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)

Re: ECF No. 3893

JOINT STATUS REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER REGARDING 

CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE COURT ON AUGUST 27, 2018

To the Honorable United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain:

The Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”) and attorney 

María E. Vicéns Rivera (“Atty. Vicéns” or “Counsel”, collectively with AAFAF, the “Parties”) 

respectfully submit this Joint Status Report in Compliance with the Order Regarding 

Correspondence Received by the Court on August 27, 2018 in response to the Court’s September 

7, 2018 Order (the “Order”) [ECF No. 3893]. The Order requests that the Parties provide a joint 

status report regarding:

 

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); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (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#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 10
(i) “The Civil Action2

, including a summary of the relief sought, the parties involved, 

and the procedural status of the Civil Action”;

(ii) “Whether, given that the motion attached to the Urgent Request and apparently 

filed in the Commonwealth Court appears to recognize Mr. Mandry Mercado as a 

person with an interest in the Civil Action” and;

(iii) “Whether Mr. Mandry Mercado was consulted in connection with the Stipulation 

Modifying the Automatic Stay Between the Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority and Sucesión Pastor Mandry Mercado”.

By filing this Joint Status Report, neither AAFAF or Atty. Vicéns waive any rights or 

defenses with regards to the allegations set forth in the August 27, 2018 correspondence.

In compliance with the Order, the Parties hereby submit their respective responses to the

three inquiries raised in the Order. 

A. AAFAF

(i) The Civil Action, including a summary of the relief sought, the parties involved, 

and the procedural status of the Civil Action.

AAFAF submits that the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”),

and not AAFAF, is a party in the Civil Action titled Autoridad de Carreterras y Transportación 

de Puerto Rico v. Finca Perseverancia, Inc. KEF 2011-0244 (1002). Accordingly, any information 

that AAFAF acquired with regards to the Civil Action was acquired as a result of the lift of stay 

process following the receipt, by AAFAF, of a lift of stay notice submitted by Atty. Vicéns on 

June 28, 2018 (the “Lift of Stay Notice3”) and the documents included therein. The Lift of Stay 

Notice requested the modification of the stay to allow movants, identified in Exhibit I of such Lift 

 

2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Order. 

3 The Lift of Stay Notice had several exhibits in their original Spanish language. The Parties are only including in 

this joint status report the pertinent exhibit for purposes of addressing this Court’s inquiries. 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 10
of Stay Notice, to withdraw certain amounts consigned in the Commonwealth Court with regards 

to the Civil Action. See Exhibit A, Lift of Stay Notice. Based on the Lift of Stay Notice and the 

documents attached thereto, the movants represented by Atty. Vicéns were Sucesión Pastor 

Mandry Mercado (the “Estate”) including Estrella María Aparicio Vázquez, Oscar Adolfo Mandry 

Aparicio, Víctor Robert Fingerhut Mandry, Yvelisse Helena Fingerhut Mandry, Margaret Ann 

Fingerhut Mandry, Salvador Rafael Mandry Mercado, Adrián Roberto Mandry Mercado, Eduardo 

José Mandry Mercado, Margarita Rosa Mandry Mercado, María del C. Amalia Mandry Llombart,

Selma Verónica Mandry Llombart, Juan Carlos Esteva Fingerhut, Pedro Miguel Esteva Fingerhut, 

Mariano J. McConnie Fingerhut, Víctor Michael Fingerhut Cochran, Michell Elaine Fingerhut 

Cochran and the estate of Salvador Eduardo Mandry Nones, except, as evidenced by footnote 1 of 

the Lift of Stay Notice, Mr. Javier Mandry Mercado (“Mr. Mandry”).

The Civil Action was filed by HTA in the Commonwealth Court on August 25, 2011 

against Finca Perseverancia, Inc., another party in interest with which HTA executed a stipulation 

on June 14, 2018 [ECF No. 3326-1], the Estate, including Mr. Mandry, and other parties in interest

including the estate of Adela Torres, the estate of Adrián Mercado Riera, José Antonio Mercado 

Méndez, the estate of Carlos Alfredo Mercado Méndez and Ena Moure De Lis. Based on the 

documentation provided by Atty. Vicéns and validated by HTA, the Estate, which includes Mr. 

Mandry, is a party in interest in the Civil Action and has a 21.25% ownership interest in parcels 

number 028-01 and 028-02 (the “Parcels”). When the Civil Action was filed, HTA consigned in 

the Commonwealth Court an approximate sum of $1,050,900.00 as an estimate of just 

compensation (the “Deposit”). Other parties in interests withdrew their respective parts of the 

Deposit. At the time of the notification of the Lift of Stay Notice, $48,156.75 remained consigned 

with the Commonwealth Court (the “Remaining Deposit”). The Lift of Stay Notice only requested 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 10
the withdrawal of the Remaining Deposit “to allow the withdrawal of funds in order to terminate 

the Estate’s participation at the state court case”. See Exhibit A at 11.

Based on the Commonwealth Court’s documents attached by Atty. Vicéns to the Lift of 

Stay Notice, at a pre-trial conference held on May 2, 2017 (the “Pre-Trial Conference”), Mr. 

Mandry appeared pro-se as a party in interest. See Exhibit B at 1, minutes of the Pre-Trial 

Conference. As the minutes of the Pre-Trial Conference evidences, Mr. Mandry had abided to his 

part of the Remaining Deposit as a just compensation for the Parcels. Id. at 2 and 3. In fact, the 

Commonwealth Court even stated in its minutes “[t]he Court indicated that in lots 28-01 and 28-

02 judgment could be issued due to all the parties with interest abiding to them”. Id. at 6. 

Accordingly, for the Parcels for which the Estate, including Mr. Mandry, had an interest, judgment 

could be issued because all the parties had agreed with the just compensation amount consigned 

in the Commonwealth Court. Since the Estate, including Mr. Mandry, agreed with such amount, 

Mr. Mandry “requested the withdrawal of the funds”. See Exhibit B at 6. Mr. Mandry, representing 

himself in the Civil Action, answered questions from the Commonwealth Court and stated his 

position as to his interest over the Parcels. As a result of the above, the Commonwealth Court 

ordered the issuance of the corresponding checks to all parties in interest, including Mr. Mandry. 

Id. at 7. Accordingly, when the Lift of Stay Notice was submitted by Atty. Vicens, on behalf of 

the Estate except Mr. Mandry, the only remedy requested therein, that is, that the corresponding 

checks regarding the Remaining Deposit be issued, was consistent with the Commonwealth 

Court’s determination and order at the Pre-Trial Conference. 

(ii) Whether, given that the motion attached to the Urgent Request and apparently filed 

in the Commonwealth Court appears to recognize Mr. Mandry Mercado as a person 

with an interest in the Civil Action.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 10
The motion attached to the Urgent Request does recognize Mr. Mandry as a person with 

an interest in the Civil Action as the same only reiterates the determinations made by the 

Commonwealth Court at the Pre-Trial Conference, as reflected in the minute attached as Exhibit 

B. In particular, based on the Commonwealth Court’s documents submitted with the Lift of Stay 

Notice, Mr. Mandry, who represents himself in the Civil Action, had agreed to the amount of the 

Remaining Deposit and had even requested the withdrawal of such funds. Id. Moreover, not only 

was Mr. Mandry recognized as a party in interest in the Civil Action, but he appeared before the 

Commonwealth Court and had the opportunity to be heard, answer questions from the 

Commonwealth Court and state his position as to the issues presented therein, including his 

agreement with the Remaining Deposit and his request regarding the withdrawal of the Remaining 

Deposit. 

(iii) Whether Mr. Mandry Mercado was consulted in connection with the Stipulation 

Modifying the Automatic Stay Between the Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority and Sucesión Pastor Mandry Mercado.

As detailed by the Lift of Stay Notice, Atty. Vicéns appeared on behalf of the Estate, except

for Mr. Mandry. See Exhibit A at 2. As a result, AAFAF consulted directly with Atty. Vicéns on 

behalf of the Estate, as movants, except for Mr. Mandry, and negotiated directly with her the 

Stipulation Modifying the Automatic Stay Between the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 

Authority and Sucesión Pastor Mandry Mercado (the “Stipulation”). AAFAF did not consult with 

Mr. Mandry, as Mr. Mandry was not included in the Lift of Stay Notice request, since Atty. Vicéns 

did not represent his interests but those of all remaining members of the Estate. Mr. Mandry did 

not issue an independent lift of stay notice. AAFAF submits that the Stipulation is consistent with 

the Commonwealth Court’s determination by allowing the Estate to withdraw the Remaining 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 10
Deposit. If Mr. Mandry is not satisfied with the Commonwealth Court’s determination, which he 

agreed with in open court, and does not want to benefit from the agreements made through the 

Stipulation, he is not obliged to withdraw his part of the Remaining Deposit, which is the only 

remedy provided by HTA through the Stipulation. 

Moreover, AAFAF respectfully requests that this Court take notice that this is not the first

time Mr. Mandry has filed, with this Title III Court, unfounded motions requesting similar relief, 

some concerning the exact same issues raised herein. See ECF No. 634, 684, 712, 822, 844, 1881, 

1934, 3475 and 3489, among others. This Court has correctly rejected these previous filings of Mr. 

Mandry with regards to Atty. Vicéns’ representation of the Estate. See ECF No. 712. AAFAF 

respectfully requests that this Court, consistent with its previous determinations, reject Mr. 

Mandry’s allegations contained in the August 27, 2018 correspondence, as the same are unfounded 

and find no basis in law or fact. Furthermore, AAFAF submits that Mr. Mandry is not entitled to 

any relief by this Title III Court as he has represented his interests in the Civil Action and has been 

heard by the Commonwealth Court. Any other allegation he may have with regards to the 

Remaining Deposit and the Civil Action should be brought before the Commonwealth Court.

B. Atty. Vicéns

1. Although Mr. Javier Mandry Mercado’s (hereinafter “Javier Mandry”) URGENT 

REQUEST (hereinafter the “Request”) clearly shows his lack of knowledge and understanding of 

the nature of the proceedings before this Court, the request for relief from stay pursuant to 

§362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code applicable to the present case through section 301 (a) of Title 

III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (hereinafter 

“PROMESA”), in compliance with the order issued by this Honorable Court, María E. Vicéns 

Rivera (hereinafter “Counsel”) replies to his unfounded allegations.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 10
2. The undersigned counsel only appeared on behalf of the persons that were listed in “Exhibit 

I” of the Lift of Stay Notice sent on June 28, 2018, to counsels from the Oversight Board and 

AAFAF pursuant to Paragraphs III.Q and III.U of Section III (Scheduling) of the Case 

Management Procedures, as amended by Fourth Amended Case Management Order (docket no. 

2839). The footnote number 1 at p. 2 of the Lift Stay Notice states that Mr. Javier Mandry, a 

member of the estate, is the only member of the estate not represented by Counsel. See, Exhibit A.

3. While it is true that Mr. Javier Mandry is a member of the estate of Salvador Mandry 

Nones, his father, his consent was not necessary for the undersigned counsel to represent the estate. 

The appearance was authorized by the majority of the members of the estate. Article 332 of the 

Puerto Rico Civil Code (31 L.P.R.A. 1277) states that matters related to the management of 

property held in common ownership may be decided by a majority of the participants. 

4. Counsel has an obligation with the members of the estate represented by her and not with 

Mr. Javier Mandry. 

5. Mr. Javier Mandry is a party with interest in the eminent domain state court case Puerto 

Rico Highways and Transportation Authority v. Finca Perseverancia, Inc., et al., civil case no. 

KEF2011-0244, as a member of the estate of Pastor Mandry Mercado for their 21.25 % ownership 

interest in the parcel of lands number 028-01 and 028-02 expropriated by Puerto Rico Highways 

and Transportation Authority (hereinafter “HTA”). 

6. In the eminent domain case at the state court, that is the subject of the modification of the 

lift of stay, there was no controversy pending since the parties with interest, including Mr. Javier 

Mandry, who appeared pro se, had all agreed with the just compensation of $226,620.00 offered 

and deposited with the court by HTA. At a hearing held on January 31, 2017, Mr. Javier Mandry 

agreed with the request made by the other members of the estate of Pastor Mandry Mercado,

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 10
represented by César Hernández Colon, Esq. (and by Counsel in the present case), to withdraw 

funds consigned with the court as just compensation. On May 2, 2017, the pre-trial conference was 

held and the minute of the hearing reflects that César Hernández Colón, Esq., requested the Court 

to allow the withdrawal of the $48,156.75, the equivalent to 21.25% ownership interest the estate 

of Pastor Mandry Mercado has in parcels number 28-01 and 28-02 ($226,620.00 x 21.25%). More 

specifically, attorney Hernández Colón requested that $10,064.76 be transferred to civil case 

number JJV2011-1103 were the members of the estate of Salvador Eduardo Mandry Nones (with 

a 20.90% participation in the estate of Pastor Mandry Mercado) are elucidating the partition of 

their inheritance and no opposition was presented including from Mr. Javier Mandry, who was 

present at the hearing (he had also previously consented to this in a hearing held on January 31, 

2017). See Exhibit B, p. 6, ¶7 of the Lift Stay Notice. The Court ordered that a check be issued for 

such purpose and another check for $1,492.85 payable to Mr. Javier Eduardo Mandry Mercado, 

which represents his 3.10% percentage of participation in the estate of Pastor Mandry Mercado

($48,156.75 x 3.10%). An itemized list of the remaining members of the estate of Pastor Mandry 

Mercado and the amounts payable according to their percentage of participation was provided by 

attorney Hernández Colón as stated in the minute. However, the Court never issued the checks. 

Afterwards, the state court case was stayed as requested by HTA pursuant to sections 362(a) and 

922(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, as incorporated by reference under section 301(a) of PROMESA.

7. The Stipulation Modifying the Automatic Stay Between the Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority and Sucesión Pastor Mandry Mercado is in the best interest of the estate 

of Pastor Mandry Mercado and also in the best interest of Mr. Javier Mandry, who will receive his 

check in the amount of $1, 492.85 for his 3.10% percentage of participation in the estate of Pastor 

Mandry Mercado and $10,064.76 will be transferred to civil case number JJV2011-1103 were the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 10
members of the estate of Salvador Eduardo Mandry Nones, his father, (with a 20.90% participation 

in the estate of Pastor Mandry Mercado) are elucidating the partition of their inheritance. There 

is no other issue pending before the state court other than the withdrawal of funds that had been 

approved by all of the members of the estate of Pastor Mandry Mercado including Mr. Javier 

Mandry.

8. Mr. Javier Mandry’s allegations are not only unfounded and frivolous but detrimental for 

the recovery of debtors due to the time and money spent on this issue instead of attending the 

medullar controversies. 

9. Counsel submits that according to the judicial file, the proceedings in the state court 

and in the present case, Mr. Javier Mandry has no right or relief that could be granted by this 

Honorable Court and, moreover, his behavior contravenes the recovery right of debtors resulting 

in dilation of the proceedings.

WHEREFORE, AAFAF and Counsel respectfully request the Court to take note of the 

foregoing and deny Mr. Mandry’s request for relief included in the correspondence received by 

the Court on August 27, 2018.

Dated: September 19, 2018

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/Luis C. Marini-Biaggi

Luis C. Marini-Biaggi

USDC No. 222301 

Email: lmarini@mpmlawpr.com

/s/Carolina Velaz-Rivero

Carolina Velaz-Rivero

USDC No. 300913

Email: cvelaz@mpmlawpr.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 10
MARINI PIETRANTONI MUÑIZ LLC

MCS Plaza, Suite 500

255 Ponce de León Ave.

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00917

Tel: (787) 705-2171

Fax: (787) 936-7494

Attorneys for the Puerto Rico Fiscal 

Agency and Financial Advisory Authority

/s/María E. Vicéns Rivera 

MARĺA E. VICÉNS RIVERA 

USDC- PR 226711 

9140 MARINA ST., SUITE 801 PONCE, 

PUERTO RICO 00717 TEL. / FAX: (787) 

259-1999 E-mail: mevicens@yahoo.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3948 Filed:09/19/18 Entered:09/19/18 16:59:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 10