Sent from AOL Desktop 

From: 

stmangiaracina@aol.com

To: 

swaindprcorresp@nysd.uscourts.gov

Cc: 

STMangiaracina@aol.com

Sent: 8/10/2018 3:08:16 PM Eastern Standard Time 

Subject: Territory of Puerto Rico Bankruptcy 

 Sent Via Email & Overnight Delivery 

 Hon. Laura Taylor Swain 

 U.S. District Court S.D. N.Y. 

 500 Pearl Street 

 New York,N.Y. 10007 

 Dear Judge Swain 

 My name is Stephen T. Mangiaracina. I recently sent you emails on behalf of my 

family,regarding the above on August 7, 2018, June 27, 2018, June 15, 2018 and May 17, 2018. I 

also copied to the Court correspondence sent to the Willkie Farr & Gallagher,LLP. law firm on 

July 2, 2018. 

 As to the issues that were put before you,via motion on April 10, 2018,for decision addressing 

the validity of Cofina and the sale of its bonds, I ask the Court to make an interim decision 

first.The Court granted equitable relief to the unsecured creditors with a stay stopping payments 

by Cofina to its sales tax bond holders during the pendency of the motion issues. This was done 

ex parte. Sales tax bond holders,such as my family never had a day in your Court to oppose the 

granting of the stay because we are not part of the bankruptcy;so I settle for writing letters.The 

caption on the motion submitted to the Court states the Oversight Board represents the 

Commonwealth. One issue which would have been raised is the principle that the 

government cannot disavow or act contrary to its own duly passed legislation(.Estoppel).Here, 

that is the creation of Cofina by the Commonwealth as an independent corporation 

and approved by the executive branch, authorized to sell bonds secured by sales taxes, that once 

collected are transferred to the Cofina trustee to meet its obligations to its bond holders.Here the 

Oversight Board by its actions is disavowing Cofina's statutory existence and purpose.Claiming 

to be neutral does not cut it.Example-The Commonwealth should not be paying the legal fees of 

the unsecured creditors on what is now before the Court. The Oversight Board thus facilitated the 

stay. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4215-14 Filed:11/13/18 Entered:11/13/18 12:08:37 Desc:

Exhibit August 10 2018 Letter to Judge Swain Page 1 of 3
 

 Another point that would have been raised is that unsecured creditors had record notice at

the issuance of the Cofina bond public offerings in 2006 and 2007. If they felt their interests 

were compromised, they could have lobbied the Commonwealth legislature to express concerns 

or sought injunctive relief preventing the establishment of Cofina and its bond issues prior to 

sale, rather than after a bankruptcy filing 10 years later, after sales tax bond holders made their 

purchases. It was not a secret in 2006/2007 that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was credit 

dead. 

 The main point I would have argued to the Court is the unlikelihood of success of the 

claim that Cofina was not validly created.In looking at how the highest courts of several states 

(Massaachusetts, New York,etc) addressed similar issues, the tests applied are all similar. The 

courts deferred to the state legislatures.As long as the legislation was tightly defined,all state 

income does not have to go into its treasury first and withdrawn by specified appropriations by 

its legislature. The Commonwealth legislature in establishing Cofina did what all these other 

states did. It's as if they were following a textbook. 

 The stay was granted ex parte.This justifies starting over. I ask that the Court do so sua 

sponte It can always be granted again but with due process this time. 

 Cofina should no longer be treated like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. It should be given a 

brain. Willke Farr, or anyone else who answers to the Oversight board, should not be associated 

with controlling this independent corporation. This Court should appoint attorneys to represent 

Cofina and approve payment of legal fees.These attorneys should be responsible for representing 

and arguing in favor of Cofina's validity, its ongoing relationship with its bond holders, meeting 

Cofina's obligations and protecting it. 

 Cofina upon being given a brain would now argue for its own life.The caption now states the 

Oversight Board represents Cofina. This is flawed since Cofina is outside the bankruptcy 

proceeding.This would simply be changed to its own attorneys representing its interests. 

 This would address my August 7,2018 correspondence to the Court expressing my feeling of 

being defenseless. The Court would now be addressing the due process issues affecting my 

family whose bonds along with Cofina are outside the bankruptcy proceeding.I think it will also 

be a good thing for the rest of us similarly situated and the Court 

too.. 

 I believe Cofina's existence including the sale of its bonds is valid. The Court may not have to 

get to this issue after addressing the equitable ones. 

 I respectfully ask the Court to render its decision and remove the stay sua sponte. Thank you. 

 Stephen T. Mangiaracina 

 5 Salem Road 

 Hilton Head Island, SC 29928 

 Tel. 843 785 5800 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4215-14 Filed:11/13/18 Entered:11/13/18 12:08:37 Desc:

Exhibit August 10 2018 Letter to Judge Swain Page 2 of 3
 Fax 843 785 4100 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:4215-14 Filed:11/13/18 Entered:11/13/18 12:08:37 Desc:

Exhibit August 10 2018 Letter to Judge Swain Page 3 of 3