The first in a series on Puerto Rico’s Pensions
Last week, the Supervisory Board held its 9th Public Meeting in Fajardo, Puerto Rico. A key item on the agenda, “Discussion of Pension Reform,” was over-shadowed by the pending fight over furloughs, but is perhaps one of the most important items discussed.
As many know, one of the critical issues before the Supervisory Board is how to address the future of Puerto Rico’s public pension system and a $49 billion actuarial deficit. In fact, this is one of the reasons Speaker Ryan and the Congressional Republicans insisted on having an expert like Andrew Biggs on the Board. His knowledge of pensions ostensibly would help reform Puerto Rico’s public pension system to become a model for cities and states across the country.
What PROMESA Says the Board Must Do
Section 211(a) of PROMESA requires the Board, if it determines pensions are underfunded, to “conduct an analysis prepared by an independent actuary […] to assist the Oversight Board in evaluating the fiscal and economic impact of the pension cash flows.” The Board hired Pension Trustee Advisors, Inc., a Colorado corporation, for this endeavor in February. To date, we have yet to see any documents or plans generated by this company or produced by the Board.
Instead, the government with the support of the Board moved first. Since February, Puerto Rico passed a law to convert the government and its component units into a single employer and although the Board instructed that pensions had to be cut by 10% by fiscal year 2020 in the Fiscal Plan, the Board green-lighted the government to move over $2 billion from the General Fund to the public pension system. At the same time, neither Governor Rosselló nor the Board provided any monies for debt service in FY18. This had the effect of elevating payment of public pensions above secured creditors.
Then, on May 21, 2017, the Board filed a Title III bankruptcy petition for the Government Retirement and the Judiciary Retirement Fund. Further, the government passed a measure to transfer $390,480,000 from the Central Government, Judiciary and Teacher’s retirement funds to the General Fund for the payment of pensions, known as RC 188.
All of this was done with the Board’s approval, but not without opposition from other stakeholders. On July 27, 2017, Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC and others filed an adversary proceeding to challenge this action by the Puerto Rican Government. Altair & company claim they have a lien over Government contributions to the retirement fund and that RC188 is null and void; that they hold a secured claim to the full extent of their allowed claim against the ERS; that they hold a secured claim to the full extent of their allowed claim against the Commonwealth and that their lien continues in any Pledged Property transferred to the Commonwealth from the ERS. They also claim that the transfer of the Pledged Property from the ERS to the Commonwealth pursuant to Joint Resolution 188, on its face, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation within the meaning of the U.S. and P.R. Takings Clauses; and that RC 188 substantially interferes with their contract rights with the ERS in violation of the U.S. and P.R. Contracts Clauses. Finally, they also ask for damages and that PROMESA does not preclude such claim. Since it was filed only recently, we have no idea how Judge Swain will handle it, except that it will be done swiftly.
Echoes of the Chrysler-UAW Pension Bailout
This strategy by the Board – elevating pensioners over secured bondholders – evokes memories of the Chrysler bankruptcy, which saw the Obama Administration support unsecured UAW pensioners become secured creditors – literally jumping the line ahead of actual secured creditors. The judge in that case was none other than Judge Arthur Gonzalez, the key architect behind the Board’s legal strategy.
Neither the Constitution nor PROMESA explicitly do not allow for the payment of public pensions to be put ahead of bondholders, which was the ultimate outcome in the Chrysler case. Now, the PR Supreme Court granted pensioners rights in Bayron Toro v. Serra, 119 D.P.R. 605, 608 (1987), stating that, “Once an employee is retired, when he has complied with all the conditions for his retirement, his pension is not subject to changes or impairments.” However, this precedent is subject to Article VI, Section 8 of the PR Constitution that states:
“In case the available revenues including surplus for any fiscal year are insufficient to meet the appropriations made for that year, interest on the public debt and amortization thereof shall first be paid, and other disbursements shall thereafter be made in accordance with the order of priorities established by law.”
While Section 201(b)(1)(C) of PROMESA states that the Fiscal Plan must “provide adequate funding for public pension systems,” Section 201(b)(1)(N) requires the Fiscal Plan to “respect the relative lawful priorities or lawful liens, as may be applicable, in the constitution, other laws.”
Moreover, the Committee on Natural Resources Report on PROMESA states the following:
“The Committee acknowledges the concern as to the ambiguity of the language regarding the funding of public pension systems. To clarify, Section 201(b)(1)(C) tasks the Oversight Board with ensuring fiscal plans ‘provide adequate funding for public pension systems.’ This language should not be interpreted to reprioritize pension liabilities ahead of the lawful priorities or liens of bondholders as established under the territory’s constitution, laws, or other agreements. While this language seeks to provide an adequate level of funding for pension systems, it does not allow for pensions to be unduly favored over other indebtedness in a restructuring.”
Realizing that creditors and Congress are onto them, the Board has attempted to mask their strategy.
In their latest document, “Explanatory Memorandum on Pension Reform,” the Board claims, “expenditures are being reduced throughout the Commonwealth’s budget and holders of government bonds are not likely to be repaid in full. Retirement plan participants, like other unsecured creditors, will have a reduction in the amounts paid to them by the Commonwealth.” Board member Ana Matosantos went further, rejecting Christian Sobrino’s claim that Governor Rosselló will fund 100% of the public pensioner’s benefits, stating “honoring 100% of the obligations is not workable.”
The Board has shown its hand, and they will face a stiff test before Judge Swain. Congress was clear that funding pensions was important, but not equal to or above existing constitutional and lawful priorities. To date, the Board and Puerto Rico have decided unsecured pensioners have higher priority.
Why is the Board and the government putting payment of pensions before payment of public debt in direct contradiction of both PROMESA and the Puerto Rican Constitution? Why is the Board pursuing this legal strategy?
I will explore and hope to explain the reasons for this in my series on public pensions in Puerto Rico.
Please enlighten me. Am I correct in assuming that the $49 billion actuarial debt is in addition to the $72 billion debt? In other words, the total debt is $121 billion, compared to Detroit’s debt of between $18 and $20 billion.
Yes and it is $55 billion according to the Board
Great article! Waiting for the next one…
Mi opinión (de abogado que soy) es que una vez el Congreso violenta y anula la Constitución de PR, nombrando una Junta con poderes que anulan los poderes constitucionales de los ELEGIDOS por el Pueblo de PR, sin seguir el proceso que validó nuestra Constitución, es decir, la PARTICIPACIóN Y APROBACION POR AMBAS PARTES , Congreso y Pueblo de PR, se anula con ello LA CONSTITUION de PR y las preferencias de crédito que provee dicha Constitución a favor de unos bonistas sobre otros acreedores, incluyendo los empleados públicos y los pensionados. Los derechos de éstos, entonces, los protege la CONSTITUCION DE EEUU, bajo la claúsula relativa a los derechos contractuales….
Por otro lado, los miembros de la Junta, definitivamente, gustarían de pleitos que permitirían mantenerse en sus puestos con salarios u honorarios JUGOSíSIMOS, POR MUCHOS AÑOS….
En que cado se basa?
Me sorprende…. y ¿ el primer caso, en que caso se basó? (respetuosamente)
Gracias a John Mudd por mantenernos informados con profundidad, clase, altura y en “arroz y habichuelas”.
¿Cómo los derechos de los retirados y los “bonistas” quedan protegidos bajo la constitución y leyes de EU?. No soy abogado, por favor si pueden me contestan en “arroz y habichuelas”.
Eso es bien largo y lo veremos a traves del pleito
GRACIAS Mr. MUDD…. Saludos