August 28, 2018
Good Morning! In this morning’s eBlog, we consider the shaky promise of PROMESA for the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, an entity somewhat in Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone between a state and a municipality.
A Fiscally Appealing Chapter 9 case? U.S. Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-Az.) and Nydia Velasquez (D-N.Y.) yesterday warned the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals that House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop’s (R-Utah) interpretation of the PROMESA statute to be legislation intended to offer special protections to creditors or limit the restructuring of the debt through the judicial route was erroneous, arguing, in an amicus brief in the case brought by AMBAC against Puerto Rico and the PROMESA Oversight Board that “the purpose of PROMESA was not to grant to the creditors of Puerto Rico, including the bondholders, special protections that other municipal creditors do not have, nor to avoid losses to those creditors.” In addition, they argued for rejection of the interpretation that the Congressional statute for the restructuring of the public debt of Puerto Rico by judicial means had been established as the last resort of the Promesa law. Ranking Member Rep. Raul Grijalva (D.-Az.) indicated that the statute simply requires Puerto Rico to make “good faith efforts to achieve a consensus restructuring with creditors” prior to filing a petition through the courts. The two Members noted: “Neither the legislative record, nor the legal text supports an interpretation of PROMESA that gives creditors greater rights than those of a traditional reorganization at the expense of debtors’ rights.”