Consumer Law Scholars Conference--Call for Abstracts

The Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice at Berkeley Law has announced the call for abstracts for the 2024 Consumer Law Scholars Conference. Abstracts are due by September 8, 2023, for the conference scheduled for February 29-March 1, 2024. The conference welcomes abstracts from a wide array of methods and virtually any topic involving consumers in the marketplace. More information about abstract submission is here. 

The Puzzle of Diaspora Bonds: A Case Study of Israel's Program

Many countries have attempted to tap their diasporas by issuing bonds.  This has particularly been the case in times of dire need (wars, pandemics, international sanctions, financial crises, and more).  Ukraine is the most recent to have attempted to do this and failed.  Other recent failures include Pakistan, India, Ethiopia and Greece, some of whom turned to bank deposit schemes when attempts to do full scale bond issuances did not succeed

A superb new paper by Doug Mulliken, motivated by the many failures to issue diaspora bonds, does a deep dive into the one program that has not only been successful, but has remained so for over a seventy-five year period: The Israel Bonds program.  

Doug's paper, titled, "It’s not just money; you are investing in your identity”: Israel, the Jewish Diaspora, and the Israel Bonds program,is on ssrn.com.

The abstract reads:

Israel has been selling diaspora bonds for almost as long as the country has been in existence, with the original 1951 Independence Bonds being issued just three years after the State of Israel’s establishment as an independent nation. For over 70 years, both in times of crisis and times of strength, Israel has used the Israel Bonds program to call on the Jewish diaspora — most significantly in the United States but also in Canada and across the world — to provide the country with a layer of financial security that is, in many ways, unprecedented in modern history. The importance of Israel’s diaspora bond sales has evolved over time: it functioned as a load-bearing support of Israel’s economy in the program’s early days when, in the aftermath of World War II, sovereign debt markets had essentially disappeared; it now serves a far more important symbolic function, allowing Jews across the world to develop a connection with Israel by contributing some modest amount to the country’s well-being.

This analysis considers the social and historical context of the Israel Bonds program, taking into consideration the almost emotional connection that the bonds allow members of the Jewish diaspora to feel towards the State of Israel. Most importantly, this study examines the terms of the bonds themselves, comparing both how Israel Bonds mirror traditional Eurobonds and, in particular, how the two types of issuances differ. With this, the analysis hopes to shine a light on an under-studied, but incredibly significant, aspect of Israel’s economic development.

 

SEC Coinbase Suit

The SEC has finally brought its long-anticipated lawsuit against Coinbase. The suit alleges that Coinbase has operated as an unregistered securities broker, an unregistered securities exchange, and an unregistered securities clearing agency, and that it has made unregistered sales of securities, namely of its staking-as-a-service products. The litigation hinges entirely on one key question: are any of several tokens listed or products offered by Coinbase “securities.” If the tokens and products are not securities, then Coinbase has no problem. And if they are securities, Coinbase almost assuredly loses.

June 7 virtual event on Second Circuit's Purdue Pharma decision

The Commercial Law League of America is holding a virtual event next week, free of charge and open to all, on broader implications of the Second Circuit's Purdue Pharma decision. Register here. Date and time: June 7, 2023 at noon Eastern. The panel is Candice Kline, Ralph Brubaker, Karen Cordry, and me, with Eric Van Horn moderating. 

Again, here's the link to register. 

Third-Party Releases Clearly Endorsed in the 2nd Circuit, At Long Last

Yesterday's 2nd Circuit opinion reconfirming Purdue Pharma's settlement/restructuring plan is an enlightening read for those interested in third-party releases. In what seems to me (and the concurrence) a bit of a reach, the 2nd Circuit conceded that statutory authority more specific than section 105 was needed to support third-party releases, but the Court found such support in section 1123(b)(6): “a plan may . . . include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.” Hmmm. That's quite a slender reed on which to balance such a powerful action. More interesting, the Court set forth a series of seven tests to gauge whether any given third-party release is appropriate. One key test is rather vague (whether the plan provides for the fair payment of enjoined claims), but at least we now have a roadmap for getting to an effective third-party release. Or do we? The Court in a crucial passage emphasizes "to the extent that there is a fear that this opinion could be read as a blueprint for how individuals can obtain third-party releases in the face of a tsunami of litigation, we caution that the key fact regarding the indemnity agreements at issue is that they were entered into by the end of 2004—well before the contemplation of bankruptcy." So the type of pre-bankruptcy planning we've seen in other cases may be a bridge too far, at least in the 2nd Circuit. This latest opinion seems to add weight to recent arguments that bankruptcy court is, indeed, an appropriate and effective venue for resolving sticky mass-tort issues, though the policy debate will doubtless continue.

The Debt Limit Is Unconstitutional—But It's Not What You Think!

Anna Gelpern, Stephen Lubben and I have an article in The American Prospect entitled The Debt Limit Is Unconstitutional—but Not for the Reason You Think. Various commentators—and members of Congress—have suggested that the President “invoke the 14^th Amendment” to declare the debt limit unconstitutional. They're right to argue that the debt limit is unconstitutional, but the constitutional problem isn't the 14^th Amendment. Instead, it's Article I of the Constitution, namely Congress's power to enter into contracts. The tl;dr version is that Congress has a power to make binding commitments for the United States and the President is constitutionally obligated to perform those commitments. If the Treasury lacks the funds, then the President must borrow. No specific authorization is needed. Instead, it is implicit every time Congress appropriates funds to perform a binding commitment.

Relocating the constitutional problem with the debt limit isn't merely an academic exercise. It has two implications.

First, it changes the nature of the legal debate and puts the administration on much, much firmer legal footing. The 14th Amendment argument is weak because it simply is not a prohibition on defaulting. It's a prohibition on repudiation, and a default is not a repudiation. An Article I argument reframes the issue as being about the validity of the debt ceiling, rather than the ability to default. In other words, it goes to question of whether the House GOP has holdup power, rather than whether the administration is under some cryptic constitutional limitation that it must affirmatively "invoke."

Second, it means that the President not only can, but must disregard the debt limit in order to fulfill his own constitutional duty to "Take Care" that the laws are faithfully executed. In other words, breaching the debt limit is not merely an option, but a legal requirement if Treasury is short of funds. Once Congress has appropriated funds, the President must carry out the authorized spending.

Debunking Debt Ceiling Myths

The commentary on the debt ceiling standoff has featured a bunch of mistaken conceptions from across the political spectrum. Let's address them. 

Myth #1:  The 14th Amendment Prohibits a Default

A variety of commentators claim that the 14th Amendment prohibits the United States from defaulting. It does nothing of the sort. Read the text of the Public Debt Clause: 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The Public Debt Clause is a prohibition on disputing the validity of US debt obligations--that is disputing whether they are legitimately owed. There's not a word in the 14th Amendment about default. The drafters of the Public Debt Clause included some very experienced commercial lawyers. They understood the difference between defaulting on an obligation and disputing or repudiating an obligation.  For example, I might acknowledge that I owe a loan, but just not be able to pay it. That's different than saying "I don't owe the money."

The Public Debt Clause is a prohibition on Congress, the Executive, and the Courts from disavowing US debt obligations. It's not a prohibition on defaulting because such a prohibition would be meaningless. If a country is unable to pay its obligations, no constitutional commitment device can change that. A constitution cannot fill a bare cupboard. And if a country is simply unwilling to pay its obligations (but admits to them), then its creditors are left with whatever legal recourse they might have. But prohibiting default doesn't get creditors anything. Prohibiting disavowal does because it means that creditors retain their right to be paid.

What all this means is that "invoking the 14th Amendment" is meaningless, unless it is shorthand for "treating the debt limit as unconstitutional." Now it just so happens that the debt limit is unconstitutional—but not because of the 14th Amendment!

 

Community Financial Services of America v. CFPB Amicus Brief

This fall the Supreme Court will be hear a case captioned Community Financial Services of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, dealing with the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding mechanism. I'm pleased to announce that Patricia McCoy and I filed an amicus brief today in support of the CFPB. We were very capably represented by Greg Lipper of LeGrand Law.

The tl;dr version: if the 5th Circuit's opinion is upheld it will result in market chaos--all of the CFPB's existing regulations will be void, and that includes things on which market actors rely, such as TILA disclosure safe harbors and ability-to-repay rule safeharbors. Moreover, there's no way to cabin the 5th Circuit's opinion to the CFPB--if the Bureau's funding is unconstitutional, so too is that of every federal banking regulator, including the Federal Reserve Board. There's simply no credible way to do a surgical strike on the Bureau's funding without collateral damage of economic havoc.

14-4: Any Questions?

Anna, Adam, and myself have a piece up on Alphaville about section four of the 14th Amendment, which is all the rage these days.

Calculation of Secured Claims

When I was a law student the rule I learned about secured claims was that they accrue post-petition interest and attorneys' fees (if provided for by contract or statute) up to the amount of the value of the collateral that exceeds their claims, but then nothing further once they are fully secured.  That was an easy enough rule to apply.

But then the Supreme Court's ruled in Travelers v. PG&E (2007) that the standard basis for disallowing the excess attorneys' fees—the Fobian rule—was no longer valid. SCOTUS expressly left open the possibility of other arguments for limiting attorneys' fees, but none have been successful in the courts of appeals so far. 

So this brings up a question:  If post-petition interest is capped by the collateral cushion, but post-petition attorneys' fees are not so capped and can therefore spillover into an unsecured claim, what is the order in which the collateral cushion is applied?  That is, what is the correct order of operations?  Is the collateral cushion applied first to post-petition interest and then to attorneys' fees or vice-versa or are they applied as they accrue? 

I'm curious for readers' thoughts on the right answer to this problem, or at least how it is handled in practice.  I'm also curious for thoughts on why the issue hasn't arisen in any reported decision. The problem seems akin to that of how adequate protection payments are applied to reduce a claim and collateral value, where there is a little bit of caselaw.