UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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 and 

Reorganized 

Debtors.

1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-

LTS

(Jointly

Administered)

CARLOS LAMOUTTE,

Movant,

 -againstTHE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

on its own behalf and as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al,

Respondent.

Re: ECF No. 22320

 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 (the “Commonwealth”) (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” and together with the

Commonwealth, COFINA, HTA, and ERS, the “Debtors”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747) (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due 

to software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 8
RESPONSE OF THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT

BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO TO CARLOS LAMOUTTE’S 

INFORMATIVE MOTION TO PLACE UNDER 

JUDICIAL NOTICE CERTAIN ADJUDICATIVE FACTS 

PURSUANT TO RULE 201 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 8
1

To the Honorable United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain:

The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), 

as the sole Title III representative of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth” or 

the “Debtor”) pursuant to section 315(b) of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and 

Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”),2 respectfully submits this response and opposition (the 

“Opposition”) to Carlos Lamoutte’s Informative Motion to Place Under Judicial Notice Certain 

Adjudicative Facts Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence [ECF No. 22320] (the 

“Informative Motion for Judicial Notice”), filed September 16, 2022 by Carlos Lamoutte (“Mr. 

Lamoutte”) and entered by this Court on September 20, 2022.

3

 

RESPONSE

1. Mr. Lamoutte’s Informative Motion for Judicial Notice fails on its face because 

informative motions cannot request relief against another litigant. Mr. Lamoutte’s informative 

motion requests the Court take judicial notice of certain purported facts relating to the entities 

identified in Mr. Lamoutte’s Motion to Intervene. 

2. As with Mr. Lamoutte’s Motion to Intervene, the Informative Motion for Judicial 

Notice is grounded in incendiary and wholly false allegations such as alleging the Oversight Board 

of having become a “racketeering-prone organization,” as well as a fundamental misunderstanding 

 2 PROMESA is codified at 48 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2241.

3 Mr. Lamoutte’s Informative Motion for Judicial Notice is combined with his Reply brief in 

support of his Motion to Intervene and to Inform the Existence and Continuance of Unresolvable 

Conflicts of Interest in Violation of the Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021, 

48 U.S.C. 2101 et seq., and Petition for: (A) The Permanent Disqualification of McKinsey & 

Company, Inc. and Its Affiliates as Advisors to the Financial Oversight and Management Board 

for Puerto Rico, and (B) the Disallowment and Disgorgement of Legal Fees [ECF No. 22025] (the 

“Motion to Intervene”). The Oversight Board’s filing responds only to the Informative Motion for 

Judicial Notice and is not intended to be a sur-reply to the Reply portion of his submission. In so 

doing, the Oversight Board notes that it is improper to combine a motion with a reply brief.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 8
2

of the Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-82 

(“PRRADA”). Indeed, it appears the Informative Motion for Judicial Notice is little more than an

attempt to raise inflammatory and baseless attacks against the Oversight Board and its advisors. 

3. The Informative Motion for Judicial Notice further supports the Oversight Board’s 

position that Mr. Lamoutte has met and surpassed the vexatious litigation standard under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1927, warranting the Court to require Mr. Lamoutte to satisfy personally the excess costs, 

expenses, and attorneys’ fees required by his filings. The Oversight Board has previously detailed 

the multitude of repetitive filings Mr. Lamoutte has submitted addressing his unsupported 

allegations that some of the Oversight Board’s advisors are not disinterested and attacking the 

Oversight Board and its staff. See Exhibit A to ECF No. 22216 (“Opp. to Mot. to Intervene”)

(chart listing the filings Mr. Lamoutte made in this Court). Since then, Mr. Lamoutte has filed the 

Motion for Judicial Notice, and a similar Informative Motion to Place Under Judicial Notice 

Certain Adjudicative Facts Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence [ECF No. 

22401] (“Second Motion for Judicial Notice”). The Court, sua sponte, struck the Second Motion 

for Judicial Notice as an improper sur-reply, noting that it was “the third time that the Court has 

issued an order bringing this requirement to Movant’s attention.” ECF No. 22404 at 2.

4. The Oversight Board does not currently request an order that Mr. Lamoutte be 

personally sanctioned, and would not make the request in a response to an informative motion.

But, if Mr. Lamoutte does not cease his vexatious litigation efforts, the Oversight Board is prepared 

to do so. 

5. For the reasons above and below the Informative Motion for Judicial Notice should 

be denied. 

6. Mr. Lamoutte’s Informative Motion for Judicial Notice purports to support his 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 8
3

Motion to Intervene. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out by the Oversight Board, Mr. 

Lamoutte’s Motion to Intervene should be denied because he lacks standing, is misinterpreting the 

law, and is proceeding improperly. Taking judicial notice of the purported facts set forth in 

paragraph 18 of the Informative Motion for Judicial Notice will not cure the fundamental problems 

with Mr. Lamoutte’s Motion to Intervene.4

 

7. First, even if the Court took judicial notice of the purported facts requested by Mr. 

Lamoutte, such information will not change the fact Mr. Lamoutte lacks standing to bring the 

Motion to Intervene. As explained in the Oversight Board’s opposition to the Motion to Intervene, 

Mr. Lamoutte cannot satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing and he does not have 

standing to challenge professionals’ disclosures under PRRADA. See Opp. to Mot. to Intervene

¶¶ 22-23. None of the purported facts of which Mr. Lamoutte seeks judicial notice will cure this 

fundamental defect in his Motion to Intervene, and he does not attempt to claim otherwise. 

8. Second, the purported facts of which Mr. Lamoutte petitions the Court to take 

judicial notice are immaterial to the issues raised by the Motion to Intervene. As the Oversight 

Board has explained to Mr. Lamoutte and to this Court, McKinsey’s and OB’s PRRADA 

disclosures provided the required information regarding their work for the Oversight Board and 

their connections to entities on the material interested party list (“MIP List”). See ECF Nos. 21094

 4 Moreover, the alleged facts Mr. Lamoutte petitions this Court to judicially notice do not meet the 

requirements of Rule 201(b). Rule 201(b) permits district courts to take judicial notice of an 

adjudicative fact not the subject of reasonable dispute when it: “(1) is generally known within the 

trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed R. Evid. 201(b). Here, the majority of the 

“facts” of which Mr. Lamoutte seeks judicial notice are unsupported assertions about (1) contracts 

between private and Commonwealth affiliated entities and (2) McKinsey’s and O’Neill & Borges’ 

(“OB”) client rosters. That is plainly insufficient to support a request to take judicial notice. See, 

e.g., Seguin v. Textron, No. 13-CV-012-SJM-LM, 2013 WL 5704947, at *2 (D.R.I. Oct. 17, 2013) 

(declining to take judicial notice of evidence where proponent neither cited precise webpage 

reporting evidence, nor provided such information in hard-copy).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 8
4

and 22216. That certain of McKinsey’s and OB’s clients may have separately negotiated or 

obtained contracts with Commonwealth affiliated entities is not a basis, without more, to disqualify 

the Oversight Board’s advisors as Mr. Lamoutte erroneously contends. Given that Mr. Lamoutte 

has provided the Court with nothing more than rank speculation in support of his accusations of 

conflict – in contrast to the declarations submitted by OB and McKinsey stating under penalty of 

perjury no such conflicts exist – it would serve no purpose for this Court to take judicial notice of 

the so-called facts. See United States v. Carrasco-Castillo, 427 F. Supp. 3d 266, 271 (D.P.R. 

2019) (“taking notice of facts that are irrelevant ... or collateral is contrary to the policies 

underlying Rule 201’s judicial notice provisions”).

9. For the foregoing reasons, the Informative Motion for Judicial Notice should be 

denied in its entirety. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 8
5

Dated: October 4, 2022

San Juan, Puerto Rico

/s/ Luis F. del Valle-Emmanuelli

Luis F. del Valle-Emmanuelli

USDC-PR No. 209514

P.O. Box 79897

Carolina, Puerto Rico 00984-9897

Tel. 787.647.3503

Fax N/A

dvelawoffices@gmail.com

OF COUNSEL FOR

A&S LEGAL STUDIO, PSC

434 Avenida Hostos

San Juan, PR 00918

Tel. (787) 751-6764/763-0565

Fax (787) 763-8260

/s/ Martin J. Bienenstock

Martin J. Bienenstock (pro hac vice)

Timothy W. Mungovan (pro hac vice)

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Eleven Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Tel: (212) 969-3000

Fax: (212) 969-2900

Email: mbienenstock@proskauer.com 

Guy Brenner (pro hac vice)

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Suite 600 South

Washington, DC 20004

Tel: (202) 416-6800

Fax: (202) 416-6899

Email: gbrenner@proskauer.com 

Attorneys for the Financial Oversight and 

Management Board for Puerto Rico, on its 

own behalf and as representative of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 8
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on this same date, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notifications of such filing to all

CM/ECF participants in this case.

/s/ Luis F. del Valle-Emmanuelli

Luis F. del Valle Emmanuelli

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22468 Filed:10/04/22 Entered:10/04/22 08:18:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 8