10A Action 2014 0902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

57 Challenges to Dissolution Act Several successor agencies, cities and other entities have filed judicial actions challenging the legality of various provisions of the Dissolution Act. One such challenge is an action filed on August 1, 2012, by Syncora Guarantee Inc. and Syncora Capital Assurance Inc. (collectively, “Syncora”) against the State, the State Controller, the State Director of Finance, and the Auditor-Controller of San Bernardino County on his own behalf and as the representative of all other County Auditors in the State (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2012-80001215). Syncora are monoline financial guaranty insurers domiciled in the State of New York, and as such, provide credit enhancement on bonds issued by state and local governments and do not sell other kinds of insurance such as life, health, or property insurance. Syncora provided bond insurance and other related insurance policies for bonds issued by former California redevelopment agencies. The complaint alleged that the Dissolution Act, and specifically the “Redistribution Provisions” thereof (i.e., California Health and Safety Code Sections 34172(d), 34174, 34177(d), 34183(a)(4), and 34188) violate the “contract clauses” of the United States and California Constitutions (U.S. Const. art. 1, §10, cl.1; Cal. Const. art. 1, §9) because they unconstitutionally impair the contracts among the former redevelopment agencies, bondholders and Syncora. The complaint also alleged that the Redistribution Provisions violate the “Takings Clauses” of the United States and California Constitutions (U.S. Const. amend. V; Cal Const. art. 1 § 19) because they unconstitutionally take and appropriate bondholders’ and Syncora’s contractual right to critical security mechanisms without just compensation. After hearing by the Sacramento County Superior Court on May 3, 2013, the Superior Court ruled that Syncora’s constitutional claims based on contractual impairment were premature. The Superior Court also held that Syncora’s takings claims, to the extent based on the same arguments, were also premature. Pursuant to a Judgment stipulated to by the parties, the Superior Court on October 3, 2013, entered its order dismissing the action. The Judgment, however, provides that Syncora preserves its rights to reassert its challenges to the Dissolution Act in the future. The Successor Agency does not guarantee that any reassertion of challenges by Syncora or that the final results of any of the judicial actions brought by others challenging the Dissolution Act will not result in an outcome that may have a material adverse effect on the Successor Agency’s ability to timely pay debt service on the 2014 Bonds. Reduction in Taxable Value Tax increment revenue available to pay principal of and interest on the 2014 Bonds are determined by the amount of incremental taxable value in the Project Areas and the current rate or rates at which property in the Project Areas is taxed. The reduction of taxable values of property in the Project Areas caused by economic factors beyond the Successor Agency’s control, such as relocation out of the Project Areas by one or more major property owners, sale of property to a non-profit corporation exempt from property taxation, or the complete or partial destruction of such property caused by, among other eventualities, earthquake or other natural disaster, could cause a reduction in the tax increment available to pay debt service on the 2014 Bonds. Such reduction of tax increment available to pay debt service on the 2014 Bonds could have an adverse effect on the Successor Agency’s ability to make timely payments of principal of and interest on the 2014 Bonds; this risk could be increased by the significant concentration of property ownership in the Project Areas (see “THE PROJECT AREAS – Major Taxable Property Owners”).