Marianas Variety

Thursday, May 23, 2013-12:32:15P.M.

Last updateWed, 22 May 2013 10am

Classifieds: The Classifieds section is currently under development and will be back soon.

 

Dotts: Settlement favorable to Retirement Fund

Font size:

IN a mad rush to arrive at an agreed-upon solution by all parties by the court-set June 15 deadline, a CNMI lawyer believes settlement remains a favorable solution to the Retirement Fund problem.

Michael Dotts
Attorney Michael Dotts of the  law firm O’Connor Berman Dotts & Banes told Variety, “A settlement would be favorable to the Fund because the Superior Court has no way to enforce the judgment entered against the Administration.”

He told Variety that the “agreed upon solution” that Associate Judge Kenneth L. Govendo mentioned in his March 19 order refers to “settlement.”

“The Court wants the parties (the Fund and the Administration) to settle by June 15. The settlement must involve the Administration starting to pay the judgment and the settlement will possibly also involve seeking the approval of the retirees to reduce their benefits to prolong the life of the Fund,” said Dotts.

Citing the case of the Marianas Revitalization Corp. as an example, Dotts said the CNMI Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth courts have no power to enforce judgments against the CNMI government

Dotts said, “The judgment against the Commonwealth Government does not earn interest under the MRC decision. In short there is no other way than a settlement to get the Administration to pay a judgment and the judgment does not continue to grow while the Fund waits for the Administration to agree to pay.”

Variety learned that the MRC has yet to collect the $5.65 million judgment from the CNMI government, which MRC estimated to have ballooned to over $8.5 million.

Meanwhile, the Fund also stands to collect approximately $317 million based on 2010 adjustment of the judgment inclusive of interest.

Reiterating Govendo’s order, Dotts said failure between the Administration and the Fund to reach settlement by June 15, the court will then consider a receivership.

Dotts said, “A receivership is a process where the Court takes control over a corporation or similar entity through a person called a receiver.”

He said this was nothing new to the commonwealth with a couple of banks going under receivership.

“The receiver answers to the Court and generally has all the power of the Court to figure out how best to solve a problem,” he said.

Court-appointed receiver

Dotts believes that a local court-appointed receiver “will not probably be able to collect on the judgment or reduce benefits for the same reasons that the Court itself cannot do these things.”

He, however, said that what the receiver could do is “close down the Fund and distribute all of the assets to the retirees before the assets are all gone.”

“This is called dissolution,” he said.

In the case of dissolution, Dotts said benefit payments cease; however, retirees would be able to get something.

In lieu of dissolution, Dotts sees another alternative.

He said a receiver could negotiate to give U.S. Social Security the Fund’s remaining $250 million should Social Security agree to allowing all the Fund members to enroll in the federal program.

“Social Security might just agree and then our retirees will be safe,” he said.

Another possible alternative for the receiver to look into is setting up of individual retirement accounts for retirees with banks or mutual funds.

But for Dotts, benefits in this arrangement will not likely be as attractive. “Still, it is better than nothing.”

Dotts also sees appointment of a receiver in the federal court as a better alternative. “A receivership appointed by the federal court might be able to do more for the Fund.”

He explained that the federal court is not bound by the MRC decision and a federal receiver could possibly force the CNMI to sell assets to pay the judgment owed to the Fund.”

Selling land, bonds doesn’t cut it

Responding to the ideas floated previously regarding selling public lands and issuing pension obligation bonds, Dotts told Variety these proposals may not be realistic.

He reasoned that it would take time to offload enough lands and the Fund doesn’t have the luxury of time.

Aside from the difficulty of selling land, Dotts sees the depressed land prices as another stumbling block explaining that buyers know the CNMI government is desperate and in a rush to sell land.

“Selling land is not a good option to save the Fund,” he said.

As for selling bonds, Dotts said, “Bonds issued by the Fund or the CNMI will not be attractive to investors because they will be too unsafe.”

He explained that bonds have to be sold and these pay interest until they mature and then they can be cashed in for their face value.

“The people who buy bonds usually buy them because they are safer than stocks. Bonds generally sell for an amount less than their face value and it is the discount from the face value, plus the interest that they pay, and also because of some tax advantages bonds have over stocks, that investors buy them.”

In saying that CNMI-issued bonds are unattractive, he also said, “If the CNMI Government decides not to pay the interest or not to pay the face value on the bonds when they mature, our courts cannot enforce the bonds for the same reason that our courts cannot force the Administration to pay the judgments owed to Tony Pellegrino and the Fund.”

For Dotts, any bonds issued will be considered very risky and it is highly unlikely anyone will want to buy them.

No bankruptcy in the horizon?

Dotts acknowledged that he wasn’t sure if the Fund could file for bankruptcy.

He said the CNMI government can’t file for bankruptcy or it would do so to get out of paying judgments it owes.

Dotts said, “If the Fund did file bankruptcy that has to be done in the Federal Court and it is likely that a Trustee, similar to a receiver, will be appointed to assist the Fund in the bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Trustee might be able to force the CNMI to pay the judgment owed to the Fund.”

New pension corporation

As to the recently revealed setting up of a Pension Holdings Corp. by the Retirement Fund on April 11, Dotts views this as “a real mystery.”

He said more light should be shed on the reason for a trustee subscribing for 10,000 shares and the possible conflict of interest that go with it.

“I also don’t understand why all the Fund attorneys are involved in this corporation or what the purpose of this corporation really is.”

For Dotts, the setting up of this corporation begs a full explanation.

Comments  

 
6 Dislikes 0 Likes,  #23 ChagiFan87 04-17-2012 23:37
MORE MONEY FOR THE LAWYERS AND NOTHING FOR THE RETIREMENT FUND MEMBERS. BIBA BENIGNO
 
 
1 Dislikes 6 Likes,  #22 ezthere 04-17-2012 20:36
What assets do the NMI have that are not incumbered already.?? As for Mr. Dotts he brings up a number of points.. He's also baiting his own hook and lawyers will catch a good payday from the NMIRF. At the end of the day, the RF is now open for "lawyer business"...
 
 
0 Dislikes 7 Likes,  #21 Retiree Shared Sacrifice 04-17-2012 20:09
# 14 (paragraph 1), you are wrong. Big time. I am a retiree, unlike so many of the self-annointed expert gadflies and naysayers whose comments fill the pages of this thread and blog. My investment (pension) is important to me, so I make it a point to keep updated on NMIRF matters by reading press articles, retiree e-mails & websites, and court documents.

The collapse of the Fund is due to decades of non-payment by politicians. It's not our fault! But even if the NMIRF could take over the whole government, there isn't enough to pay what we're owed.

So we need to take a pension cut or deferral, as the bankruptcy court deems appropriate.

I'd rather have something, even a $500 or $600 monthly annuity, than nothing.
 
 
8 Dislikes 2 Likes,  #20 CrabbyMcCrab 04-17-2012 16:18
BANKRUPTCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
We are all screwed!!!!!!!!!!!!
Except the ones on the hill who will get more than they put in......
 
 
1 Dislikes 4 Likes,  #19 Long Time Resident 04-17-2012 15:32
Whatever is done, it's going to hurt. My sympathies to all NMIRF participants.

I do agree with #12 that getting current government employees into the Social Security system would be a good fix--although that fund is also troubled and not perfect.
 
 
9 Dislikes 3 Likes,  #18 Long Time Resident 04-17-2012 15:31
I haven't seen the judge's order and don't know exactly what he required NMIRF to do. I favor protecting those who have contributed to the NMIRF but have not yet received any benefits, so they don't lose everything. But I am extremely uncomfortable with a private corporation, formed by individuals without legislative authorization or controls. I trust some of the people named and have a lot less trust in others, but no matter how trustworthy an individual is, it is sketchy at best to move public funds to a private holding corporation.

As for conflict of interest-there certainly is #11-when the people in charge are themselves beneficiaries of the protected class, as is the case here.

I think a federal court receiver is needed sooner rather than later. And the first thing on the agenda should be a freeze of all payouts (benefits, the 50% option pending with the House now, etc.) and complete audit, to be accomplished very quickly, so that retirees in particular, and contributors also, can receive a fair share and a distribution that considers all interested.
 
 
16 Dislikes 10 Likes,  #17 The Watcher 04-17-2012 14:38
Retiree Shared Sacrifice,


Your attempt to justify the Pension Corporation is ridiculous. The Fund Administrator and Fund Attorneys can not legally set-up a Private Corporation and move Fund assets into that corporation. That is ILLEGAL! No getting around it. They are trustees that should be overseeing the assets and following the guidance of the Investment Consultant. How transparent will this newly formed corporation be? Who will watch over these "assets"? Who will take the interest from maintaining this enormous sum of money - in excess of $100 million? How much will the new Corporations Directors and Officers be compensated? Who will oversee the auditing of this Private Corporation?

You are attempting the impossible when you try and justify this outright and blatant abuse of power. No different than the AGO's defense of the Governor when he broke a federal detainee out of prison at 3am and brought her to his private home to what some have said was threaten and intimidate her and others have said was to perform unspeakable acts. We the public will never know what really occurred because it was illegal yet the AGO attempted to justify it as being simply a massage house call.
 
 
5 Dislikes 10 Likes,  #16 Taipan 04-17-2012 14:35
Ever wonder why the CNMI is overlooked as an investment opportunity.

The CNMI government has proven itself to be above the law.

Both the Superior and Supreme Courts should fire themselves, pack up and lock the doors, and turn everything over to the Federal District Court.

All future or existing CNMI Contracts should be amended to now read “In case of contract disputes, the Federal District Court has jurisdiction” over this matter”.
 
 
4 Dislikes 9 Likes,  #15 SavetheCNMI 04-17-2012 14:32
By the way, the pension bond can be floated and there will be many interested in purchasing it. Of course it will not be investment grade, but that does not mean the bond will not be marketable. Guam is pretty much in the same boat we are in and they issued junk bonds at around 7%. I assume we can do the same and issue them between 7-9%. This market is called "high-yield" bonds and it is actually one of the fastest growing bond markets on the planet and the best performing. Not to mention, the bond we will issue will be tax free....this is a plus for institutional investors looking to get a high yeild return - tax free. Trust me, Mr. Dotts, we will have ZERO problem selling a $300M bond. (By the way, the CNMI does not have to issue all $300 at once, it can issue them in $100M lots. example: 2012, 2014, 2016)

I also agree with Dr. Arkle, if we are to do all this, we must review the pension benefits and reign them in to more conservative outlays, but under no cicumstance will any of us agree to do this while the government does not do its part to reign in their wasteful spending and overbloated government. WE are all in this sinking boat together...ALL of us need to grab a bucket and contribute be ridding the gov't and retirement of WASTE.
 
 
16 Dislikes 10 Likes,  #14 SavetheCNMI 04-17-2012 14:25
@#11 and #12, thank you for proving what we all thought, all along...that you are actually an employee of the Retirement Fund and most likely one of its flunkie attorneys cashing in on our retirement pension. The information you released in regards to the use for the new corporation was nowhere to be found. Thank you for releasing it and clearing the record, by doing so, you also outed your connection with the fund and the access you have to this type of information.

What Mr. Dotts is saying is what I have been blogging about for nearly a year. Although we disagree regarding the pension bond, we pretty much agree on everything else....especially the Federal Receiver.
 

You must Login first in order to post comments. If you don't have an account, please Register.