A few reactions to today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the validity of Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act:

Introduction

Puerto Rico v. Franklin CA Tax-Free Trust, No. 15-233
Acosta-Febo v. Franklin CA Tax-Free Trust, No. 15-255

It is said that muddy water is best cleared by leaving it be.  The Supreme Court’s December 4 decision to review the legality of Puerto Rico’s local bankruptcy law, the Recovery Act, despite a well-reasoned First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the U.S. District Court in San Juan’s decision voiding the Recovery Act on the grounds that it conflicts with Section 903 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, suggests, at a minimum, that at least four of the Justices deemed the questions raised too interesting to let the First Circuit have the last word.

On Saturday, June 28, Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed into law the euphemistically-named “Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act” (the “Act”).

Yesterday, the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico closed Westernbank Puerto Rico, headquartered in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, and the FDIC was appointed receiver.

Yesterday, the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico closed R-G Premier Bank of Puerto Rico, headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, and the FDIC was appointed receiver.

Last Tuesday, Puerto Rico sold its much-ballyhooed $3.5 billion in non-investment grade general obligation bonds. Two days later, two legislators in Puerto Rico’s Senate filed a bill which, if enacted, would permit insolvency filings by Puerto Rico’s public corporations in Puerto Rico’s territorial trial court. The juxtaposition of the two events has some bond investors crying foul.

Deposit Ins. Agency v. Leontiev, No. 17-MC-00414 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2018) [click for opinion]

On July 31, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recognized a Russian insolvency proceeding as a foreign main proceeding under chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), concluding that (i) a retainer deposited with the debtor’s attorneys in the U.S. was sufficient property within the United States to establish jurisdiction over a debtor under section 109(a) of the Code and (ii) the Russian insolvency proceeding was not “manifestly contrary to public policy of the United States.”