Daily Dicta: The Docket That Ate the Am Law 100
The latest skirmish in the $120 billion Puerto Rico debt restructuring provides a window into the intense--and truly enormous--litigation.
July 09, 2019 at 02:02 PM
4 minute read
Litigators sometimes describe their most intense cases as “drinking from a fire hose.” But the $120 billion Puerto Rico debt restructuring—that's no fire hose. It's Niagara Falls.
Consider that as of yesterday, the docket for the lead case in Puerto Rico federal court has had 7,860 entries in the last 26 months. That's an average of 10 filings a day, 365 days a year.
And that's not counting nearly 300 associated cases—by unsecured creditors, insurers, pensioners, bondholders, hedge funds, as well as actions to recover money that the commonwealth previously paid government contractors. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case set to be argued in October as well.
It's the docket that ate the Am Law 100—seriously, what firm doesn't have a piece of the action? We're talking Proskauer Rose; O'Melveny & Myers; Paul Hastings; Jenner & Block; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Weil Gotshal; Milbank; Munger Tolles; Cadwalader; Jones Day; Brown Rudnick; White & Case; Skadden; Robbins Russell; Quinn Emanuel; Wachtell; Dechert … The list goes on.
The latest skirmish flared up over the holiday weekend, pitting the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico—which was created by Congress to oversee the commonwealth's finances—and its counsel from Proskauer against the governor of Puerto Rico and his legal team from O'Melveny & Myers.
It's one battle in a much larger war, but it provides a window into just how fast-moving and intense the litigation can be.
The Proskauer litigation team led by Timothy Mungovan and Martin Bienenstock on July 3 sued Governor Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority, objecting to a series of new laws that would allegedly siphon off hundreds of millions of dollars from the oversight board's carefully crafted fiscal plan.
The board, they noted, was intended by Congress to be “an apolitical body to make hard and sometimes unpopular fiscal plan and budgetary decisions which commonwealth governments had not made.”
In other words, the board is the bad cop. But when you're saddled with “severe economic decline, operating deficits, lack of financial transparency, management inefficiencies and excessive borrowing,” someone has to make the tough calls to get things in order.
Except the Puerto Rico legislature and governor threw a wrench in the board's plans, enacting what's known as Law 29 on May 17. According to the board, the law essentially eliminates the obligation of Puerto Rico's municipalities to reimburse the commonwealth for their pension costs. It also exempts municipalities from paying their contribution to the commonwealth's health insurance program.
The legislation will allegedly cost the commonwealth about $311 million for fiscal year 2020, and $1.7 billion through fiscal year 2024—an obligation that the Proskauer team says undermines the board's whole purpose and mandate.
But the powers of the board are running up against Puerto Rico's sovereignty, and the right of democratically elected leaders to make spending decisions. In public remarks, the governor said the board's pension cuts “constitute[] an attack on everyone in Puerto Rico,” and suggested that the board “want[s] to go to the courts to run over the people of Puerto Rico, to usurp them.”
The case is before U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain in the Southern District of New York. On Sunday, she fast-tracked the motion for declaratory and injunctive relief, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 2.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: Simpson Thacher and ACLU Team To Challenge Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
A Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Even With New Business Courts, Texas Is a Long Way from Taking Delaware's Corporate Law Mantle
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250