Stockton Judge Extends Hearing in Fight Over Debt Plan

Stockton, California’s creditors, including public workers, will have to wait a little longer to find out whether the city’s plan to exit bankruptcy will win a judge’s approval.

At a hearing this week, the city sought approval of a plan that pays public worker pensions in full, while offering Franklin Resources Inc. (BEN) only 1 percent of what its funds are owed. San Mateo, California-based Franklin has argued that the pensions shouldn’t get preferential treatment.

“I do want to make sure that there has been a fair opportunity for all sides to be heard,” U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein in Sacramento, California, said today. Klein initially scheduled a further hearing for May 29, followed by closing arguments. The hearing was changed to June 4 after Franklin’s attorney, James Johnston of the Jones Day law firm, told the judge a key witness wouldn’t be available on May 29.

Stockton, a city of 298,000 about 80 miles (130 kilometers) east of San Francisco, filed for bankruptcy in 2012 after spending too much on downtown improvement projects while property-tax revenue plunged in the housing crisis. Creditors filed $1.18 billion in claims.

After months of negotiation, the city reached deals with most creditors, including bond insurer Assured Guaranty Corp. and current and retired workers.

Detroit, which filed a record $18 billion municipal bankruptcy last year, may face a creditor fight over similar issues, though on a much greater scale, when it seeks approval of its debt-adjustment plan.

The case is In re Stockton, 12-bk-32118, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento).

To contact the reporters on this story: Steven Church in Wilmington, Delaware, at schurch3@bloomberg.net; Dawn McCarty in Wilmington, Delaware, at dmccarty@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Andrew Dunn at adunn8@bloomberg.net Michael Hytha, Joe Schneider

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

Bloomberg reserves the right to remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.