Peaje Invs. LLC v. García-Padilla

Decision Date11 January 2017
Docket NumberNo. 16-2377, No. 16-2439, No. 16-2440, No. 16-2431, No. 16-2438, No. 16-2430, No. 16-2437, No. 16-2433, No. 16-2435,16-2377
Citation845 F.3d 505
Parties PEAJE INVESTMENTS LLC, Movant, Appellant, v. Alejandro GARCÍA–PADILLA et al., Respondents, Appellees. Peaje Investments LLC, Movant, Appellee, v. Alejandro García-Padilla et al., Respondents, Appellees, Financial Oversight and Management Board, Movant, Appellant. Assured Guaranty Corporation; Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al., Defendants, Appellees, Financial Oversight And Management Board, Movant, Appellant. Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC et al., Movants, Appellants, Claren Road Credit Master Fund, Ltd. et al., Movants, v. Alejandro García-Padilla, in his official capacity as the Governor of Puerto Rico, et al., Respondents, Appellees. Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V, Inc. et al., Movants, Appellees, v. Alejandro García-Padilla, in his official capacity as the Governor of Puerto Rico, et al., Respondents, Appellees, Financial Oversight and Management Board, Movant, Appellant. Brigade Leveraged Capital Structures Fund Ltd. et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. Alejandro J. García-Padilla, in his official capacity as Governor of Puerto Rico, et al., Defendants, Appellees, Government Development Bank of Puerto Rico, Defendant, Financial Oversight and Management Board, Movant, Appellant. National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Alejandro J. García-Padilla et al., Defendants, Appellees, Financial Oversight and Management Board, Movant, Appellant. US Bank Trust National Association, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Alejandro García-Padilla, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al., Defendants, Appellees, Financial Oversight and Management Board, Movant, Appellant. Dionisio Trigo-Gonzalez et al., Plaintiffs, Appellees, Carmen Feliciano Vargas et al., Plaintiffs, v. Alejandro García-Padilla, in his official capacity as Governor of Puerto Rico, et al., Defendants, Appellees, Financial Oversight and Management Board, Movant, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

G. Eric Brunstad, Jr. , Hartford, CT, with whom Allan S. Brilliant , Robert J. Jossen , Andrew C. Harmeyer , Dechert LLP , New York, NY, Dora L. Monserrate Peñagarícano , Hato Rey, PR, and Monserrate Simonet & Gierbolini, LLC were on brief, for Peaje Investments LLC.

Erin E. Murphy , with whom Susan Marie Davies , Michael F. Williams , Peter A. Farrell , Matthew D. Rowen , Kirkland & Ellis LLP , Washington, DC, and Margarita Luisa Mercado-Echegaray , Solicitor General of Puerto Rico, were on brief, for Alejandro García-Padilla, Juan C. Zaragoza-Gómez, Luis Cruz-Batista, and Carmen Villar-Prados.

Michael Luskin , with whom Stephan E. Hornung and Luskin, Stern & Eisler LLP , New York, NY, were on brief, for Financial Oversight and Management Board.

Richard A. Chesley , with whom John M. Hillebrecht , Neal F. Kronley , and DLA Piper LLP (US) , New York, NY, were on brief, for The Employees Retirement System of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Sparkle L. Sooknanan , New York, NY, with whom Beth Heifetz , Geoffrey S. Stewart , Bruce Bennett , Benjamin Rosenblum , Jones Day , Washington, DC, Alfredo Fernández-Martínez , Delgado & Fernández, LLC , San Juan, PR, Arturo Díaz-Angueira , José C. Sánchez-Castro , Alicia I. Lavergne-Ramírez , Maraliz Vázquez-Marrero , Lopez Sanchez & Pirillo LLC , San Juan, PR, Glenn M. Kurtz , John K. Cunningham , Jason N. Zakia , and White & Case LLP , New York, NY, were on brief, for Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC, Glendon Opportunities Fund, LP, Nokota Capital Master Fund, L.P., Oaktree-Forrest Multi-Strategy, L.L.C. (Series B), Oaktree Opportunities Fund IX, L.P., Oaktree Opportunities Fund IX (Parallel 2), L.P., Oaktree Value Opportunities Fund, L.P., SV Credit, L.P., Claren Road Credit Master Fund, Ltd., Claren Road Credit Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., and Ocher Rose, L.L.C.

Before Howard, Chief Judge, Thompson and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

These appeals involve the application of certain provisions of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act ("PROMESA"), see 48 U.S.C. §§ 2101 -2241, a statute enacted by Congress in June 2016 to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis. As relevant here, PROMESA provides for a temporary stay of debt-related litigation against the Puerto Rico government. See id.§ 2194(a)-(b). But the statute does not leave creditors entirely without recourse during the presumptive pause. Rather, it allows them to move for relief from the stay and directs district courts to grant such relief "after notice and a hearing ... for cause shown." Id.§ 2194(e)(2). Because we conclude that Movant-Appellant Peaje Investments LLC ("Peaje") failed to set forth a legally sufficient claim of "cause" to lift the PROMESA stay, we affirm the district court's denial of its lift-stay motion. By contrast, the various appellants in Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC v. García- Padilla(No. 16-2433) (the "Altair Movants" and, together with Peaje, the "Movants")1 presented sufficient allegations to entitle them to a hearing. Accordingly, we vacate the district court's denial of their lift-stay motion and remand for the court to hold such a hearing.

I.

Peaje is the beneficial owner of certain bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA"). The bonds are secured by a lien on toll revenues, among other things. In July 2016, Peaje initiated the instant action in district court by filing a motion to lift the PROMESA stay so that it could challenge the diversion of PRHTA toll revenues pledged as collateral for the bonds. Peaje alleged that, acting pursuant to the Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act ("Moratorium Act"), see 2016 P.R. Laws Act 21, the Puerto Rico government was diverting the toll revenues to other uses, thereby diminishing the value of Peaje's collateral.

About two months later, the Altair Movants, holders of certain bonds issued by the Commonwealth's Employees Retirement System ("ERS"), filed a similar motion to lift the PROMESA stay. The Altair Movants claimed that the Commonwealth had suspended required transfers to the fiscal agent of employer contributions pledged as collateral for the bonds.

PROMESA's stay of the commencement of certain actions until February 15, 2017, applies to the lawsuits the Movants seek to pursue. See 48 U.S.C. § 2194(d)(1)(A)(i). The stay may be extended until as late as April 17, 2017, if the district court determines that additional time is needed to complete a voluntary restructuring process, or to May 1 if the Financial Oversight and Management Board ("Board") makes a similar finding. See id.§ 2194(d)(1)(B)(C). The district court is directed to grant relief from the PROMESA stay "for cause shown" after "notice and a hearing." Id.§ 2194(e)(2).

After consolidating the actions, the district court scheduled a November 3 hearing on the motions to lift the PROMESA stay for cause. On the eve of the hearing, however, the court issued an order denying the lift-stay motions. In seeking to define the "cause" standard, the court looked to the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision. The court held that "lack of adequate protection" for creditors constitutes cause for lifting the PROMESA stay, just as it does under the Bankruptcy Code. Turning to the Movants' specific claims, the court held that neither Peaje nor the Altair Movants lacked adequate protection. Because the toll revenues are "constantly replenished," Peaje continued "to hold a security interest in a stable, recurring source of income that will eventually provide funds for the repayment of the PRHTA bonds." Similarly, the employer contributions in which the Altair Movants claimed an interest "are a perpetual revenue stream whose value is not decreased by the Commonwealth's acts of temporary suspension." The Movants timely appealed.

II.
A. Appellate Jurisdiction

As an initial matter, we address our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In the analogous bankruptcy context,2 we have held that the denial of relief from a stay is not necessarily a final decision sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction. SeeIn re Atlas IT Exp. Corp., 761 F.3d 177, 185 (1st Cir. 2014). But such a decision is final where it "conclusively decide[s] the fully-developed, unreviewable-elsewhere issue that triggered the stay-relief fight." Id. The order on appeal here did precisely that. It rejected the Movants' substantive arguments, holding that their interests in the collateral were adequately protected. After that ruling, there was nothing left for the district court to do.

B. Denial of Relief from Stay

Turning to the merits of the lift-stay motions, the parties primarily dispute two issues concerning whether actions by Puerto Rico that impair or remove the collateral securing the pertinent bonds is cause for lifting the stay: (1) whether such an impairment or removal satisfies PROMESA's "cause" standard if it leaves the creditor's interest in having the debt repaid inadequately protected; and (2) if so, did the district court commit reversible error by failing to conduct a hearing on whether the Movants here were inadequately protected. On the record in this case, we answer the first question in the affirmative. On the second question, we issue a split decision. Because Peaje failed even to make a legally sufficient claim that it lacked adequate protection, we conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in denying its lift-stay motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Altair Movants, on the other hand, were entitled to such a hearing.

On the threshold issue of whether lack of adequate protection constitutes cause to lift the PROMESA stay, Appellees García-Padilla, Zaragoza-Gómez, Cruz-Batista, Villar-Prados, and ERS (together, the "Appellees") point...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Parent/Professional Advocacy League v. City of Springfield
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 8, 2019
    ...in granting M.W.’s motion to intervene for purposes of appealing the denial of class certification? See Peaje Investments LLC v. García-Padilla, 845 F.3d 505, 515 (1st Cir. 2017) (reviewing disposition of motion to intervene for abuse of discretion).We see no abuse of discretion. The distri......
  • Altair Global Credit Opportunities Fund (A), LLC v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • July 13, 2018
    ...the First Circuit vacated the district court's denial of the Bondholders' motion and remanded the case. Peaje Invs. LLC v. Garcia-Padilla, 845 F.3d 505, 509 (1st Cir. 2017). The court first found that it had jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court's denial of the motion to l......
  • Méndez-Núñez v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 22, 2019
    ...Hoc Grp. of PREPA Bondholders (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. ), 899 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir. 2018) ; Peaje Invs. LLC v. García-Padilla, 845 F.3d 505, 511 (1st Cir. 2017) ; Lex Claims, LLC v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., 853 F.3d 548, 552 (1st Cir. 2017) ; see also Altair Glob. Credi......
  • Municipality Of San Juan v. Puerto Rico
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 21, 2019
    ...stay, is not necessarily a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 in every circumstance. See Peaje Invs. LLC v. García-Padilla, 845 F.3d 505, 510-11 (1st Cir. 2017). And we did so by referencing our similar caselaw in the analogous bankruptcy context.In particular, we explained in P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT