In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico

360 F. Supp. 3d 65
CourtUnited States District Court
DecidedFebruary 4, 2019
DocketNo. 17 BK 3283-LTS (Jointly Administered); Adv. Proc. No. 17-00257
StatusPublished

This text of 360 F. Supp. 3d 65 (In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States District Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, 360 F. Supp. 3d 65 (usdistct 2019).

Opinion

26. The Retiree Committee Objection was ultimately withdrawn. (Docket Entry No. 4704 in Case No. 17-3283).

27. The COFINA Agent and its agents, attorneys, affiliates, advisors, and consultants, solely in such capacities (the "COFINA Agent Releasees"), have acted in good faith in connection with their evaluation of, and their conduct with respect to, the Adversary Proceeding, the Agreement in Principle, the Agreement, the Motion, and COFINA's Title III Case.

28. The Commonwealth Agent and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the "Committee"), its members, and each of their respective current and former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, employees affiliates, advisors, and consultants, solely in such capacities (collectively, the "Commonwealth Agent Releasees"), have acted in good faith in connection with their evaluation of, and their conduct with respect to, the Adversary Proceeding, the Agreement in Principle, the Agreement, the Motion, and COFINA's Title III Case.

29. The issues raised in the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute are novel, complex, and of great importance to the people of Puerto Rico (as well as their fellow stakeholders) and present a mixed question of federal and Puerto Rico law.

30. The Commonwealth Agent has asserted a number of challenges to the constitutionality of the transfer of the Pledged Sales Taxes to COFINA under the Commonwealth Constitution's debt limit, debt *75priority, and balanced budget provisions. Conversely, the COFINA Agent has asserted its own claims, including that the Legislative Assembly properly exercised its broad taxing and police powers to enact legislation transferring the disputed sales tax revenues to COFINA, that the debt limit provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution do not prohibit the transfer of the Pledged Sales Tax to COFINA, that the balanced budget provision of the Commonwealth Constitution does not preclude the transfer of sales tax revenues to COFINA, nor is it applicable to the COFINA Bonds, and that the plain language of Act 91 transferred ownership of the Pledged Sales Taxes to COFINA.

31. A motion to approve a compromise or settlement pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019 requires a court to assess "whether the [proposed] settlement falls below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness." Ars Brook, LLC v. Jalbert (In re Servisense.com, Inc.), 382 F.3d 68, 71-72 (1st Cir. 2004). In the context of commercial bankruptcies, courts in the First Circuit consider four factors in assessing the reasonableness of a settlement: "(i) the probability of success in the litigation being compromised; (ii) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection [of the disputed funds]; (iii) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay attending it; and, (iv) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views ...." Jeffrey v. Desmond, 70 F.3d 183, 185 (1st Cir. 1995). In evaluating the Settlement Agreement that is being presented for approval today, the Court is not required to "decide the numerous questions of law and fact raised by [the objectors]." In re Servisense.com, Inc., 382 F.3d at 71. Instead, the Court's role is more limited: it must "canvass the issues and [determine] whether the settlement falls below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness." Id. at 71-72.

32. Given the complex and novel issues involved, the divergent positions of the parties, and the protracted history of the dispute, the Commonwealth's likelihood of success in litigating the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute is uncertain, and even if the Commonwealth were initially successful, the litigation would likely proceed to multiple appeals presenting their own risks and challenges. Accordingly, issues surrounding the probability of success weigh in favor of approving the Settlement.

33. The complexity of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute is also evidenced by the myriad of parties involved and the multiple suits already filed. The briefing in the Adversary Proceeding is extensive, with no fewer than six summary judgment motions having been filed by various parties that include, in addition to the Commonwealth Agent and the COFINA Agent, the Official Committee of Retirees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the COFINA Senior Bondholders' Coalition, the Ad Hoc Group of General Obligation Bondholders, the Mutual Fund Group, and the Puerto Rico Funds. All parties in interest asserted equally divergent views regarding, among other things, whether (a) Act 91 did or did not transfer to COFINA a present property interest in potential future tax revenues, (b) there was or was no "true sale" of future tax revenues by the Commonwealth to COFINA, (c) Act 91 did or did not transfer to COFINA the Commonwealth's "right to receive" future tax revenues, and (d) the COFINA structure, Act 91 and the purported sales tax revenue transfer are or are not constitutional.

34. Continued litigation of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute will invite additional delay for both the Commonwealth *76and COFINA in progressing towards fiscal responsibility and access to the capital markets, significant expense, and further delay and inconvenience to the Commonwealth's and COFINA's stakeholders and ability of their creditors to receive any distribution on their claims. Accordingly, the complexity of litigation and expense, inconvenience, and delay attending the litigation weigh in favor of approving the Settlement.

35. The Settlement resolving the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute provides certainty about the amounts available for the Commonwealth's debt service and other uses and resolves billions of dollars of claims that have been asserted against the Commonwealth by the COFINA Agent and COFINA creditors. This certainty will allow the Commonwealth to move forward with its Title III Case towards formulating a plan of adjustment that must make appropriate provisions for the needs of the people of Puerto Rico, revival of its economy, and distributions to its creditors. The interests of the Commonwealth's creditors and citizens are not served by protracted litigation that could delay payments on claims and the ability of the Commonwealth to move forward with its revitalization. Moreover, there would be significant negative consequences for the Commonwealth and its stakeholders if the Commonwealth did not prevail in litigating the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, as the Commonwealth would be deprived of access to any portion of the approximately $ 783 million Pledged Sales Tax Base Amount, which annual amount increases over time.

36.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
360 F. Supp. 3d 65, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-financial-oversight-and-management-board-for-puerto-rico-usdistct-2019.