,mE /&ma- GEnaEagAG’
OF ?lrExAs
Aus- 11..J3sxAs
.JOIXN BEN sEEPPEKD
--=--m.“~~: Trimbie opinion HO. o-4817
First Assistant State Re: Whether school district may compel
S erintendentof bondholdersto consent to refuna-
"glit Instruction
Pu ing program.
Austin, Texas
Dear sirs
we have received your letter of recent date in which you
enclose a letter from Hr. Dana Williams Superintendentof the
Tenaha Public Schools, to Dr. L. A. Woo&, State Superintendent.
We quote the following from hr. WilU.am*s letter:
"1. Where a school districthas several sep-
arate bond issues and wishes to refund all of the
bonds in one of those issues, and said school,d?s-
trict obtains the consent of a majority of the
bond ownersto such a refundingprogram, can such
a school di@rict force the remaining'bondholdexs
by way of manaanslsto consent to such a refun*: - i
program?
.~
!F&e%amplet Our school district has five
distinct;and separate bona issues. We are attempt-
ing to~refundone ,ofthese issnes-such issue Abe-
force the'owners of the remaining $7,9OO.OC worth
of these bonds to consent to this plan? These bonds
have no option date for purchase..
We~are ,Informedthat the StateBoard of Education owns
for the benefit of the Permanent School Fiandmore than one-third
of all the outstar&Lngbonds of,the Tenaha'IndependentSchool Msp
trict. It is, .thus ,apparentthat resort to-the Federal ~Rankrupt
Act may not be ha&for a plan of composltion,t3br the reason that
the requirement of consent of 66-2/3# of the creditors would be
lacking. We, therefore, confine ou#discusslon to the question
whether under theilaws of Texas a school district may by legal pro-
cess compel the holders of Its outstandingbonds to consent to a
refunding program.
Article 2789, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, reads,
ln part, as folltvwst
"Where bonds have beenlegally issued, or may
be hereafter issued, by any town or village incor-
porated for free school purposes only or any common
school district, indep~endentschool district, con-