 The Detroit Fire Fighters Association, the Detroit Police
#517 Michigan Auto Recovery Service
11. The City was not “unable to negotiate with creditors because such negotiation
is impracticable,” as required (in the alternative) for eligibility by
§ 109(c)(4)(C).
12. The City’s bankruptcy petition should be dismissed because it was filed in bad
faith under § 921(c).
13. The rights created by the pensions clause of the Michigan constitution should
survive bankruptcy under the Supreme Court decision in Midlantic National
Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494,
502 (1986), because the pensions clause is an exercise of the right to enact
“state or local laws designed to protect public health and safety,” which the
City cannot disregard.
#1467 Michigan Council 25 of The American Federation of State,
14. Kevyn Orr was not validly appointed because his initial emergency manager
contract, under P.A. 72, expired before P.A. 436 took effect.
#1222 Krystal Crittendon
Ultimately, each of these issues was resolved in the City’s favor, with the exception of
issue number 10, above. Accordingly, on December 5, 2013, the Court held that the City met the
requirements to be eligible for relief under chapter 9. See Opinion Regarding Eligibility at 1.
(Dkt. #1945)
3. Adversary Proceedings
The resolution of the City’s eligibility was followed by an onslaught of new issues to be
litigated and mediated. Many of the motions have already been identified. The following is a
list of adversary proceedings filed in the case, the parties involved, the issues considered, and the
disposition of each:
1. No. 13-05244, Official Committee of Retirees of Detroit v. City of Detroit, filed
The Official Committee of Retirees, the Detroit Retired City Employees Association, the
Retired Detroit Police and Fire Fighters Association, and AFSCME Sub Chapter 98, City of
Detroit Retirees filed this adversary proceeding in response to the City’s decision to “unilaterally
reduce its funding” of retiree healthcare plans by approximately 80% beginning January 1, 2014.
The plaintiffs argued that the City’s actions violated the Michigan and United States
Constitutions, and they sought, inter alia, an injunction requiring the City to maintain the 2013
levels of health care coverage.
The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an expedited hearing and discovery schedule
on October 23, 2013. Order Setting Expedited Hr’g. (Dkt. #6)
The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on November 8, 2013 (Dkt. #34),
and the case was closed on November 12, 2013.
However, the Committee filed the same claims seeking the same relief against the City
again on January 9, 2014, case No. 14-04015. That case was adjourned in February for the
parties to resume mediation. They settled, and the Court entered an Order of Dismissal on
March 31, 2014. (Dkt. #49)
2. No. 13-05309, National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. v. City of Detroit, filed
In this highly contentious adversary proceeding, National Public Finance Guarantee
Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. sought a declaratory judgment regarding their
“rights and interests in,” and the City’s “obligation with respect to,” a specific property tax the
City collects for the purpose of repaying certain unlimited tax obligation bonds, which bonds
National and Assured insure.
The parties stipulated to a stay of the litigation in September 2014 (Dkt. #85), and the
Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice on October 6, 2014, after the parties
settled. (Dkt. #87)
3. No. 13-05310, Ambac Assurance Corp. v. City of Detroit, filed 11/8/13.
Ambac Assurance Corp. filed an adversary proceeding similar to that of National and
Assured. In case no. 13-05310, Ambac sought a declaratory judgment regarding its interest in
property tax revenues the City collected for the purpose of repaying certain unlimited, as well as
limited, tax obligation bonds which Ambac insured.
The litigation was stayed pursuant to the parties’ agreement in September 2014, and the
Court entered an order dismissing the case without prejudice on October 6, 2014. (Dkt. #108)
4. No. 13-05395, Syncora Guarantee Inc. v. UBS AG, filed 12/2/13.
This action was filed by Syncora Guarantee, Inc. against Merrill Lynch and UBS AG in
July 2013, in New York state court. The suit concerned the parties’ respective interests in the
City’s wagering tax revenues, in which the City had granted a security interest to the defendants
in 2009; the City was thus forced to intervene in the action to protect its access to this vital
revenue stream. See Order Granting Mot. to Intervene at 2. (Dkt. #51) The case was removed
to this Court in December 2013, and Syncora filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in February
2014. (Dkt. #54)
5. No. 14-04112, City of Detroit v. Detroit Retirement System Service Corporations,
filed 1/31/14.
This adversary proceeding relates to the certificates of participation the City issued in
2005 and 2006 in an attempt to address the underfunding in the City’s two retirement systems.
The City filed a complaint against the “service corporations” and “funding trusts” (both are
entities the City created to facilitate the issuance of the COPs), seeking a declaratory judgment
that the contracts between the City and these entities were void ab initio and thus unenforceable.
The Court permitted holders and insurers of the COPs to intervene and to file
counterclaims, with limitations. See Op. and Order Granting Mot. To Intervene at 13 (Dkt. #73);
Order Granting FGIC’s Mot. to File Counterclaims at 2. (Dkt. #114) After confirming the
City’s Eighth Amended Plan for the Adjustment of Debts, the Court entered an order dismissing
this complex and highly contentious proceeding, concluding that all issues were resolved in the
plan. (Dkt. #175)
6. No. 14-04732, Lyda v. City of Detroit, filed 7/21/14.
This highly publicized proceeding concerned the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department’s decision in 2014 to terminate water service to large numbers of delinquent
residential customers. Ten individuals and four organizations filed suit against the City and the
DWSD. The plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the City to halt the shut-offs, restore
service to customers whose service had already been terminated, and directing the City to
implement a water affordability plan for low-income customers.
They also requested a
declaratory judgment that the DWSD’s actions violated their constitutional rights.
After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the requested injunctive relief, and
granted the City’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a flurry of motions for
reconsideration, which the Court denied. See Supp. Op. Clarifying Bench Op. & Denying Mots.
for Recons. at 2. (Dkt. #107) The plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision, and the appeal is
currently before Judge Friedman at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, case no. 15-cv-10038. See Notice of Receipt of Appeal. (Dkt. #122)
7. No. 14-5059, Citizens United Against Corrupt Government v. Detroit City
Council, filed 10/9/14.
Citizens United Against Corrupt Government originally filed this action against the
Detroit City Council in the Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging the City Council violated the
Michigan Open Meetings Act, M.C.L. § 15.268 et seq. The plaintiff sought an injunction
requiring the City Council to publish minutes from certain meetings held September 23-25,
2014, as well as court costs and attorney fees.
On the City’s motion, the case was removed to this Court on October 9, 2014. Plaintiff
filed emergency motions seeking to have the case remanded back to the state court and/or
abstention by this Court. The Court denied both motions. See Op. and Order at 1. (Dkt. #25)
Meanwhile, the Council filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the meetings
were covered by the exemption to the Open Meetings Act for attorney/client privilege, M.C.L.
§ 15.268(e), that the matters discussed were exempt from disclosure under the Michigan
Freedom of Information Act, and that the matters were covered by this Court’s mediation
confidentiality order. The Court agreed with the Council, and entered an order granting the
Council’s motion for summary judgment on December 31, 2014. (Dkt. #24)
The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for attorney
fees and court costs, both of which the Court denied.
8. No. 14-05086, Alexander v. Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, filed
William Alexander instituted this action against the DWSD in the 36th District Court in
January 2014, seeking damages allegedly arising from a ruptured water pipe, and filing a lien
against property of the DWSD. In October 2014, Mr. Alexander, acting pro se, filed several
pleadings in the bankruptcy court in an apparent attempt to have this Court hear his claim.
Following a hearing on November 12, 2014, the Court concluded that Mr. Alexander’s
claims against the DWSD should be dismissed in their entirety and all liens declared void,
because in filing the action, Mr. Alexander violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).
See Order Dismissing Adv. Pro. and Voiding Liens. (Dkt. #20)
The final stage of the bankruptcy was the hearing on confirmation of the City’s plan. The
following represented parties objected to confirmation of the plan but subsequently withdrew
their objections due to settlements with the City:
Oakland County (Dkt. ##4627 and 6648);
The United States (Dkt. #4629);
Macomb County (Dkt. ##4636, 6666 and 7039);
U.S. Bank National Association (Dkt. ##4647 and 6679);
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc., Eaton Vance Management, Fidelity
Management & Research Company, Franklin Advisers, Inc. and Nuveen Asset
Management (the “DWSD Bondholders”) (Dkt. ##4650, 4671 and 6681);
Hypothekenbank Frankfurt AG, Hypothekenbank Frankfurt International S.A., Erste
Europäische Pfandbrief- und Kommunalkreditbank Aktiengesellschaft in Luxemburg
S.A., Deutsche Bank AG, London; Dexia Crédit Local, Dexia Holdings, Inc., and
FMS Wertmanagement AöR (Dkt. ##4653 and 5979);
Wilmington Trust, N.A. (Dkt. ##4656, 6678, 7050 and 7603);
Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corporation (Dkt. ##4657 and 6680);
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) (Dkt. ##4660, 6674 and 7611);
Wayne County (Dkt. #4663);
National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“NPFG”) (Dkt. ##4665 and 6687);
Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc. and UBS AG (“the Swap Counterparties”) (Dkt.
#4668);
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (Dkt. ##4674 and 6677);
Ambac Assurance Corp. (Dkt. #4677);
Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. and Syncora Guarantee Inc. (“Syncora”) (Dkt.
##4679, 6651, 7041 and 7213);
BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. (Dkt. #4681);
The Detroit Police Officers Association (Dkt. ##4901 and 4938);
The Detroit Fire Fighters Association (Dkt. #4918);
The UAW (Dkt. #6464);
AFSCME Council 25 (Dkt. ##6466, 6468 and 7063);
BlueMountain Capital Management, LLC (Dkt. #6506);
The Detroit Retirement Systems (Dkt. ##6659, 6676, 6762 and 7052);
FGIC, Dexia Crédit Local and Dexia Holdings, Inc., Panning Capital Management,
LP, Monarch Alternative Capital LP, Bronze Gable, L.L.C., Aurelius Capital
Management, LP, Stone Lion Capital Partners L.P., BlueMountain Capital
Management, LLC, and Deutsche Bank AG, London (“the COPs Holders”) (Dkt.
##7046 and 7615); and
The Macomb Interceptor Drain Drainage District. (Dkt. #7612)
These parties raised numerous issues, including:
1. The plan is inconsistent with the Swap Settlement Agreement.
2. The plan does not specifically exclude from treatment the City’s potential
liabilities not within the definition of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5).
3. The classes of creditors are confusing and claimants cannot determine to which
class they belong.
4. Objections to the treatment of certain types of claims.
5. Improper third party releases/injunctions/exculpations.
6. Objections arising under § 365(b)(1) and (c).
7. Objections arising under § 942: the debtor may modify the plan at any time before
confirmation, but may not modify the plan so that the plan as modified fails to
meet the requirements of this chapter.
8. Settlements in the plan are not reasonable under bankruptcy rule 9019.
9. The plan cannot be confirmed because it does not comply with provisions of
chapter 9, and the bankruptcy code generally.
10. The plan cannot be confirmed because it requires the City to take actions that are
prohibited by law in violation of § 943(b)(4).
11. The plan cannot be confirmed because it was not proposed in good faith and/or
because it proposed by means prohibited by law as required by §1129(a)(3).
12. The plan cannot be confirmed because the City has failed to obtain necessary
regulatory or electoral approval relating to certain provisions of the plan and has
not made such provisions of the plan conditioned on such approval as required
under § 943(b)(6).
13. The plan cannot be confirmed because it is not in the best interest of creditors or
feasible under §943(b)(7).
14. The plan cannot be confirmed because it either is not fair and equitable or it
discriminates unfairly against unsecured creditors under §1129(b)(1) and (2)(B).
The objecting parties who were represented by attorneys and who maintained their
Ben McKenzie, Jr. (Dkt. #3230);
T&T Management, Inc., HRT Enterprises, and the John W. and Vivian M. Denis
Trust (Dkt. #3412);
Hyde Park Cooperative (Dkt. #3497);
The Housing Is a Human Rights Coalition (Dkt. #3511);
Deborah Ryan, Walter Swift, Cristobal Mendoza and Annica Cuppetelli (Dkt.
##4099, 4608 and 5690);
Dwayne Provience, Richard Mack, and Gerald and Alecia Wilcox (Dkt. ##4224,
4226, 4228, 6764 and 6900);
David Sole (Dkt. #4318);
John Cato (Dkt. #4376);
Carlton Carter, Bobby Jones, Roderick Holley and Richard T. Weatherly (Dkt.
#4625);
Robert Cole (Dkt. ##4930 and 4950);
The Ochadleus parties (Dkt. ##5788, 5964, 6642, 6671, 6995 and 7523);
The Section 1983 Plaintiffs (Dkt. #6911); and
Johnathan Brown. (Dkt. #8170)
Unrepresented creditors filed 1159 objections to confirmation of the City’s plan. Of
these, 836 were timely filed. After reviewing all of these objections, the Court invited 79
individuals, constituting a cross-section of the objecting parties and their objections, to state and
argue their objections at a hearing on July 15, 2014. At the hearing, 46 of these 79 objectors
The Court also invited unrepresented parties to file motions requesting to participate in
the confirmation hearing. Parties filed 36 such motions. Upon its review of each motion, the
Court allowed seven parties to testify and an additional eight parties to participate in the
confirmation trial.
The objections filed by unrepresented parties are summarized below:
1. The ASF recoupment is improper.
2. The plan is not in the best interests of creditors.
3. The plan unfairly discriminates.
4. The plan violates § 1123(a)(4) by providing different treatment among class 11
5. The plan is not feasible.
6. The plan violates the funding clause of the Michigan constitution because it does not
require the City to make up missed payments to the pension fund if outside funding
7. The City did not provide adequate notice of amended plans and disclosure statements,
objection deadlines, or voting rights.
8. The due process rights of creditors have been violated by the Court’s haste in this
9. The plan impairs pension holders’ claims against the retirement systems.
10. The DWSD and library pensions were fully funded so they should not be impaired.
11. The vote solicitation and balloting procedures were unlawful and unfair.
12. The plan’s third-party release provisions are improper.
13. The plan improperly offers a higher recovery to classes 10 and 11 if they vote in favor
14. The UTGO settlement violates state law.
15. The plan violates the Blighted Area Rehabilitation Act (Mich. Comp. Laws.
§§ 125.71-125.84).
16. The Grand Bargain is an improper use of tobacco settlement money.
17. The plan violates the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. § 5333(b)) with respect to
DDOT employees.
18. The pension underfunding is overstated and therefore the pensions are improperly
19. The use of a 6.75% discount rate in the pension settlement is improper.
There were a number of appeals, both to the district court and the Sixth Circuit. The
majority of the appeals were voluntarily dismissed as part of the various settlements between the
parties. Some of the appeals were dismissed by the presiding court. The appeals and their
dispositions are set forth below.
Appeals to District Court:
1. 13-14305, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 10/10/13: Syncora appealed this Court’s order
finding that the casino revenues are property of the estate and subject to automatic stay.
The district court issued a stay, which was vacated by order of the 6th circuit. The
district court affirmed this Court’s order. Syncora appealed the decision to 6th circuit.
The parties filed briefs and oral arguments were held on 7/14/14. The parties stipulated
to hold the case in abeyance. A stipulated order of dismissal was entered on 1/14/15.
2. 13-15270, NAACP v. City of Detroit, filed 12/30/13: The NAACP appealed the order
denying relief from automatic stay. Briefs were filed. The case was stayed pending
outcome of direct appeals to the 6th circuit. NAACP filed notice of appeal of stay order.
Appeal filed in 6th circuit (see below).
3. 14-10503, City of Detroit v. Various Town House Cooperatives, filed 2/3/14, closed
3/14/14: City’s appeal from order lifting stay to allow class action suit filed by
cooperatives to proceed. On stipulation, appeal dismissed with prejudice.
4. 14-10434, AFSCME v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14, closed 3/25/14: AFSCME’s appeal
from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. City’s motion to consolidate 7 of the appeals
from eligibility order and order for relief is denied and motion to stay briefing deadline
until requests to appeal to 6th circuit are resolved is granted.
5. 14-10435, Police and Fire Retirement System v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14, closed
3/25/14: Retirement System’s appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief.
Scheduling order entered. Briefing deadline stayed.
6. 14-10436, Retiree Committee v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14, closed 3/25/14:
Committee’s appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. Scheduling order
entered. Briefing deadline stayed.
7. 14-10437, Retired Detroit Police and Firefighters Assoc. v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14,
closed 3/25/14: Assoc.’s appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. Scheduling
order entered. Briefing deadline stayed.
8. 14-10438, Retired Detroit Police Members Assoc. v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14, closed
3/25/14: Assoc.’s appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. Scheduling order
9. 14-10439, Detroit Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14, closed 3/25/14:
Assoc.’s appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. Scheduling order entered.
Briefing deadline stayed.
10. 14-10440, UAW and Flowers Plaintiffs v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14, closed 3/25/14:
UAW and Flowers’ appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. Scheduling order
11. 14-10441, Williams and Aleem v. City of Detroit, filed 1/30/14: Williams and Aleem’s
appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. City filed response that appeal is
untimely and should be filed with the 6th circuit. City filed motion to dismiss. Appellants
filed reply to City’s original response and response to motion to dismiss and motion to
strike motion to dismiss. Appellants filed objection to motion to consolidate (which was
not filed in this case). Case stayed pending outcome of direct appeals to 6th circuit.
Order dismissing case 1/16/15.
12. 14-10501, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 2/3/14: Syncora’s appeal from order
authorizing City to enter into transaction documents with Public Lighting Authority.
Scheduling order entered. Syncora filed brief. City filed motion to dismiss for mootness.
City filed motion for a status conference and Syncora filed response to motion to dismiss.
PLA filed concurrence to motion to dismiss. Appellee brief and appellant reply filed.
Case stayed pending outcome of direct appeals to 6th circuit. Syncora’s motion to lift
stay denied. Syncora filed new motion to lift stay based on 6th Circuit decision in 141719 (see below). Response filed. Reply to motion to dismiss filed. Stayed pending
confirmation. Stipulated order dismissing case entered 1/14/15.
13. 14-10509, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 2/4/14: Syncora’s motion to withdraw
reference of action now pending as Adversary Proceeding 13-4942 (City’s suit against
Syncora and Casinos for interference with contractual and advantageous relations). This
is Syncora’s second motion to withdraw the reference of this matter. First motion
withdrawn in 13-14759. Response filed by City. Syncora filed reply brief. Case stayed
pending outcome of direct appeals to 6th circuit. Dismissed by stipulation 1/20/15.
14. 14-10630, Gov. Snyder v. AFSCME et al, filed 2/11/14: Gov. Snyder’s appeal from order
denying NAACP relief from stay and granting Phillips relief from stay. Appellant brief
filed. Appellants filed motion to stay bankruptcy order pending this appeal and appellee
filed response. Appellee brief filed. Request for oral arguments filed. Case stayed
pending outcome of direct appeals to 6th circuit. Appellant filed motion for certification
for interlocutory appeal regarding stay and response filed. Dismissed by stipulation
15. 14-10637, City of Detroit v. Phillips, AFSCME et al, filed 2/11/14: City’s appeal from
order denying NAACP relief from stay and granting Phillips relief from stay. Appellant
brief filed; appellee brief filed. Request for oral arguments filed. Case stayed pending
outcome of direct appeals to 6th circuit. Court denied City’s motion to reconsider stay
order. Dismissed by stipulation 1/16/15.
16. 14-11542, Jeffrey Sanders v. City of Detroit, filed 4/16/14, closed 5/16/14: Appeal from
order denying “Motion for Incumbent Judgment and Relief.” Case dismissed.
17. 14-11782, Jeffrey Sanders v. City of Detroit, filed 5/5/2014, closed 6/30/14: Appeal from
order denying application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees. Case
18. 14-11995, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 5/19/14, closed 9/17/14: Appeal from order
approving post-petition financing. Case stayed pending outcome of direct appeals to 6th
circuit. Syncora filed motion for certification of direct appeal to 6th circuit. Syncora’s
motion to lift stay denied. Syncora filed new motion to lift stay based on 6th Circuit
decision in 14-1719 (see below). Response filed. City’s motion to dismiss granted,
motion for direct appeal denied as moot.
19. 14-11997, EEPK et al v. City of Detroit, filed 5/20/14: Appeal from order approving
post-petition financing. Case stayed pending outcome of direct appeals to 6th circuit.
Order dismissing case 1/27/15
20. 14-12062, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 5/22/14: Appeal from order approving
settlement with Swap Counterparties. Syncora filed motion for certification of direct
appeal to 6th circuit. Case stayed pending outcome of direct appeals of eligibility to 6th
circuit. Syncora filed new motion to lift stay based on 6th Circuit decision in 14-1719.
Swap Counterparties permitted to intervene. Court granted motions to lift stay and
certify direct appeal. Dismissed by stipulation 1/14/15.
21. 14-12163, COPs Holders v. City of Detroit, filed 6/2/14: Appeal from order approving
settlement with Swap Counterparties. Case stayed pending outcome of direct appeals of
eligibility to 6th circuit. Swap Counterparties permitted to intervene. Dismissed by
stipulated order 1/27/15.
22. 14-13044, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 8/6/14: Syncora’s appeal from order denying
motion to unseal mediation order. Case dismissed for failure to file briefs. Syncora filed
motion to reconsider order of dismissal. Motion granted, case reinstated and briefs filed.
Stayed pending confirmation. Stipulation of dismissal filed 1/9/15.
23. 14-13118, Albert O’Rourke v. City of Detroit, filed 8/13/14, closed 9/24/14: Appeal from
denial of Mr. O’Rourke’s proof of claim. Case dismissed and closed 9/24/14. O’Rourke
has filed an appeal to the 6th Circuit (Case #14-2329)
24. 14-13471, City of Detroit v. Allen Park Retirees Assoc., filed 9/8/14: Appeal from order
granting relief from stay regarding Allen Park emergency manager lawsuit. Briefs filed.
Dismissed by stipulated order 1/14/15.
25. 14-13562, City of Detroit v. Allen Park Retiree Assoc., filed 9/15/14: Appeal from order
lifting stay regarding Allen Park emergency manager lawsuit. This case was
consolidated with 14-13471 and closed on 9/29/14.
26. 14-14020, Gloria Jones v. City of Detroit, filed 10/20/14: Appeal from order denying Ms.
Jones participation in confirmation hearing. Order dismissing appeal as frivolous
27. 14-14346, City of Detroit v. AFSCME, filed 11/12/14: Appeal from order lifting stay
regarding Flint emergency manager lawsuit. Voluntarily dismissed by order 12/18/14.
28. 14-14548, AFSCME v. City of Detroit, filed 12/2/14: Appeal from order regarding City’s
objection to proof of claim #2958. Currently pending.
29. 14-14651, Deborah Taitt v. City of Detroit, filed 12/9/14: Appeal of order denying
motion for reconsideration. Order dismissing appeal entered 1/8/15 for failure to pay
30. 14-14706, Greenhill & Co. v. City of Detroit, filed 12/12/14: Appeal from opinion and
order determining that fees of retirement systems’ professionals are subject to
§ 943(b)(3). Currently pending. Briefs due in March.
31. 14-14872, William Ochadleus, et al. v. City of Detroit, filed 12/23/14: Appeal from order
confirming plan. Currently pending.
32. 14-14899, John Quinn v. City of Detroit, filed 12/29/14, appeal of order confirming plan.
33. 14-14910, Thomas Cipollone v. City of Detroit, filed 12/29/14: Appeal of order
34. 14-14917, Dennis Taubitz and Irma Industrious v. City of Detroit, filed 12/30/14: Appeal
of order confirming plan. Currently pending.
35. 14-14919, Jonathan Aaron Brown v. City of Detroit, filed 12/30/14: Appeal of order
36. 14-14920, William Davis v. City of Detroit, filed 12/30/14: Appeal of order confirming
plan. Currently pending.
37. 14-14923, Cornell E. Squires v. City of Detroit, filed 12/30/14: Appeal of order
confirming plan. Order of dismissal entered 1/30/15 due to appellant’s failure to
designate the record and file statement of issues.
38. 15-10036, Lucinda Darrah v. City of Detroit, filed 1/7/15: Appeal of order confirming
39. 15-10038, Lyda v. City of Detroit, filed 1/7/15: Appeal of this Court’s dismissal of AP
#14-04732, which involved the DWSD’s termination of water services to delinquent
customers. Briefs have been filed. Currently pending.
In addition, on September 11, 2013, the Official Committee of Retirees, filed a motion to
withdraw the reference of its eligibility objection. (13-13873) The City filed a response. The
matter was dismissed by stipulation 12/18/14.
Appeals to the Sixth Circuit:
1. 14-1208 and 14-1209, 14-1211 through 14-1215, Police and Fire Retirement System et al
v. City, filed 12/26/13: Consolidated direct appeals of eligibility. Amicus briefs filed by
multiple parties, mostly retirement associations from other states. Appellee briefs filed
by City, State, Attorney General, and the United States. On request of the parties, cases
held in abeyance without date. Case No. 14-1209 dismissed by stipulated order on
12/12/14; Case Nos. 14-1208, 14-1211 through 14-1215 dismissed by stipulated order
1/09/14.
2. 14-0106, In re: Carl Williams, filed 2/19/14: Williams and Aleem filed petition for leave
to appeal from Eligibility Order and Order for Relief. City filed objection to petition for
leave to appeal. Petition denied. Appellants filed petition for rehearing before original
panel. Request denied 6/26/14. No further action to be taken by 6th Circuit.
3. 14-1560, NAACP v. City of Detroit, filed 5/5/14: NAACP’s appeal relating to 13-15270
pending in district court (appeal from order denying relief from automatic stay). City’s
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction granted 7/24/14.
4. 14-1652, Jeffrey Sanders v. City of Detroit, filed 5/23/14: Sanders filed appeal relating to
14-11542 (dismissal of appeal of bankruptcy order denying “Motion for Incumbent
Judgment and Relief”). Case dismissed for lack of prosecution 7/29/14.
5. 14-1719, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 6/10/14: Syncora filed petition for writ of
mandamus relating to 13-14305 pending in district court (appeal from order that casino
revenues are part of the bankruptcy estate). City filed a response. Syncora filed a reply.
Petition granted; District Court ordered to adjudicate appeal by 7/14/14. Case No. 1314305 dismissed on 1/14/15 (see above).
6. 14-1864, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 7/14/14: Syncora filed appeal of decision in 1314305. Expedited briefing schedule set: briefs filed. Oral arguments held 7/30/14. Case
held in abeyance. Stipulated order of dismissal 1/14/15.
7. 14-0109, In re: Syncora, filed 7/24/14: Syncora filed petition for direct appeal of order
approving settlement with Swap counterparties. (Certification for direct appeal granted in
district court case 14-12062.) Dismissed by stipulated order 1/14/15.
8. 14-2327, Syncora v. City of Detroit, filed 10/14/14: Syncora filed appeal of order
approving post-petition financing. Case held in abeyance pending confirmation. Case
dismissed by stipulation 1/13/15.
9. 14-112, In re: Carl Williams, filed 12/30/2014: Williams filed a petition for direct appeal
of the Court’s eligibility determination.
In its Supplemental Opinion Regarding Plan Confirmation, Approving Settlements, and
Approving Exit Financing (Dkt. #8993), the Court described that at the same time that many
City-paid professionals litigated and testified in court regarding these motions, objections to
eligibility, adversary proceedings and objections to confirmation (not to mention appeals),
“another process that was fundamental to the City’s plan and its revitalization was unfolding.”
Id. at 15. That process was the hugely complex mediation among the City’s elected leadership,
the office of the emergency manager, and the City’s many creditors, unions and other
The mediation process began on August 18, 2013, exactly one month after the City filed
its petition for relief, with the appointment of Chief United States District Judge Gerald Rosen.
See Mediation Order. (Dkt. #322) Chief Judge Rosen then appointed a team of mediators—
District Judge Victoria Roberts, District Judge Sean Cox, District Judge Wiley Daniel,
Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris, and attorney Eugene Driker—to assist in the mediations. See
Detroit Chapter 9 Mediation Team Announced at 2. (Dkt. #542) The mediations covered eight
different major topics (and countless sub-topics), as reflected in the Court’s various orders
referring matters to facilitative mediation:
1. The treatment of claims of the various creditor classes and negotiation/re-negotiation of
several city collective bargaining agreements (Dkt. #333);
2. The unwinding of the interest rate Swap agreements related to the 2005-06 certificates of
participation and the resulting encumbrance of the City’s casino tax revenue (Dkt. #562);
3. Labor-related issues (Dkt. #1101);
4. Limited tax obligation bond matters (Dkt. #2344);
5. Unlimited tax obligation bond matters (Dkt. #2345);
6. Matters related to bonds issued by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (Dkt.
#2346);
7. Matters related specifically to the 2005-2006 certificates of participation (Dkt. #5612);
8. The formation of the Great Lakes Water Authority (Dkt. #8468).
The Court has little insight into the mediation sessions because they were confidential.
Nevertheless, the Court did observe the effort required by many of the City-paid professionals as
reflected in the number of parties ordered by Chief Judge Rosen to participate in the mediation
and the numerous orders to continue mediation sessions. For example, the City, the retirement
systems, and the retiree committee, all of whose professional fees and expenses are all subject to
§ 943(b)(3), were directed to appear for mediation sessions related to the first mediation order,
along with at least eleven other parties on at least four different days. See Orders to Appear for
Mediation. (Dkt. ##334, 527, 704, 738, 1291) In many of these instances, they were required to
appear with counsel and with party representatives possessing the authority to settle claims.
In the second mediation, the City and the retirement systems were ordered to appear and
mediate with approximately sixteen different parties on three different days, including December
23 and 24, 2013. See Orders to Appear for Mediation. (Dkt. ##593, 2262) In the third
mediation, which began in October 2013, the City was ordered to mediate labor issues with over
twenty different unions. See Third Order Referring Matters to Facilitative Mediation at 1. (Dkt.
#1101) The City was also ordered to continue mediation specifically with the Detroit Fire
Fighters Association again in the summer of 2014, and with AFSCME Council 25 in late
September/early October. See Order to Appear for Continued Mediation (Dkt. #5920); Orders
re: Facilitative Mediation. (Dkt. ##7663, 7876)
The remaining mediation sessions appear to be of similar size and scope.
between mediation over DWSD bonds and the formation of the Great Lakes Water Authority,
the City was ordered to mediate with at least twenty parties over the course of eight different
sessions between January and October 2014 on DWSD-related issues alone. See Orders re:
Mediation. (Dkt. ##2346, 4156, 4206, 4207, 5452, 6068, 6131, 6484, 7732, 8468)
However, the best evidence of the immense effort that the City-paid professionals put
into mediation is the fact that the City’s confirmed plan is entirely consensual by those parties
that participated in mediation. The Court approved three settlements with major creditor groups
during the course of the proceedings, resulting in the withdrawal of these creditors’ plan
objections. In confirming the City’s plan, the Court approved an additional ten settlements with
major creditor groups. The City also executed a framework and memorandum of understanding
with Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland Counties for the formation of the Great Lakes Water
Authority, which resulted in those parties withdrawing their objections to the City’s plan.
In addition, with the assistance of mediation, the City negotiated collective bargaining
agreements with its multiple unions.
Finally, the City mediated the resolution of the claims of a number of potential judgment
creditors. See, e.g., Alternative Dispute Resolution Notices, each designating multiple claims for
facilitative mediation. (Dkt. ##5674, 5676, 5677, 5678, 5679, 5680, 5681, 5683, 5684, 5686,
5687, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126, 6164, 6165, 6181, 6187, 6224, 6347, 6685, 8430)
Even after the parties reached settlements in mediation, the professionals and their
advisors had to participate in negotiating, drafting and executing the agreements that
memorialized and implemented the many settlements. Many of these are reflected as exhibits to
the plan, including:
1. The Principal Terms of the 36th District Court Settlement, plan exhibit
I.A.9;
2. the Retiree Health Care Settlement Agreement, which dealt with retiree
health care coverage through the pendency of the bankruptcy and settled
the related adversary proceedings, plan exhibit I.A.298;
3. the Detroit General Retirement System VEBA Trust Agreement, which
deals with the healthcare and other post-employment benefit claims for
general retirees post-bankruptcy, plan exhibit I.A.108;
4. the Detroit Police and Fire VEBA Trust Agreement, which deals with the
same post-employment benefits, but for uniformed retirees, plan exhibit
I.A.112;
5. the Omnibus Transaction Agreement by and among the City of Detroit,
the Detroit Institute of Arts, and Foundation for Detroit’s Future, which is
one component of the Grand Bargain, and which itself encompasses the
Settlement, Conveyance and Charitable Trust Agreement between the City
and the DIA, the Foundation FDF Agreement, the DIA Direct Funder FDF
Agreement, and the DIA FDF Agreement. Each of these components is
also made up of several different agreements, all of which are reflected in
plan exhibit I.A.127;
6. the State Contribution Agreement, which is another component of the
Grand Bargain, plan exhibit I.A.332;
7. the Restoration Trust Agreement, which relates to the restoration of
pension benefits in the event of a certain DWSD transaction, plan exhibit
I.A.292;
8. the PFRS Pension Restoration Agreement, which relates to the restoration
of pension benefits depending on the performance of investments in the
police and fire retirement system, plan exhibit II.B.3.q.ii.C;
9. the GRS Pension Restoration Agreement, which is similar to the PFRS
Pension Restoration Agreement, except for general retirees, plan exhibit
II.B.3.r.ii.C;
10. the UTGO Settlement Agreement, plan exhibit I.A.360;
11. the LTGO Settlement Agreement, plan exhibit I.A.237;
12. the Syncora COP settlement agreement documents, including the
Settlement Agreement, the Tunnel Lease Amendment, and the Option
Agreement, which relates to the Grand Circus Garage, plan exhibit
I.A.344;
13. the Syncora Development Agreement/Option to Purchase and Develop
Land by and between the City of Detroit and Pike Pointe Holdings, LLC,
plan exhibit I.A.340;
14. the FGIC/COP claim settlement agreement, plan exhibit I.A.197;
15. the FGIC Development Agreement/Option to Acquire and Development
Land by and among the City of Detroit, the State of Michigan, and
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, plan exhibit I.A.198;
16. documents related to the DWSD bond settlement, including the Water
Bond Purchase Agreement, Sewer Bond Purchase Agreement, Water
MFA Purchase Agreement, Sewer MFA Purchase Agreement, Water
Bond Purchase Agreement (Direct Placement), Sewer Bond Purchase
Agreement (Direct Placement), the Assured Insurance Commitment, the
2014 DWSD Refunding Bonds Insurance Policies, the 2014 DWSD
Refunding Bonds Surety Policies, and the National insurance
commitment, which were not filed as exhibits to the plan, but which are
available in the Order Pursuant to (I) 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 364(c), 364(d)(1),
364(e), 902, 904, 921, 922 and 928 (A) Approving Postpetition Financing,
(B) Granting Liens and (II) Bankruptcy Rule 9019 Approving Settlement
of Confirmation Objections, entered on August 25, 2014. (Dkt. #7028)
In addition, many City-paid professionals were required to participate in negotiating,
drafting and executing documents related to the sourcing and execution of the exit financing
(plan exhibit I.A.183); the issuance of new notes under the plan, including New B Notes (plan
exhibits I.A.246, I.A.247) and New C Notes (plan exhibits I.A.248, I.A.249); and establishing
the new pension plans for active city employees (plan exhibits I.A.250.a & .b, I.A.254.a & .b).
The City and the DWSD, together, executed approximately 47 new, modified, or supplemental
collective bargaining agreements with the City’s unions between the time the City’s petition was
filed and the effective date of the plan. See Schedule of Postpetition Collective Bargaining
Agreements, plan exhibit II.D.5. (Dkt. #8045)
B. The Results for the City
The City filed ten plans of adjustment. Most of the amended plans were the result of
successive creditor settlements and agreements.
The City filed its first plan and disclosure statement on February 21, 2014 (Dkt. ##2708
and 2709), ahead of the March 1, 2014, deadline that this Court first set.
On March 31, 2014, the City filed an amended plan and disclosure statement. (Dkt.
##3380 and 3382) This plan incorporated the Court-approved Swap settlement agreement and
the initial stages of the Grand Bargain.
On April 16, 2014, the City filed its second amended plan and disclosure statement.
(Dkt. ##4140 and 4141) It clarified and expanded on aspects of the Grand Bargain and added the
settlements relating to the restoration of benefits, the ASF recoupment and the income
It also clarified and expanded on aspects of the OPEB settlement,
incorporated the UTGO settlement, and introduced the concept of post-effective date oversight
On April 25, 2014, the City filed its third amended plan and disclosure statement. (Dkt.
##4271 and 4272) This plan incorporated the parties’ agreements that clarified and expanded
upon the provisions for restoration of PFRS pension benefits and other aspects of the Grand
Bargain and the OPEB settlement. It also clarified the treatment of claims relating to the
operation of City vehicles, tax refund claims, utility deposits and pass-through claims.
On May 5, 2014, the City filed its fourth amended plan and disclosure statement. (Dkt.
##4391 and 4392) The Court approved that disclosure statement. (Dkt. #4401) The City served
solicitation packages, including this plan and disclosure statement, and plan ballots. (Dkt.
##4421 and 6179) It also published notice of the plan and the disclosure statement in the Detroit
News, the Detroit Free Press, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. (Dkt. ##6209, 6211 and
6253) This amended plan incorporated the final aspects of the Grand Bargain, including final
agreements relating to restoration of pension benefits and pension plan governance, as well as
the OPEB settlement.
On July 25, 2014, the City filed a fifth amended plan.
(Dkt. #6257)
incorporated the LTGO settlement and the 36th District Court settlement. It also added the cash
payment option for the ASF recoupment settlement, and specified the composition of the two
Voluntary Employee Benefit Association (“VEBA”) boards created as part of the OPEB
settlement. Clarifications and changes were also made to the Grand Bargain and the UTGO
On July 29, 2014, the City filed a corrected fifth amended plan. (Dkt. #6379) This plan
removed the provisions for post-confirmation reporting to the bankruptcy court that were
apparently included in the fifth amended plan by mistake.
On August 20, 2014, the City filed its sixth amended plan. (Dkt. #6908) This plan
incorporated the DWSD bondholders’ settlement.
On September 16, 2014, the City filed its seventh amended plan. (Dkt. #7502) This plan
incorporated the Syncora global settlement and set forth the treatment of COPs claims in class 9.
It also incorporated agreements with the retiree committee and the LTGO parties regarding the
residual interests in the COP claims reserve. It also reflected the closing and completion of the
DWSD bond tender offer and further specified how the two VEBA boards would be comprised.
It also provided for the prepayment to creditors in classes 7, 12 and 14 of the October 2015
interest payment on the Excess New B Notes.
On October 22, 2014, the City filed its eighth and last amended plan. (Dkt. #8045) This
final plan reflects the City’s settlement with FGIC, its last objecting financial creditor. It also
reflects the settlement with the UAW and AFSCME regarding the treatment of retirees of the
Detroit Public Library and the Detroit Regional Convention Facility Authority.
represents a complete restructuring of the City’s debt. The City settled with every major creditor
Because of the plan, the City eliminated approximately $7 billion in liabilities. Trial Tr.
70:4-7, Sept. 30, 2014. (Dkt. #7821)
Upon exiting bankruptcy, the City proposed to issue “New B Notes” in the aggregate face
amount of $632 million and “New C Notes” in the aggregate face amount of $88 million. These
new notes will be used to restructure the City’s obligations for post-retirement health benefits,
debt service on several types of bonds and other unsecured liabilities. Ex. 791. The City also
restructured its unlimited tax general obligation bonds at a significant savings and proposed the
use of exit financing to retire many of its limited tax general obligation bonds. Ex. 791. In
addition, the settlements with FGIC, the City’s largest creditor, and Syncora include real estate
development agreements that give these creditors vested stakes in the City’s recovery.
The plan also contemplates post-bankruptcy financial oversight of the City to ensure that
the fiscal exigencies that resulted in the City’s chapter 9 bankruptcy never happen again. The
state legislation that implemented the Grand Bargain created a financial review commission to
review the City’s finances and budgets to ensure that the City adheres to the plan and continues
to implement needed financial and operational reforms. Mich. Comp. Laws § 141.1631 et seq.
The GRS and PFRS are also required to create investment committees whose role will be
to make recommendations to, and approve certain actions by, the respective system’s board of
trustees. Mich. Comp. Laws § 38.1133g; Eighth Am. Plan of Adjustment (hereafter cited as
“Plan”), Ex. I.A.332 at 2. (Dkt. #8045)
Finally, because of the financial reforms contained in the plan, the City is able to invest
approximately $1.7 billion in several reinvestment and restructuring initiatives (“RRIs”) over ten
years to help improve the City government’s infrastructure and its provision of services. Ex.
579. These RRIs are designed to “substantially improve and provide adequate levels of services,
as well as enhance revenue and reduce costs.” Trial Tr. 42:11-12, Sept. 5, 2014. (Dkt. #7434)
The City believes these RRIs will also result in approximately $841 million in revenue savings
and that they are critical to the City’s recovery after bankruptcy. Ex. 592; see also Fourth Am.
Disclosure Statement (hereafter cited as “Disc. Stmt.”) at 160. (Dkt. #4391) The RRIs will,
(a) Provide basic, essential services to City residents; (b) attract
new residents and businesses to foster growth and redevelopment;
(c) reduce crime; (d) demolish blighted and dangerous properties;
(e) provide functional streetlights that are aligned with the current
population footprint; (f) improve information technology systems,
thereby increasing efficiency and decreasing costs; and (g)
otherwise set the City on a path toward a better future.
Disc. Stmt. at 10. (Dkt. #4391)
C. The Fee Review Process
On August 19, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing Robert Fishman as the fee
examiner for this case (the “Fee Examiner Order”). (Dkt. #383) Under that order, Mr. Fishman
was required “to assure the Court, the City, the creditors, and the public that the City’s
Professional Fee Expenses are fully disclosed and are reasonable, as required by § 943(b)(3).”
Id., ¶ 3 at 1. “Professional Fee Expenses” are defined to include “professional compensation and
reimbursement of expense obligations . . . that the City incurs in connection with this case
whether payable to professionals employed by the City or by others.” Id., ¶ 2 at 1.
The Fee Examiner Order was followed by an order on September 11, 2013, which
established the fee review process (the “Fee Review Order”). (Dkt. #810) Under the Fee
Review Order, certain professionals6 were required to submit detailed monthly fee statements to
Mr. Fishman and his staff. Mr. Fishman then responded to the professionals with a preliminary
The Fee Review Order required the City and the Retiree Committee to submit “a list of
all professionals who have been retained to render services in connection with the Case and who
seek payment of compensation and expenses from the City for post-petition services, excluding
ordinary course professionals hired by the City not in conjunction with the Case, but rather in the
same contexts and capacities as such professionals were typically hired prior to the
commencement of the Case.” Id., ¶ 1 at 2. (Dkt. #810)
The City identified: 1) Conway MacKenzie, Inc., 2) Dykema Gossett, PLLC, 3) Ernst &
Young PLLC, 4) Jones Day, 5) Foley & Lardner LLP, 6) Kilpatrick & Associates, PC, 7)
Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, 8) Miller Buckfire & Co. LLC, 9) Miller, Canfield, Paddock
& Stone, P.L.C., 10) Milliman, Inc., 11) Ottenwess, Allman & Taweel, PLLC, and 12) Pepper
Hamilton LLP; and the Retiree Committee identified: 1) Dentons US LLP, 2) Brooks Wilkins
Sharkey & Turco PLLC, 3) Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, and 4) Segal Consulting. See Fee
Examiner’s Quarterly Report, ¶ 2 at 2. (Dkt. #2642)
As discussed earlier in this opinion, the Court subsequently held that § 943(b)(3)’s review
mandate extends to the fees paid in connection with the City’s bankruptcy case to US Bank in its
capacity as trustee for certain DWSD bonds, and professionals retained by the City’s two
retirement systems. The Court notes here that these are not all of the professionals subject to the
Court’s § 943(b)(3) review; rather, these are the only professionals subject to the fee examiner
report regarding whether he found the fees and expenses reasonable. If he identified any issues,
the professional had the opportunity to meet and confer with Mr. Fishman in an effort to resolve
these issues. Examples of the issues Mr. Fishman identified, and which the professionals subject
to his review subsequently addressed, include insufficient detail in invoices, use of senior level
professionals for certain kinds of tasks, whether certain tasks were necessary or beneficial, and
the lumping together of substantively different kinds of tasks which made meaningful review
more difficult. See, e.g., Fee Examiner’s Final Monthly Report at 4-7, Ex. Group 1, Part 1, in
Fee Examiner’s First Quarterly Report. (Dkt. #2642) This process resulted in substantial
reductions in fees and expenses each month.
Thereafter, the fee examiner filed quarterly reports, and sometimes supplemental reports,
on the Court’s docket, disclosing the fees and stating his opinion regarding whether the fees were
reasonable. (Dkt. ## 2642, 3457, 4498, 6528, 7332, 7574, 7575, 8186) These reports were also
posted on the Emergency Manager’s website.
If Mr. Fishman identified any fees in his quarterly reports that he did not find were
reasonable, he did not have the authority to order the professional to reduce the fees; rather, he
could simply report his findings, and the affected professional would then have had the
opportunity to challenge Mr. Fishman’s findings before the Court. Thankfully, this procedure
Mr. Fishman was excused from filing his final report, in light of the fact that the City and
the professionals subject to the fee examiner process engaged in voluntary mediation for final fee
reductions in early December 2014. See Order Further Modifying Fee Review Order, ¶1 at 1.
(Dkt. #8957)
D. The Professionals’ Voluntary Fee Reductions
Most of the professionals involved in this case agreed to fee concessions, both in
connection with their initial retention and with the fee mediation. From the comments filed, the
Court is able to ascertain the information set forth below.
Jones Day’s fees for the period from the petition date (July 18, 2013) through the
effective date of the plan (December 10, 2014) total $53.7 million. This reflects a reduction of
approximately $17.7 million. This reduction is comprised of 1) a 10% reduction in all fees
agreed to by Jones Day as part of its original engagement; 2) voluntary reductions by Jones Day
in reviewing its invoices and in response to comments of the City and the Court-appointed fee
examiner; 3) a reduction of 50% of non-working travel time, per the Court’s fee review order; 4)
reductions for rate increases that Jones Day was otherwise authorized to charge; and 5)
reductions agreed upon as part of the Court-ordered fee mediation.
Miller Buckfire was initially retained by the City in December 2012 to provide advice on
the restructuring of debts. The fee was to be $1.8 million, paid over 12 months. After it was
determined that the City’s financial situation was dire, the City and Miller Buckfire amended
their agreement leading to prospective fees of $31.6 million.
This reflected a significant
reduction from Miller Buckfire’s $37 million proposal. In June 2014, the City and Miller
Buckfire entered into another amendment to their agreement which had the effect of reducing
Miller Buckfire’s prospective fees to $29.1 million, while increasing the work it was doing for
the City to include a restructuring of the DWSD funded debt and the arrangement of exit
financing. The fee mediation in December 2014 led to a further reduction in Miller Buckfire’s
prospective fees to $22 million.
The fees of Dentons, counsel for the Retiree Committee, amount to just over $15 million.
This amount reflects voluntary reductions of approximately $3.8 million as well as further
reductions following mediation.
Pepper Hamilton agreed to a 10% reduction of its 2013 rates when it was retained. In
January 2014, Pepper Hamilton’s rates for all other clients rose by 10%, but remained the same
for the City of Detroit. Pepper Hamilton agreed to further fee reductions following the fee
Lazard was retained by the Official Committee of Retirees as its financial advisor.
Lazard’s initial agreement with the committee contemplated a monthly fee of $175,000 plus a
transaction fee of $6 million, to be paid upon settlement of the committee’s various claims and
consummation of the chapter 9 case. Lazard voluntarily waived it monthly fees for November
and December of 2014. Additionally, following mediation, Lazard agreed to reduce its total fees
from $8.44 million to $5.56 million.
Dentons was retained as counsel for the Official Committee of Retirees. For its services,
Dentons was paid $15.4 million in fees and expenses. This amount represents a voluntary
reduction in actual fees and expenses of $3.8 million, as well as additional reductions following
Clark Hill was retained as counsel for the retirement systems. From the outset, Clark Hill
agreed to provide a 15% discount on all its fees.
Greenhill was retained by the retirement systems as its financial advisor. Its initial
agreement with the retirement systems contemplated a monthly fee of $150,000 plus a
transaction fee of $3.55 million upon confirmation of the City’s plan. The retirements systems
also agreed to reimburse Greenhill for reasonable expenses. Pursuant to its fee agreement,
Greenhill would have invoiced the retirement systems for $6,262,500 plus expenses of $199,928.
Following mediation, Greenhill agreed to reduce its fees by $750,000.
In its oral opinion confirming the plan on November 7, 2014, the Court stated:
Profound thanks to the attorneys and other professionals in the
case. You conducted yourselves with the highest degree of
civility, respect, and professionalism, both to each other and to the
Court. At the same time, you demonstrated zealous advocacy as
well as loyalty to your oaths and to your clients. Your work in this
case is a model of the public service role that lawyers and the legal
profession perform in our society. It has made me proud to be a
part of the judicial process and of the legal profession and each of
you should share in that pride.
Trial Tr. 63:7-17, Nov. 7, 2014. (Dkt. #8257)
In its eligibility opinion near the beginning of the case, the Court made detailed and,
frankly, depressing findings about the City’s fiscal and service delivery insolvency. Those
findings reflected the awesome challenges that the professionals in the case faced, embraced, met
and overcame. They understood from the beginning the profound personal stake that each of the
700,000 residents of the City of Detroit had in the outcome of their work.
It is perhaps too easy now to fast-forward through the play-back that is necessary to
comprehend the magnitude of the accomplishments of the professionals in this case. But now is
the time to appreciate and credit that accomplishment and all of the effort and skill of those
professionals in achieving it. The City is now on a path to success precisely because of the
expertise, skill, commitment, endurance, personal sacrifice, civility and proficiency of all of the
professionals in the case, including most certainly those whose fees are subject to review in this
In utter contrast to the community sense when the case was filed, the residents of the City
as well as its community and political leaders now justly feel and express a strong and genuine
sense of enthusiasm, optimism and confidence about the City’s future. They should also feel and
express a strong and genuine sense of appreciation for these professionals and their service.
The Court, and for that matter the City itself, must acknowledge that the City’s own
professionals bore the burden of the many challenges in this case. It is therefore proper now to
recognize in particular the contribution of the City’s advisors, Ernst & Young, Conway
MacKenzie, and Miller Buckfire. It is also proper now to specially recognize the singular and
extraordinary contribution of the City’s attorneys, Jones Day.
The fees of the professionals in the case are reasonable, as required by 11 U.S.C.
§ 943(b)(3).
Signed on February 12, 2015
Documents Similar To 2.12.15 Fees Decision