*1 ,mE /&ma-

GEnaEagAG’ OF ?lrExAs Aus- 11. .J3sxAs

.JOIXN BEN sEEPPEKD opinion HO. o-4817 --=--m.“~~: Trimbie First Assistant State Re: Whether school district may compel S erintendent of bondholders to consent to refuna- "g Pu lit Instruction ing program. Austin, Texas Dear sirs

we have received your letter of recent date in which you enclose a letter from Hr. Dana Williams Superintendent of 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 district has 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 refunding program, can such a school di@rict force the remaining'bondholdexs by way of manaansls to 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~refund one ,of these 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 ,Informed that the StateBoard of Education owns for the benefit of the Permanent School Fiand more than one-third of all the outstar&Lng bonds of,the Tenaha'Independent School Msp trict. It is, .thus ,apparent that resort to-the Federal ~Rankruptcy 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 outstanding bonds to consent to a refunding program.