United States: U.S. District Court Holds That Puerto Rico's Recovery Act Is Unconstitutional

On February 6, 2015, Judge Francisco Besosa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (the "Recovery Act") is expressly preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code and is therefore unconstitutional.  The court also denied the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under the Contracts Clause and certain of the plaintiffs' claims under the Takings Clause.  The decision is among the first to explicitly hold that section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code preempts the States, including Puerto Rico, from enacting a municipal debt adjustment scheme that results in the discharge of indebtedness.  The court's ruling also removes a major leverage point for the Commonwealth and its public agencies attempting to negotiate restructurings with creditors and restores remedies available to bondholders, including the right to appoint a receiver.


On June 25, 2014, Puerto Rico's legislature introduced and approved the Recovery Act.  Shortly thereafter, Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed the Recovery Act into law.  The Recovery Act permits Puerto Rico's three major public corporations (PREPA, PRHTA, and PRASA)1 to pursue two non-consensual alternatives to a restructuring of their debts.  The first alternative, Chapter 2, permits a public corporation to modify, amend, or exchange certain of its debt instruments if (i) at least 50 percent of the debt in a given class votes on whether to accept the changes and (ii) at least 75 percent of participating voters approve the changes to the debt instruments.  The second alternative, Chapter 3, is modeled after chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code and permits a debtor to propose a plan that adjusts its debts without the consent of all of its creditors.  The Chapter 3 plan may be confirmed if at least one class of affected debt has voted to accept the plan by a majority of the votes cast in such class and two-thirds of the aggregate principal amount of affected debt in such class that is voted.  In addition, the Recovery Act:

  1. Eliminated existing statutory remedies for certain secured bondholders, including the right for PREPA bondholders to appoint a receiver;
  2. Permitted debtors to use cash collateral and obtain DIP financing with a priming lien without providing any adequate protection to prepetition creditors, provided that the use of cash collateral or the DIP financing would be to serve a public function;
  3. Permitted debtors to sell their assets with court approval; and
  4. Stayed prepetition creditors from enforcing remedies against the debtor during the pendency of the Chapter 2 or 3 case.

Two groups of creditors filed complaints against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and PREPA, seeking a declaration that the Recovery Act is unconstitutional because it infringed on the federal bankruptcy power and a declaration that the Recovery Act is expressly preempted by section 903(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The plaintiffs also sought declarations that the Recovery Act violated the Takings and Contracts Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and that provisions in the Recovery Act that would stay federal proceedings are unconstitutional.  The Commonwealth moved to dismiss these claims, and the creditors cross-moved for summary judgment. 

The Court's Decision

In Franklin California Tax-Free Trust v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Blue Mountain Capital Management LLC v. Governor Alejandro Garcia-Padilla,2 the court first addressed ripeness, concluding that the plaintiffs' preemption and Contracts Clause claims were ripe for review because, among other things, the claims relied on the enactment of the Recovery Act, not on its application.  The plaintiffs' claims were not dependent on any hypothetical facts, presented purely legal issues, and also alleged direct injuries to the plaintiffs' interests.  Notably, the court observed:

[N]ot having the guarantee of remedial provisions that they were promised affects plaintiffs' day-to-day business as PREPA bondholders, particularly when negotiating with PREPA over remedies and potential restructuring. Indeed, the threat of PREPA's invocation of the Recovery Act hangs over plaintiffs and diminishes their bargaining power as bondholders.

The court also concluded, however, that certain of the plaintiffs' Takings Clause claims and stay of proceedings claims were not ripe for adjudication, because they were contingent on hypothetical events that had not yet occurred.  In addition, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against PREPA, as the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege any injuries that are traceable to an action by PREPA. 

1.  Preemption

Having determined that the preemption claims were ripe for review, the court held that the plain language of section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code expressly preempted the Recovery Act.  "Express preemption" occurs when congressional intent to preempt state law is made explicit in the text of a federal statute.  In addition, a state law may be preempted when it conflicts with or frustrates the purpose of a federal statute.  The latter type of preemption is known as "conflict preemption."

Section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in pertinent part, that a "State law prescribing a method of composition of indebtedness by such municipality may not bind any creditor that does not consent to such composition."3  Under the Bankruptcy Code, Puerto Rico is a "State," except for the purposes of who may be a chapter 9 debtor.  However, section 903 does not, on its face, apply only to chapter 9 debtors.  Further, unlike other provisions in chapter 9, section 903 applies broadly to the term "municipalities," which would include public agencies like PREPA.  The court also found that the Recovery Act was a "method of composition" because the law permits the adjustment and discharge of debts.  Accordingly, the court concluded that the Recovery Act was preempted by section 903. 

The court also found that the legislative history of section 903 evidenced Congress's intent to preempt state municipal debt adjustment laws.  Specifically, the House Report to section 903's predecessor, section 83(i) of chapter IX, stated:

An amendment to section 83(i) provides that State legislation dealing with compositions of municipal indebtedness shall not be binding on non-consenting creditors. State adjustment acts have been held to be valid, but a bankruptcy law under which bondholders of a municipality are required to surrender or cancel their obligations should be uniform throughout the 48 States, as the bonds of almost every municipality are widely held. Only under a Federal law should a creditor be forced to accept such an adjustment without his consent.5

According to the court, the legislative history of section 903 evidenced a clear intent to reserve the power to adjust municipal debts for the federal government.  The court concluded that the Recovery Act stood as an obstacle to section 903's stated purpose to permit nonconsensual adjustments of municipal debt under a uniform federal law.

In so holding, the court rejected several of the Commonwealth's defenses.  First, the Commonwealth argued that section 903 could not apply to it because Puerto Rico's municipalities are ineligible for chapter 9 relief.  The court reasoned, however, that the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code only exempts Puerto Rico from the term "State" in one limited circumstance:  chapter 9 eligibility.  It does not, on its face, exempt Puerto Rico from the term State in all of chapter 9. 

Second, the Commonwealth argued that it would be nonsensical to read the Bankruptcy Code as precluding Puerto Rican municipalities from filing for chapter 9 relief, but simultaneously preempting Puerto Rican laws that govern municipal debt adjustments.  However, the court found: 

"Congress's decision not to permit Puerto Rico's municipalities to be Chapter 9 debtors...reflects its considered judgment to retain control over any restructuring of municipal debt in Puerto Rico.  Congress, of course, has the power to treat Puerto Rico differently than it treats the fifty states." 

Third, the Commonwealth contended that section 903 could only apply to states whose municipalities are eligible for chapter 9 relief.  The court, though, found nothing in section 903's text or legislative history to suggest that Congress intended section 903 to apply only to states whose municipalities are eligible to be chapter 9 debtors.   

Finally, the court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that section 903 could not apply because Puerto Rico's bondholders could not qualify as "creditors," as such term is defined in the Bankruptcy Code.  Specifically, the Commonwealth maintained that the term "creditor" is limited to those who hold claims against a "debtor."  Because the Commonwealth's public agencies cannot be chapter 9 debtors, the Commonwealth reasoned that section 903 could not apply because the Commonwealth's bondholders are not "creditors."   However, the court found that the Commonwealth's interpretation was strained and that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code's definition of "creditor" suggested that the term was limited to claims against a debtor that is eligible for bankruptcy relief. 

The court ultimately concluded that this was "not a close case," even though federal preemption is a "strong medicine."  According to the court, section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code and its legislative history "provide direct evidence of Congress's clear and manifest purpose to preempt state laws that prescribe a method of composition of municipal indebtedness that binds nonconsenting creditors...and to include Puerto Rico laws in this preempted arena."  Accordingly, having found that the Recovery Act is expressly preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the Recovery Act is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.    

2.  The Contracts Clause

The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from impairing their own contracts.  To validly state a claim under the Contracts Clause, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (i) the state law operates as a "substantial impairment" of a contractual relationship and (ii) that such impairment is not a reasonable or necessary means to serve an important government interest. 

First, the court found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the Recovery Act substantially impaired contractual relations.  Both the PREPA Trust Agreement and the PREPA Enabling Act created a contractual relationship between PREPA, its bondholders, and the Commonwealth.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Recovery Act substantially impaired that contractual relationship by (i) permitting PREPA to modify its debts without creditor consent in a manner that is inconsistent with the PREPA Trust Agreement; (ii) permitting PREPA to grant priming liens on prepetition collateral, notwithstanding prohibitions on such liens in the PREPA Trust Agreement; (iii) permitting PREPA to sell its assets with court approval; (iv) rendering the PREPA Trust Agreement's ipso facto clause unenforceable; (v) limiting PREPA bondholders' rights to enforce Trust Agreement remedies during a Chapter 2 or 3 proceeding; and (vi) eliminating the PREPA bondholders' right to seek the appointment of a receiver. 

The court found that Faitoute Iron & Steel Co. v. Asbury Park,6 the principal authority relied on by the Commonwealth, was misplaced.  In Asbury Park, the New Jersey statute barred the reduction of principal, affected only unsecured bonds that had no real remedy, and only provided for an extension of the maturity on the bonds and a reduction in the coupon.  In contrast, the Recovery Act affects secured bonds that have meaningful remedies, permits the reduction in principal amount on those bonds, and permits modifications to debt obligations that extend beyond the amendments in Asbury Park

Likewise, the court rejected the Commonwealth's argument that it would be difficult at this juncture to determine whether any contractual relationships are substantially impaired as a result of the Recovery Act.  According to the Commonwealth, one cannot make such a determination until a restructuring occurs under the Recovery Act.  The court found this argument unpersuasive.  Rather, the court held that when a state law authorizes a party to do something that a contract prohibits it from doing, or when a state law prohibits a party from exercising rights or remedies under a contract, the state law itself impairs the contractual relationship, independent of how a party acts pursuant to that law. 

The court further found that the right to receive payment and certain covenants and remedies under the Trust Agreement likely induced bondholders to purchase PREPA's bonds.  In particular, the court noted that the Recovery Act did not merely modify existing rights and replace them with comparable security provisions, but rather "it completely extinguishes all of them."  Because the Recovery Act eliminated such rights, covenants, and remedies that are central to the Trust Agreement, the court concluded that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the Recovery Act substantially impairs a contractual relationship. 

Second, the court held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the Recovery Act was not a reasonable and necessary means to serve an important government purpose.  Alternatives to the Recovery Act,  identified by the plaintiffs included: (i) PREPA could raise its rates; (ii) PREPA could collect overdue accounts from the Commonwealth and other public agencies; (iii) PREPA could reform the manner in which municipalities are charged and eliminate subsidies; (iv) PREPA could correct inefficiencies with its management; and (v) PREPA could negotiate with its creditors to restructure its debts in a consensual manner.  The court inferred from these allegations that the Recovery Act imposed a drastic impairment when more moderate courses were available.  Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim under the Contracts Clause and therefore denied the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss. 

3.  The Takings Clause

The Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.  Here, the plaintiffs claimed that the Recovery Act violates the Takings Clause because (i) it eliminates plaintiffs' right to appoint a receiver and (ii) permits public corporations to grant priming liens. 

The court determined that plaintiffs stated plausible claims that the Recovery Act's elimination of plaintiffs' right to appoint a receiver violated the Takings Clause.    According to the court, the Recovery Act provides no compensation for eliminating bondholders' contractual rights, and therefore, may qualify as an impermissible taking.   Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims based on the elimination of the receiver remedy are facial takings claims, and therefore are ripe for review. 

The court rejected the Commonwealth's defenses.  For example, the Commonwealth argued that the receivership remedy did not even exist because PREPA had not yet defaulted on its obligations.  Thus, the Commonwealth argued, there was no contractual right for the Commonwealth to take.  However, the court found that even though the right to appoint a receiver is contingent on a default, the right nevertheless currently existed under terms of PREPA Enabling Act and PREPA Trust Agreement.    

By contrast, the court concluded that plaintiffs' claims that the Recovery Act constitutes a taking on plaintiffs' liens on PREPA's revenues were not ripe for review, because the claims were "as applied" claims that were contingent on events that not yet occurred (i.e., a Commonwealth court's approval of the priming lien pursuant to section 322 of the Recovery Act).  


The decision in Franklin California Tax-Free Trust v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is significant because it reaffirms the principle that only the federal government may pass bankruptcy laws.  The decision also clarifies that Puerto Rico remains subject to Congress's plenary powers.  Where, as in the case of Puerto Rico, a state passes a law that allows states or municipalities to adjust and discharge debts, that law would likely be unconstitutional and preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code.


1 The full names of these public corporations are: the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority, and the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority.  

2 Civ. Nos. 14-1518 and 14-1569 (ECF No. 119), available at http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/puerto-rico/prdce/3:2014cv01518/111423/119/0.pdf?ts=1423304308

3 11 U.S.C.§ 903(1).

4 11 U.S.C. § 101(52). 

5 H.R. Rep. No. 2246, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1946) (emphasis added).

6 316 U.S. 502 (1942)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.