Recalling the Supreme Court ruling that I cited:
It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired.
Thus, the State of Florida and local counties can alter bonds as long as those changes are not "substantial."
We've previously discussed on this thread that Florida Statute already states what would happen to existing bonds if RCID were to be dissolved:
Unless otherwise provided by law or ordinance, the dissolution of a special district government shall transfer the title to all property owned by the preexisting special district government to the local general-purpose government, which shall also assume all indebtedness of the preexisting special district.
And that the new law even allows Disney to reconstitute RCID:
An independent special district affected by this subsection may be reestablished on or after June 1, 2023, pursuant to the requirements and limitations of this chapter.
It seems that some have already decided that Disney has been wronged (I'm one of them), so there's a tendency to back into our preferred outcomes.
However, I'm trying to be open-minded about this. I'm trying to understand what legal maneuvering both sides might engage in. I'm trying to understand how existing case law might affect the outcome of that maneuvering. I'd much rather discuss where this might go, rather than argue the same points that have been argued on this thread for the last 100 pages.
IMO, prepaying a bond that cannot be paid early
is a "substantial" impairment. But is reissuing those bonds (under the name of "RCID-Prime") with the exact same terms a "substantial" impairment?
Ultimately, contract law is about making sure bond holders get paid according to the terms in the bond, not about finding reasons for RCID to exist.
One approach to help us understand what might happen next is to find a case that better defines what it means to "substantially impair" a contract. This might tell us if the State of Florida can do what it did from a contracts perspective.
I really hope someone can find case law that helps us better understand what a substantial impairment is. It could be that changing the parties on a contract is considered a substantial impairment. But maybe if just one government entity is replaced by another, it's not.
I don't know. Hopefully, someone can find a settled case that provides us with some guidance, rather than us just speculating.