IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT 

BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA Title III

No. 17-BK-3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT 

BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY,

Debtor.

PROMESA Title III

No. 17-BK-4780-LTS

LIMITED OBJECTION OF THE AD HOC GROUP OF PREPA BONDHOLDERS TO 

THE URGENT MOTION OF PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY FOR 

ORDER (I) SCHEDULING A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADEQUACY OF 

INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT, 

(II) ESTABLISHING THE DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE 

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND REPLIES THERETO, (III) APPROVING FORM 

AND MANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF, (IV) ESTABLISHING DOCUMENT 

DEPOSITORY PROCEDURES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND 

(V) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF [ECF NO. 3112]

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case number and the 

last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the 

(i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal 

Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-

BK-3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 

Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); 

(iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico 

Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 

19-BK-5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) (Title III case numbers are listed as 

Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 10
1

The Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders (collectively, the “Ad Hoc Group”) 

respectfully submits this limited objection to the Motion of Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

for Order (I) Scheduling a Hearing to Consider the Adequacy of Information Contained in the 

Disclosure Statement, (II) Establishing the Deadline for Filing Objections to the Disclosure 

Statement and Replies Thereto, (III) Approving Form and Manner of Notice Thereof, (IV) 

Establishing Document Depository Procedures in Connection Therewith, and 

(V) Granting Related Relief, ECF No. 3112 (the “Urgent Motion”).2

1. The Oversight Board has submitted a patently unconfirmable placeholder plan. It 

is accompanied by a disclosure statement that fails to provide information that is either accurate 

or sufficient to allow creditors to make informed decisions on whether to vote for that plan (if this 

placeholder plan even advances that far). Among other defects:

a. The plan arbitrarily proposes to pay PREPA’s bondholders and other 

creditors billions of dollars less than the Oversight Board has publicly conceded PREPA 

can afford to pay. According to the Oversight Board’s public disclosures, it concluded as 

recently as November 8—just six weeks ago—that PREPA can afford to pay creditor 

recoveries totaling approximately $7.8 billion.3 As described in post-mediation public 

disclosures, bondholders repeatedly demonstrated to the Board that this analysis was 

predicated on outdated and inaccurate data, and thus grossly understated PREPA’s true 

ability to pay restructured debts over the coming decades. 

2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in 

the Urgent Motion. 

3 PREPA FOMB Proposal to Bondholder Group at 6-7 (Nov. 8, 2022); PREPA Bondholder Mediation 

Presentation at 12, both available at https://emma.msrb.org/P11641653-P11264323-P11690562.pdf. Under 

the 2019 Restructuring Support Agreement, and the original RSA before that, PREPA and the Oversight 

Board previously agreed that PREPA can afford to pay bondholders even more than that.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 10
2

Not only does the Oversight Board’s Proposed Disclosure Statement [ECF 

No. 3111] ignore these errors, but it misleadingly states that PREPA can afford to pay 

creditors no more than $5.4 billion (i.e., $2.4 billion less than what the Oversight Board

just told creditors that PREPA can actually afford to pay). Id. at 4. The Oversight Board 

doesn’t explain how $2.4 billion dollars of available revenues to pay creditors simply 

vanished in only a few weeks’ time. Nor does it explain why PREPA was able to offer

creditors more revenue-earning capacity in a negotiation, only then to claim in a litigation 

that those revenues do not exist. And the Proposed Disclosure Statement provides no 

information—literally none—about the basis on which the Oversight Board has arrived at

its new (and even more pessimistic) view of what PREPA can afford to pay its creditors. 

For example, it provides insufficient information about the $2.4 billion in accounts 

receivables owed by other Commonwealth entities to PREPA, and whether improved 

efforts to collect those revenues could increase what PREPA can afford. See id. at 61. 

b. PREPA’s proposed placeholder plan and disclosure statement are also 

defective because they make no serious effort to account for the resolution of key legal and 

factual disputes:

First, the Court instructed the Oversight Board to propose a plan it believed 

to be confirmable after taking into account the possible outcomes on matters still to be 

litigated. The Oversight Board instead constructed a plan that provides for different 

possible outcomes only on the subset of issues on which it prefers to focus attention, in 

particular bondholders’ right to payment and security. And even on that issue, the 

Oversight Board has not met the Court’s requirement to propose a confirmable plan 

accounting for all possible outcomes of the litigation because it concedes that its 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 10
3

placeholder plan may not be confirmable if the Trustee’s Claim is secured by PREPA’s 

revenues and the value of the security interest exceeds the total amount in Series B bonds 

the plan proposes. The Oversight Board also implicitly agrees that its plan is not 

confirmable if it is wrong about what PREPA can afford. Further, the plan fails to include 

a scenario in which the Court rules that PREPA can afford to pay more than this plan 

proposes, regardless of the outcome of the dispute regarding the scope of the security 

interest. And, as a result, the Oversight Board ignored this Court’s express direction to file 

a plan that would be confirmable in all reasonably possible litigation scenarios, see

Amendments to Order Establishing the Terms and Conditions of Mediation, at 4 [ECF No. 

3013], choosing instead to roll the dice on the most consequential issue in this case, while 

providing no explanation for the basis of its position. See also November 2, 2022 Hr’g Tr. 

18:4-14 [Case No. 17-03283, ECF No. 22836] (“I don’t expect to see a place holder filed 

on December 1. . . . [I]f the requirement to file a confirmable plan . . . isn’t met every

possible way of reacting to that will be on the table.”). 

Second, the Trustee and bondholders expect to establish, in the now-stayed

“Current Expense” adversary proceeding, that the Trustee’s Claim is not subordinated to 

the Fuel Line Lenders’ claims—a position with which the Oversight Board agrees, and that

in any event presents an intercreditor dispute in which PREPA has no stake (and thus 

cannot “settle” with other creditors’ money). In that likely event, the plan’s proposal to 

award first-priority bonds and a premium recovery to Fuel Line Lenders, ahead of 

bondholders with existing priority, is patently unconfirmable.

Third, the proposed plan and disclosure statement reflect no information 

about, and do not account for, whatever settlement in principle the Oversight Board has 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 10
4

reached with monoline insurer National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, a 

development that rendered the current plan and disclosure statement insufficient just hours 

after they were filed, and the to-be-disclosed terms of which may raise yet additional

concerns about whether the plan has been filed in good faith and is confirmable.

c. Notwithstanding these and numerous other patent deficiencies in the 

placeholder plan and disclosure statement, the Oversight Board proposes to solicit

bondholder votes for PREPA’s plan by offering a so-called “settlement” to coerce longunpaid bondholders into agreeing to vote for the plan before they receive an approved

disclosure statement (and before the pending lien and recourse issues have been resolved). 

But that “settlement” payment would come out of other bondholders’ pockets; the plan 

proposes to fund early agreements to vote for the plan out of recoveries that otherwise 

would go to bondholders who have the temerity to make plan-related decisions only after

receiving an approved disclosure statement and other plan-related information.

2. The Ad Hoc Group expects to present these and other substantial objections to the 

confirmability of the plan and sufficiency of its disclosure statement. It will to do so under the

Court’s proposed schedule, assuming it is ordered, under which objections will be due February 3, 

the Oversight Board’s reply will be due February 10, and a hearing will be held February 28. See

ECF No. 3119. Indeed, the Ad Hoc Group submits that the sooner the Oversight Board is required 

to file a plausibly confirmable plan, with meaningful and sufficient disclosures about the basis for 

its key terms, the better off PREPA and its stakeholders will be.

3. In all events, however—and whether the Oversight Board is allowed to proceed 

with this placeholder plan or some revised plan—the fact remains that the Oversight Board has 

elected to proceed in this Title III case by trying to cram down a contested plan over fundamental, 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 10
5

fact-intensive objections from PREPA’s largest stakeholders. The bondholders’ objections will 

focus on, among other things, what PREPA can actually afford to pay, whether the plan has been 

proposed in good faith, and whether PREPA’s aggressive plan provisions meet the confirmation 

requirements and dissenting-creditor safeguards imposed by PROMESA and the Bankruptcy 

Code. Bondholders and other creditors will be defending their rights to billions of unpaid dollars, 

and due process necessitates robust discovery and an adversarial process on their challenges to the 

Oversight Board’s unsupported assertions of unaffordability, good faith, and confirmability. There 

is simply no escaping that litigating a contested cramdown plan will demand substantial document 

discovery, numerous depositions, multiple expert disclosures, pre-hearing motion practice, and 

renewed litigation of various plan-related disputes (including the Fuel Line Lenders’ subordination 

claim against bondholders’ Trustee in the Current Expense adversary proceeding, Adv Proc. No.

19-00396).

4. The only way for all of that necessary litigation to take place, and still get to a 

confirmation hearing by July on some plan of adjustment for PREPA, is to start discovery now. 

The Ad Hoc Group thus expects, in early January, to file a preliminary plan objection and to serve 

initial discovery requests in support of that objection.

4

 As the Mediation Team’s reports and 

statements have made clear these past few months, the Ad Hoc Group has every reason to doubt

that the Oversight Board will voluntarily make sufficient and reliable information available to 

4 See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 (incorporating Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 for contested matters). The Oversight Board 

has indicated that it is capable of responding to document requests within 7 days, see ECF No. 3114 ¶ 34 

(chart), and so the Ad Hoc Group expects the Oversight Board to meet that timeline even before its proposed 

confirmation-procedures order has been entered (at least if it truly wishes to reach a confirmation hearing 

by July).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 10
6

creditors on its own.5 Rather, discovery will be needed to identify and obtain other material 

information that creditors will need to evaluate the proposed plan and state their confirmation 

objections. The Ad Hoc Group expects that any discovery materials it obtains could be made 

available to other interested parties via the proposed Depositary (before and after the disclosure 

statement hearing), such that all creditors would benefit from the prompt disclosure of additional

relevant information.

5. Nothing in the Oversight Board’s Urgent Motion precludes such plan-related 

discovery from commencing now. And the Oversight Board’s separate motion to establish certain

confirmation-related procedures [ECF No. 3114]—which the Oversight Board asks the Court to 

consider and grant two months from now, at the late-February disclosure statement hearing—

merely sets deadlines for parties to notice their intent to participate in discovery and to serve 

discovery requests. That motion, too, does not ask the Court to set any “start date” before which 

plan-related discovery would be prohibited.

6. But to the extent that the Oversight Board intends by its pending Urgent Motion to

prohibit all plan-related discovery until March 2023, and until then to restrict creditors to receiving 

only whatever information the Oversight Board self-selects for its proposed Depositary, then the

Ad Hoc Group objects to the Urgent Motion in that limited (but important) respect. Under the 

Oversight Board’s separate confirmation-procedures motion [ECF No. 3114], by the time the 

disclosure statement hearing takes place, only six weeks will remain for all fact and expert 

discovery to take place. If interested parties cannot even serve and negotiate document requests

5 E.g., ECF No. 3091 (Dec. 1, 2022) (“Despite reasonable requests by the Ad Hoc Group and the Monolines, 

the Oversight Board is still in the process of providing basic data and analyses relevant to the ongoing plan 

negotiations.”).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 10
7

until February 28 (at the earliest), then it will be nearly impossible to complete discovery on the 

proposed schedule.

7. For example, the Oversight Board contemplates that opening expert reports on plan 

confirmation will be due on April 14, 2023—just 45 days after the disclosure statement hearing. 

But experts in this case will need to review and analyze documents produced by PREPA, the 

Oversight Board, and others, as well as the testimony of those entities’ relevant decision-makers 

and consultants. It is implausible to expect experts to be able to do that work if interested parties 

cannot even begin the process of seeking relevant documents and testimony until February 28, 

2023. And although the Oversight Board compares its proposed procedures to those ordered in 

the Commonwealth and HTA cases (Urgent Mot. ¶¶ 5, 37), those cases involved largely 

consensual plans that were premised on settlements with major creditors. The truncated discovery 

procedures in those cases are inappropriate for what the Oversight Board has set up to be a hotly 

contested confirmation battle with PREPA’s largest creditors.

8. In short, there is no conceivable benefit to interested parties or the Court from 

forcing all parties to sit on their hands for more than two months before plan-related discovery 

begins, only then to have to sprint to try to pack everything into only a few short weeks. Not only 

would that process be unfair and unwarranted, but it also all but begs for even one discovery 

dispute, production issue, or scheduling kerfuffle to materially delay the confirmation hearing. 

Now that the Oversight Board has launched a contested, non-consensual plan-confirmation 

process, there is a lot that has to happen and get done. To the extent the Urgent Motion would 

require the parties to wait until February 28 to get started, it should be denied in that limited respect.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 10
8

CONCLUSION

The Urgent Motion should be denied to the limited extent that it would prohibit all planrelated discovery, other than the Oversight Board’s voluntary disclosures under the proposed

Depositary Procedures, until after the disclosure statement hearing, and this Court should 

otherwise grant the Urgent Motion as modified by the schedule proposed in the Court’s December 

19, 2022 Order [ECF No. 3119].

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 10
9

We hereby certify that, on this same date, we electronically filed the foregoing with the 

clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will notify the attorneys of record.

Dated: San Juan, Puerto Rico

December 21, 2022

TORO COLÓN MULLET P.S.C.

/s/ Manuel Fernández-Bared

Manuel Fernández-Bared

USDC-PR No. 204,204

P.O. Box 195383

San Juan, PR 00919-5383

Tel.: (787) 751-8999

Fax: (787) 763-7760

E-mail: mfb@tcm.law

/s/ Linette Figueroa-Torres

Linette Figueroa-Torres

USDC-PR No. 227,104

E-mail: lft@tcm.law

/s/ Nayda Perez-Roman

Nayda Perez-Roman

USDC–PR No. 300,208

E-mail: nperez@tcm.law

Counsel for the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA 

Bondholders

KRAMER LEVIN 

NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP

/s/ Amy Caton

Amy Caton*

Thomas Moers Mayer*

Alice J. Byowitz*

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10036

Tel.: (212) 715-9100

Fax: (212) 715-8000

Email: acaton@kramerlevin.com

tmayer@kramerlevin.com

abyowitz@kramerlevin.com

Gary A. Orseck*

Matthew M. Madden*

2000 K Street NW, 4th Floor

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (202) 775-4500

Fax: (202) 775-4510

Email: gorseck@kramerlevin.com

mmadden@kramerlevin.com

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Counsel for the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA 

Bondholders

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23133 Filed:12/21/22 Entered:12/21/22 16:41:43 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 10