UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 

 : 

In re: : 

 : 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND : PROMESA 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, : Title III 

 : 

as representative of : Case No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS) 

 : 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al., : (Jointly Administered) 

 : 

Debtors.1

 : 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 

 : 

In re: : 

 : 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND : PROMESA 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, : Title III 

 : 

as representative of : Case No. 17-BK-4780 (LTS) 

 : 

PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY, : (Jointly Administered)

 : 

Debtor. : 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- X 

OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF MARK SHANKWEILER

 

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”) (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#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1 

ARUGMENT ................................................................................................................................. 2 

I. Oversight Board Failed to Satisfy Burden to Establish Mr. Shankweiler as 

Qualified to Provide Opinion Estimating GUC Pool ......................................................... 2 

II. Mr. Shankweiler Acted as Mere Mouthpiece for Oversight Board’s and PREPA’s 

Attorneys ............................................................................................................................ 5 

III. Oversight Board Failed to Respond to Committee’s Argument that Mr. 

Shankweiler’s Testimony Will Be Inadmissible Legal Opinion ....................................... 9 

IV. Oversight Board Cannot Use Privilege Claims to Prevent Scrutiny of Mr. 

Shankweiler’s Opinion....................................................................................................... 9 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 13 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 16
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Alves v. Affiliated Care of Putnam, Inc., 

2022 WL 1002817 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022) ...........................................................................8 

Beck’s Office Furniture & Supplies, Inc. v. Haworth, Inc., 

1996 WL 466673 (10th Cir. Aug. 16, 1996)..............................................................................8 

Berry v. City of Detroit, 

25 F.3d 1342 (6th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................4 

Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Co., 

2023 WL 3735108 (D.P.R. May 30, 2023)................................................................................5 

Ferrara & DiMercurio v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 

240 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) ..........................................................................................................8 

Insight Tech. Inc. v. Surefire, LLC, 

2005 WL 6001396 (D.N.H. Aug. 2, 2005) ................................................................................4 

Marrero-Rolon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 

2018 WL 8805485 (D.P.R. Sept. 10, 2018) ...............................................................................7 

Noel v. N.Y.C., 

2023 WL 3170430 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2023)............................................................................9 

Rivera-Cruz v. Latimer, Biaggi, Rachid & Godreau, 

2008 WL 2446331 (D.P.R. June 16, 2008)................................................................................8 

Santos v. Posadas De Puerto Rico Assocs., Inc., 

452 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................4 

The Campbell v. N.Y.C., 

2021 WL 826899 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2021) .........................................................................8, 11 

United States v. Hoffman, 

832 F.2d 1299 (1st Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................................4 

Wilson v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 

2021 WL 1840753 (D. Me. May 7, 2021) .................................................................................9 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 16
The Committee2

 respectfully submits this reply in response to Debtor’s Opposition to 

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Mark 

Shankweiler [Dkt. 3728] (the “Opposition” or “Opp’n”), and in further support of Official

Committee of Unsecured Creditors’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Mark Shankweiler

[Dkt. 3579] (the “Motion” or “Mot.”). 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. The Opposition makes plain why the Motion should be granted, and Mr. 

Shankweiler should be precluded from testifying as an expert at the confirmation hearing. 

2. First, given the opportunity to supplement the record regarding Mr. Shankweiler’s 

qualifications, the Opposition provides nothing new regarding his ability to opine on an estimate 

of the GUC pool. The Oversight Board does not explain how Mr. Shankweiler’s expertise as a 

general bankruptcy restructuring professional renders him at all qualified to evaluate the unique 

legal issues arising out of the huge, complicated claims asserted against an electric power 

authority in Puerto Rico (in contrast to the traditional trade creditor claims that Mr. Shankweiler 

has likely dealt with in his prior bankruptcy work). Nor does the Oversight Board dispute that it 

bears the burden of demonstrating Mr. Shankweiler’s qualifications. 

3. Second, the Oversight Board concedes that the estimates for the claims in the 

GUC pool were created by Proskauer, Diaz & Vazquez, PREPA’s arbitration office, etc.—that 

is, almost anyone aside from Mr. Shankweiler or his team at BRG. This is not surprising in light 

of Mr. Shankweiler’s repeated admissions (adopted by the Oversight Board) that he simply lacks 

the legal expertise to estimate the value of the claims in the GUC pool. At most, the Oversight 

Board has demonstrated that Mr. Shankweiler and BRG took care of the administrative aspects 

 

2

 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Motion or the Opposition. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 16
2 

of calculating the estimate of the GUC pool, for example, by compiling the documents and 

information that the Oversight Board’s and PREPA’s lawyers needed to actually evaluate the 

claims. 

4. Third, the Oversight Board fails to even respond to the Committee’s argument 

that Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony will be inadmissible legal opinion. As explained in the 

Motion, experts cannot testify as to legal conclusions, since those are reserved exclusively to the 

trier of fact. 

5. Fourth, the Oversight Board admits that the Committee is entitled to the facts, 

data, and assumptions Mr. Shankweiler used to arrive at his estimation of the claims in the GUC 

pool. But the Oversight Board’s claim that all of the facts, data, and assumptions behind an $800 

million estimate of the allowed amount of thousands of claims with an asserted amount of 

billions of dollar is contained in a three-page discussion in the Disclosure Statement is laughable. 

Equally absurd is the Oversight Board’s twisting of the meaning of the word “assumptions” to 

cover the legal analyses provided by the Oversight Board’s and PREPA’s lawyers to Mr. 

Shankweiler, which (as Mr. Shankweiler himself explained during his deposition) were the 

sources of the estimates of the claims in the GUC pool. 

ARUGMENT 

I. OVERSIGHT BOARD FAILED TO SATISFY BURDEN TO ESTABLISH MR. 

SHANKWEILER AS QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE OPINION ESTIMATING GUC 

POOL 

6. The Oversight Board does not dispute that it bears the burden to show that Mr. 

Shankweiler is qualified to provide an expert opinion estimating the GUC pool. Mot. ¶ 22. Mr. 

Shankweiler should be precluded from testifying because the Oversight Board has failed to 

satisfy this burden—he simply lacks the “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education” 

necessary to provide an expert opinion regarding allowed amount of claims in the GUC pool. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 16
3 

7. As the Motion demonstrated, Mr. Shankweiler’s deposition testimony was thin on 

evidence demonstrating that he could be qualified as an expert. Mot. ¶¶ 24-26. Given the 

opportunity to bolster Mr. Shankweiler’s credentials in the Opposition, the Oversight Board was 

able to muster nothing more than a one-page CV (Opp’n ¶ 20), which provided no significant 

information that Mr. Shankweiler had not already proffered during his deposition testimony. 

8. The Oversight Board attempts to support Mr. Shankweiler’s credentials by stating 

over and over that he has “extensive bankruptcy and restructuring experience.” Opp’n ¶ 17; see 

also id. (“extensive experience in bankruptcy and restructuring”); id. ¶ 3 (“extensive experience 

in the restructuring industry”). The Oversight Board also notes that Mr. Shankweiler holds a 

degree in accounting and business administration, is a certified insolvency and restructuring 

advisor, and a CPA. Opp’n ¶ 20. But neither the Oversight Board nor Mr. Shankweiler provide 

any detail on how his experience or credentials qualify Mr. Shankweiler to provide an estimate 

of the GUC Pool for PREPA.3 As Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony makes clear, estimating the 

allowed amount of the general unsecured claims against PREPA is an exercise in evaluating how 

strong or weak a claim is as a matter of law. It requires applying the facts and circumstances of a 

claim to the applicable law, determining the potential value of a claim, and handicapping the 

claim for likelihood of success. The claims asserted against PREPA—for example, PPOA 

claims, union claims, employee claims, etc.—are specific to public utilities. These claims are 

not run-of-the-mill trade creditor claims asserted in any bankruptcy, which can be evaluated 

mechanically by a straightforward review of invoices and work done. Instead, these are huge 

claims that raise complicated legal issues, and it is those legal issues that are wholly 

 

3

 The Oversight Board’s attempt to distinguish the Committee’s cases fails because it merely restates the holdings of 

the cases, and otherwise fails to show Mr. Shankweiler’s circumstances are different, or how his experience permits 

him to estimate the value of the GUC pool. Cf. Opp’n, at 8 n.8. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 16
4 

determinative of what the allowed amount of the claims should be. There is nothing in the 

record to suggest that Mr. Shankweiler has any experience with these sorts of claims, much less 

that he has experience valuing such claims under, for example, Puerto Rico law. As the Berry

court explained, “[t]he issue with regard to expert testimony is not the qualifications of a witness 

in the abstract, but whether those qualifications provide a foundation for a witness to answer a 

specific question.” Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d 1342, 1351 (6th Cir. 1994) (emphasis 

added). Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony should be excluded because the Oversight Board has failed 

to show that he is qualified to “answer a specific question”—what is the estimated allowed 

amount of claims in the GUC pool.4

9. The Oversight Board’s cases (Opp’n ¶ 21) change nothing, as the witnesses in 

those cases were clearly qualified to provide the opinions they actually provided. In Santos v. 

Posadas De Puerto Rico Assocs., Inc., 452 F.3d 59, 64 (1st Cir. 2006), the expert in a slip and 

fall case was qualified because he held “a doctorate in mechanical engineering . . . [was] certified 

by the National Academy of Safety as a tribologist (that is, someone who deals with friction and 

the application of friction to the way pedestrians walk), [and] in his professional capacity . . . 

[had] analyzed approximately 2,000 slip-and-fall accidents since 1990.” In United States v. 

Hoffman, 832 F.2d 1299, 1310 (1st Cir. 1987), the proposed expert witness was qualified to 

interpret phrases used in the narcotics trade because of his experience as a DEA agent and his 

participation in hundreds of investigations. In Insight Tech. Inc. v. Surefire, LLC, 2005 WL 

6001396, at *2 (D.N.H. Aug. 2, 2005), the court held that the proposed witness in a patent case 

was qualified to testify as an expert because he was the founder and current president of the 

 

4

 Oddly, the Oversight Board seems to suggest at one point that the experience Mr. Shankweiler has gained through 

his work on this case (Opp’n ¶ 17; “specifically PREPA’s Title III case”) provides him with the expertise to testify 

in this case. The Oversight Board provides no authority to support its self-fulfilling argument that an expert can 

gain expertise to testify in a given case through work on that case itself. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 16
5 

company, had thirty years of relevant experience, and was a named inventor on the patent. 

Opp’n ¶ 21. And in Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Co., 2023 WL 3735108, at *5 

(D.P.R. May 30, 2023), the proposed witness was qualified to provide loss calculations because 

she had a bachelor’s degree in accounting, an MBA, and was a “Certified Fraud Examiner.”5 

Unlike the experts in these cases, Mr. Shankweiler lacks the experience or training to credibly 

opine on the specific question he has been called upon to address (i.e., to provide an estimate of 

the allowed amount of the GUC pool) and therefore should be excluded. 

II. MR. SHANKWEILER ACTED AS MERE MOUTHPIECE FOR OVERSIGHT 

BOARD’S AND PREPA’S ATTORNEYS 

10. Mr. Shankweiler’s $800 million opinion is an estimate of the allowed amount of 

all of the claims in the GUC pool. But the Opposition makes plain that it was counsel for the 

Oversight Board and PREPA—and not Mr. Shankweiler—that came up with those amounts. As 

the Opposition explains, “to prepare an accurate estimate of such claims, [Mr. Shankweikler and 

his team] needed to rely on counsel for ‘a determination as to what in their legal opinion the 

litigation claim would be worth.” Opp’n ¶ 28 (quoting Shankweiler Dep. Tr. 34:16-23) 

(emphasis added). The Opposition likewise admits that Mr. Shankweiler relied on the legal 

expertise of the Oversight Board’s and PREPA’s counsel “in order to come up with a value” for 

the claims in the GUC pool. Id. (emphasis added). The determinations made by Diaz & 

Vazquez, and Mr. Shankweiler’s total reliance on those determinations, are particularly 

questionable in light of that firm’s ongoing role as counsel to PREPA on some of those very 

 

5

 The Oversight Board notes that Mr. Herriman testified in the Commonwealth, PBA, ERS, and HTA Title III cases 

regarding the potential allowed amount of general unsecured claims without objection. Opp’n, at 7 n.7. Putting 

aside the obvious fact that Mr. Herriman was a different expert hired to opine in different cases, the most obvious 

reason why the Committee did not object to Mr. Herriman’s qualifications is because the Oversight Board and the 

Committee had entered into settlements in those cases. The Committee would welcome the opportunity to moot this 

Motion through a negotiated settlement. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 16
6 

claims. See Shankweiler Dep. Tr. 34:5-10; 84:8-20; 124:13-16. Similarly, the Opposition 

admits that it was not Mr. Shankweiler or BRG, but “PREPA’s arbitration office” that 

“determined a settlement value for each of the grievance claims.” Opp’n ¶ 27. Mr. Shankweiler 

cannot testify as to the estimates when it was counsel or others that determined the allowed 

amount for each claim. 

11. The Oversight Board makes much of Mr. Shankweiler’s explanation of the work 

he and his firm purportedly did to develop the $800 million estimate for the GUC pool. See, e.g., 

Opp’n ¶ 24. But the only work that Mr. Shankweiler and BRG seem to have done on their own, 

without the input of counsel, was purely administrative. See id. (“obtained all proofs of claim;” 

“categoriz[ing]” each claim; “reviewed the support provided” for each claim). Such 

administrative tasks are, of course, not proper subjects for expert testimony. In contrast, all of 

the actual valuation work was done with counsel. Id. (“BRG conferred with counsel to PREPA 

or the Oversight Board ‘to adjust any of the asserted claims’”) (emphasis added); (BRG 

“assigned a range of values and an adjusted estimated value for each category of claims . . . 

based on [BRG’s] own review of the claims and the input they received from counsel”) 

(emphasis added). 

12. As the Opposition admits, “Mr. Shankweiler and his team are not attorneys.” 

Opp’n ¶ 28. In light of Mr. Shankweiler’s lack of legal expertise, Mr. Shankweiler could not 

have materially contributed to the valuation of any of the claims in the GUC pool. For example, 

the Opposition explains that, due to the uncertainty regarding the validity of claims for lost 

profits under PPOAs under Puerto Rico law, Mr. Shankweiler estimated the range of such 

awards would be 0% on the low side and 30% on the high side. Opp’n ¶ 25. Likewise, the 

Opposition states that “Mr. Shankweiler and his team applied a five percent (5%) adjustment to 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 16
7 

the claim ‘to cover any potential claims that could arise’ from the medical plan modifications.” 

Id. ¶ 26. But as Mr. Shankweiler himself admitted, a non-lawyer is simply not in a position to 

handicap the strength of the legal claims that make up the GUC Pool. Mot. ¶ 26 (“Q: Do you 

believe that you have the expertise . . . to estimate the allowed amount of what you referred to as 

litigation claims? A: So me personally and my team personally as it relates to valuation of 

litigation claims, the answer is no.”) (quoting Shankweiler Dep. Tr. 45:4-11). 

13. The Oversight Board emphasizes that Mr. Shankweiler and his team looked at 

“each one of the claims” and “[t]o the extent that we felt that a claim had to be adjusted based on 

a review, we adjusted it.” Opp’n ¶ 30 (quoting Shankweiler Dep. Tr. 41:2-10). But because the 

Oversight Board has refused to produce anything to substantiate the analysis, there is nothing in 

the record to show what contributions, if any, Mr. Shankweiler and his team actually made in the 

“collaborative approach” (Opp’n ¶ 27 (quoting Shankweiler Dep. Tr. 123:8-125:2)) used to 

arrive at the estimated asserted amounts of claims. This is in obvious contrast to Marrero-Rolon 

v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 2018 WL 8805485, at *3 (D.P.R. Sept. 10, 2018) (Opp’n 

¶ 29), where the expert was entitled to rely on “information provided by defense counsel” that 

was available to all parties, “including materials considered by Plaintiffs’ expert, the report 

prepared by the Senate Commission, and publicly available documents” (emphasis added). 

Here, Mr. Shankweiler admits that he relied not on generally available information provided by 

counsel, but undisclosed legal analysis and legal conclusions provided by the Oversight Board’s 

and PREPA’s counsel regarding the estimated allowed amount of the claims.6

 

6

 For certain claims, Mr. Shankweiler does not even attempt to claim that he was involved in the valuation of the 

claims, and instead he merely “establish[ed] a process” for their valuation. Opp’n ¶ 27 (UTIER claims). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 16
8 

14. The Oversight Board claims that “[a]ny potential expert testimony Mr. 

Shankweiler may offer would not be drawn to the propriety of certain legal conclusions, but 

rather to his analysis and estimation of the GUC pool.” Opp’n, at 15 n.13. That is wrong. Mr. 

Shankweiler’s estimation of the GUC pool is exactly based on the “legal conclusions” of the 

Oversight Board’s and PREPA’s counsel regarding the legal strength and validity of the claims 

that make up the GUC pool. The Oversight Board’s supporting cases are thus irrelevant to this 

issue, because they deal specifically with assumptions given to experts in rendering their 

opinions. For example, in The Campbell v. N.Y.C., 2021 WL 826899, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 

2021) (Opp’n, at 14 n.13), which dealt with unpaid overtime claims, the expert was told to 

assume that “plaintiffs were in fact working during all of the ‘uncompensated time’ logged in the 

CityTime platform.” Likewise, in Alves v. Affiliated Care of Putnam, Inc., 2022 WL 1002817, at 

*8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022), the expert did not rely on counsel for legal opinions, but instead 

“for his [m]ethodology, for his data and for his primer about New York’s [Medicaid program]” 

(citations omitted).7

15. Finally, the Oversight Board’s effort to distinguish the Committee’s cases (Opp’n, 

at 16 n.15) fails. The Oversight Board attempts to distinguish Rivera-Cruz v. Latimer, Biaggi, 

Rachid & Godreau, 2008 WL 2446331, at *5 (D.P.R. June 16, 2008) and Beck’s Office 

Furniture & Supplies, Inc. v. Haworth, Inc., 1996 WL 466673, *1, *7-8 (10th Cir. Aug. 16, 

1996) by noting the opinions were properly excluded because they were based on bad evidence. 

Opp’n, at 16 n.15 (“clearly contradictory evidence” in Rivera-Cruz; “the report he relied on were 

unreliable” in Beck’s). Here, the Oversight Board has not provided the Committee with the 

 

7

 The Oversight Board’s citation to Ferrara & DiMercurio v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 

2001) is likewise irrelevant, as it dealt with one expert relying on the opinion of another expert who had passed 

away. Moreover, the testifying expert in that case “had first-hand knowledge of the fire scene and the observable 

facts there upon which to base that opinion.” Id. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 16
9 

information on which Mr. Shankweiler relied, rendering the Committee wholly unable to 

evaluate whether that evidence is in fact good or bad. And as in Noel v. N.Y.C., 2023 WL 

3170430, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2023), Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony should be excluded 

because he “has provided no information as to how he reached his conclusions,” “nor does he 

proffer any rational link between his experience and the speculations he offers” (emphasis 

added). 

III. OVERSIGHT BOARD FAILED TO RESPOND TO COMMITTEE’S 

ARGUMENT THAT MR. SHANKWEILER’S TESTIMONY WILL BE 

INADMISSIBLE LEGAL OPINION 

16. In the Motion, the Committee explained that Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony should 

be excluded because it will constitute inadmissible legal opinion. See Mot. ¶¶ 33-34. As this 

court has already recognized, expert testimony on purely legal issues is “rarely admissible.” 

Opinion and Order Denying UTIER’s Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony, at 13 n.10, Adv. 

Proc. No. 17-00229-LTS [Dkt. 225] (quoting Nieves-Villanueva v. Soto-Rivera, 133 F.3d 92, 100 

(1st Cir. 1997)). 

17. The Oversight Board failed to address this argument meaningfully in the 

Opposition. “When arguing its position, a party must fully develop the argument on which it 

relies. ‘[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed 

argumentation, are deemed waived.’” Wilson v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 2021 WL 1840753, at 

*3 (D. Me. May 7, 2021) (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990)). As 

a result, the Oversight Board has conceded this argument. 

IV. OVERSIGHT BOARD CANNOT USE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS TO PREVENT 

SCRUTINY OF MR. SHANKWEILER’S OPINION 

18. The Committee and the Oversight Board agree that “the Committee is allowed to 

know what facts, data, and assumptions were used in Mr. Shankweiler’s estimation of the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 12 of 16
10 

general unsecured claims.” Opp’n ¶ 32. But because the Oversight Board has repeatedly refused 

to produce such “facts, data, and assumptions,” Mr. Shankweiler’s opinion is inadmissible and 

should be excluded. 

19. The Oversight Board claims that such information has been disclosed “in the 

Disclosure Statement and in discovery.” Opp’n ¶ 32. But the discussion in the Disclosure 

Statement [Dkt. 3297] is only three pages,8

 and it provides nothing more than a general overview 

of the claims that make up the GUC pool, with no real analysis or explanation. See Disclosure 

Statement at 55-57. The absurdity of the Oversight Board’s reliance on the Disclosure Statement 

is made manifest by reviewing, as an example, the discussion of the UTIER Grievance claims. 

In support of its estimate that the $1.1 billion of asserted claims against PREPA, across 26,000

individual grievance claims, should have an allowed amount of $230 million, the Oversight 

Board proffers a single, five-sentence paragraph. Id. at 56. Three pages is simply not enough 

to justify the value of thousands of claims with an asserted value of billions of dollars. 

20. The Oversight Board’s claim that the information has been disclosed “in 

discovery” is simply false. The Committee has not identified anything produced by the 

Oversight Board that would substantiate Mr. Shankweiler’s estimate of the GUC pool. And if 

the Oversight Board had produced such information, then surely it would have attached such 

documents to the Opposition, or at least referenced them by title or bates number. The Oversight 

Board has not cited to any such documents because they simply do not exist. 

21. Essentially conceding that it has failed to produce the information it is obligated 

to produce, the Oversight Board returns to its fallback argument that the Committee is “not, 

 

8

 Oddly, the Oversight Board repeatedly emphasizes the length of the discussion in the Disclosure Statement 

throughout the Opposition. See Opp’n ¶ 7 (noting section is “approximately 3 pages”); id. at 7 n.6 (“several 

pages”); id. ¶ 34 (“several pages”). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 13 of 16
11 

however, entitled to the privileged documents and communications on which those assumptions

are based.” Opp’n ¶ 32 (emphasis added). This argument should be rejected. First, the 

Oversight Board recognizes that the “facts or data” on which Mr. Shankweiler established his 

opinion are not protected by any privilege, and thus should have been produced. Second, neither 

the Oversight Board nor Mr. Shankweiler have identified any assumptions that were made in 

arriving at the $800 million estimate. Third, the Oversight Board cites to no authority to support 

its contention that it can withhold “documents and communications on which those assumptions 

are based.” Id. 

22. Moreover, the legal analyses that the Oversight Board’s and PREPA’s lawyers 

have done to estimate the asserted amount of the GUC pool are not “assumptions”—they are the 

actual opinions themselves. The Oversight Board’s own cases demonstrate how its argument 

twists the meaning of the word “assumption.” In The Campbell (cited by the Oversight Board at 

Opp’n, at 14 n.13), the expert assumed that Plaintiffs were working during the relevant 

“uncompensated time” logged in the timekeeping platform. 2021 WL 826899, at *3. The court 

held this was permissible because the expert was “not providing expert testimony as to the 

factual question of whether Plaintiffs were in fact working during these hours, but to the extent 

of the damages owed in the event that Plaintiffs prevail on that claim.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Here, the $800 million estimate provided by Mr. Shankweiler does not represent what would 

happen assuming the claimants prevailed, but what is purportedly “in fact” the correct allowed 

amount of the unsecured claims asserted against PREPA. 

23. The Oversight Board’s other attempts to justify withholding the documents that 

form the basis of Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony are irrelevant or otherwise wrong. The Oversight 

Board argues that the “Committee certainly does not represent unallowable claims,” and “[i]t 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 14 of 16
12 

should have the same concerns as PREPA to make sure unallowable claims are not compensated 

under the plan of adjustment.” Opp’n ¶ 33. It is hard to see how this statement is at all relevant 

to the Committee’s motion to exclude the Oversight Board’s expert regarding an estimate of the 

GUC pool, as excluding Mr. Shankweiler’s opinion will not change which claims are allowable 

and which are not. It is in all of the Committee’s constituents’ interest to exclude Mr. 

Shankweiler’s testimony, and therefore undermine an unsubstantiated and likely artificially low 

estimate of the GUC pool. 

24. The Oversight Board also notes that Mr. Shankweiler did not tender an expert 

report. But the Committee’s motion to exclude Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony is not based on his 

failure to provide a report. It is based on, inter alia, the Oversight Board’s failures to show Mr. 

Shankweiler’s qualifications, as well as the Oversight Board’s withholding of the facts, data and 

assumptions supporting the estimate for the GUC pool—problems that the Oversight Board 

could have tried to address in an expert report. 

25. Finally, the Oversight Board claims that the Committee “neglected to ask 

questions regarding the specific legal assumptions provided by counsel.” Opp’n ¶ 35. But just 

two paragraphs earlier, the Oversight Board states that it “has disclosed those facts, data, and 

assumptions in the Disclosure Statement and in discovery.” Id. ¶ 33. The Oversight Board 

therefore appears to suggest that it is hiding additional assumptions that counsel provided to Mr. 

Shankweiler that have not been disclosed in the Disclosure Statement and discovery (i.e., 

through documents or Mr. Shankweiler’s testimony). If true, then this is yet one more reason 

why Mr. Shankweiler should be precluded from testifying. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 15 of 16
13 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE the Committee respectfully requests the Court grant the Motion and 

exclude the expert testimony of Mark Shankweiler. 

Dated: June 20, 2023 /s/ Luc A. Despins 

PAUL HASTINGS LLP 

Luc A. Despins, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)

G. Alexander Bongartz, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)

200 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10166 

Tel: (212) 318-6000 

lucdespins@paulhastings.com 

alexbongartz@paulhastings.com 

Nicholas A. Bassett, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) 

875 15th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Tel: (202) 551-1700 

nicholasbassett@paulhastings.com 

Counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors

/s/ Juan J. Casillas Ayala 

CASILLAS, SANTIAGO & TORRES LLC 

Juan J. Casillas Ayala, Esq. (USDC - PR 218312) 

Israel Fernández Rodríguez, Esq. (USDC – PR 225004) 

Juan C. Nieves González, Esq. (USDC - PR 231707) 

Cristina B. Fernández Niggemann, Esq. (USDC – PR 

306008) 

PO Box 195075 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919-5075 

Telephone: (787) 523-3434 Fax: (787) 523-3433 

jcasillas@cstlawpr.com 

ifernandez@cstlawpr.com 

jnieves@cstlawpr.com 

crernandez@cstlawpr.com 

Local Counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured 

Creditors 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24615 Filed:06/20/23 Entered:06/20/23 18:15:58 Desc: Main

Document Page 16 of 16