| Outstanding Exposure | Outstanding Exposure The Company’s financial guaranty contracts are written in either insurance or credit derivative form, but collectively are considered financial guaranty contracts. The Company seeks to limit its exposure to losses by underwriting obligations that it views as investment grade at inception, although, as part of its loss mitigation strategy for existing troubled credits, it may underwrite new issuances that it views as BIG. The Company diversifies its insured portfolio across asset classes and, in the structured finance portfolio, requires rigorous subordination or collateralization requirements. Reinsurance may be used in order to reduce net exposure to certain insured transactions. Public finance obligations insured by the Company consist primarily of general obligation bonds supported by the taxing powers of U.S. state or municipal governmental authorities, as well as tax-supported bonds, revenue bonds and other obligations supported by covenants from state or municipal governmental authorities or other municipal obligors to impose and collect fees and charges for public services or specific infrastructure projects. The Company also includes within public finance obligations those obligations backed by the cash flow from leases or other revenues from projects serving substantial public purposes, including utilities, toll roads, health care facilities and government office buildings. The Company also includes within public finance similar obligations issued by territorial and non-U.S. sovereign and sub-sovereign issuers and governmental authorities. Structured finance obligations insured by the Company are generally issued by special purpose entities, including VIEs, and backed by pools of assets having an ascertainable cash flow or market value or other specialized financial obligations. Some of these VIEs are consolidated as described in Note 9, Consolidated Variable Interest Entities. Unless otherwise specified, the outstanding par and debt service amounts presented in this note include outstanding exposures on VIEs whether or not they are consolidated. Surveillance Categories The Company segregates its insured portfolio into investment grade and BIG surveillance categories to facilitate the appropriate allocation of resources to monitoring and loss mitigation efforts and to aid in establishing the appropriate cycle for periodic review for each exposure. BIG exposures include all exposures with internal credit ratings below BBB-. The Company’s internal credit ratings are based on internal assessments of the likelihood of default and loss severity in the event of default. Internal credit ratings are expressed on a ratings scale similar to that used by the rating agencies and are generally reflective of an approach similar to that employed by the rating agencies, except that the Company's internal credit ratings focus on future performance rather than lifetime performance. The Company monitors its insured portfolio and refreshes its internal credit ratings on individual credits in quarterly, semi-annual or annual cycles based on the Company’s view of the credit’s quality, loss potential, volatility and sector. Ratings on credits in sectors identified as under the most stress or with the most potential volatility are reviewed every quarter. The Company’s credit ratings on assumed credits are based on the Company’s reviews of low-rated credits or credits in volatile sectors, unless such information is not available, in which case, the ceding company’s credit ratings of the transactions are used. Credits identified as BIG are subjected to further review to determine the probability of a loss. Please refer to Note 5, Expected Loss to be Paid, for additional information. Surveillance personnel then assign each BIG transaction to the appropriate BIG surveillance category based upon whether a future loss is expected and whether a claim has been paid. For surveillance purposes, the Company calculates present value using a discount rate of 4% or 5% depending on the insurance subsidiary. (Risk-free rates are used for calculating the expected loss for financial statement measurement purposes.) More extensive monitoring and intervention is employed for all BIG surveillance categories, with internal credit ratings reviewed quarterly. The Company expects “future losses” on a transaction when the Company believes there is at least a 50% chance that, on a present value basis, it will pay more claims on that transaction in the future than it will have reimbursed. The three BIG categories are: • BIG Category 1: Below-investment-grade transactions showing sufficient deterioration to make future losses possible, but for which none are currently expected. • BIG Category 2: Below-investment-grade transactions for which future losses are expected but for which no claims (other than liquidity claims, which are claims that the Company expects to be reimbursed within one year) have yet been paid. • BIG Category 3: Below-investment-grade transactions for which future losses are expected and on which claims (other than liquidity claims) have been paid. Components of Outstanding Exposure Unless otherwise noted, ratings disclosed herein on the Company's insured portfolio reflect its internal ratings. The Company classifies those portions of risks benefiting from reimbursement obligations collateralized by eligible assets held in trust in acceptable reimbursement structures as the higher of 'AA' or their current internal rating. The Company purchases securities that it has insured, and for which it has expected losses to be paid, in order to mitigate the economic effect of insured losses (loss mitigation securities). The Company excludes amounts attributable to loss mitigation securities (unless otherwise indicated) from par and debt service outstanding, which amounts are included in the investment portfolio, because it manages such securities as investments and not insurance exposure. As of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 , the Company excluded $2.0 billion and $2.1 billion , respectively, of net par related to loss mitigation securities (which are mostly BIG), and other loss mitigation strategies. The following table presents the gross and net debt service for financial guaranty contracts. Financial Guaranty Debt Service Outstanding Gross Debt Service Outstanding Net Debt Service Outstanding September 30, December 31, September 30, December 31, (in millions) Public finance $ 407,539 $ 425,849 $ 399,347 $ 409,447 Structured finance 17,464 29,151 17,377 28,088 Total financial guaranty $ 425,003 $ 455,000 $ 416,724 $ 437,535 In addition to amounts shown in the tables above, the Company had outstanding commitments to provide guaranties of $43 million as of the date of this filing. The commitments are contingent on the satisfaction of all conditions set forth in them and may expire unused or be canceled at the counterparty’s request. Therefore, the total commitment amount does not necessarily reflect actual future guaranteed amounts. Financial Guaranty Portfolio by Internal Rating As of September 30, 2017 Public Finance U.S. Public Finance Non-U.S. Structured Finance U.S Structured Finance Non-U.S Total Rating Category Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % (dollars in millions) AAA $ 915 0.4 % $ 2,523 5.9 % $ 2,333 17.8 % $ 419 25.0 % $ 6,190 2.2 % AA 33,614 15.4 301 0.7 4,853 36.9 76 4.5 38,844 14.1 A 124,332 57.0 13,657 32.0 1,778 13.5 268 15.9 140,035 50.8 BBB 52,021 23.8 23,965 56.1 724 5.5 762 45.3 77,472 28.1 BIG 7,334 3.4 2,281 5.3 3,454 26.3 157 9.3 13,226 4.8 Total net par outstanding (1) $ 218,216 100.0 % $ 42,727 100.0 % $ 13,142 100.0 % $ 1,682 100.0 % $ 275,767 100.0 % _____________________ (1) The September 30, 2017 amounts include $13.0 billion of net par from the MBIA UK Acquisition. Please refer to Note 13, Reinsurance and Other Monoline Exposures, for the effect of commutations on net par outstanding. Financial Guaranty Portfolio by Internal Rating As of December 31, 2016 Public Finance U.S. Public Finance Non-U.S. Structured Finance U.S Structured Finance Non-U.S Total Rating Category Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % Net Par Outstanding % (dollars in millions) AAA $ 2,066 0.8 % $ 2,221 8.4 % $ 9,757 44.2 % $ 1,447 47.0 % $ 15,491 5.2 % AA 46,420 19.0 170 0.6 5,773 26.2 127 4.1 52,490 17.7 A 133,829 54.7 6,270 23.8 1,589 7.2 456 14.8 142,144 48.0 BBB 55,103 22.5 16,378 62.1 879 4.0 759 24.6 73,119 24.7 BIG 7,380 3.0 1,342 5.1 4,059 18.4 293 9.5 13,074 4.4 Total net par outstanding $ 244,798 100.0 % $ 26,381 100.0 % $ 22,057 100.0 % $ 3,082 100.0 % $ 296,318 100.0 % Components of BIG Portfolio Components of BIG Net Par Outstanding (Insurance and Credit Derivative Form) As of September 30, 2017 BIG Net Par Outstanding Net Par BIG 1 BIG 2 BIG 3 Total BIG Outstanding (in millions) Public finance: U.S. public finance $ 2,563 $ 662 $ 4,109 $ 7,334 $ 218,216 Non-U.S. public finance 2,007 274 — 2,281 42,727 Public finance 4,570 936 4,109 9,615 260,943 Structured finance: U.S. Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) 177 354 2,338 2,869 5,064 Triple-X life insurance transactions — — 85 85 2,058 Trust preferred securities (TruPS) 239 — — 239 1,455 Other structured finance 186 157 75 418 6,247 Structured finance 602 511 2,498 3,611 14,824 Total $ 5,172 $ 1,447 $ 6,607 $ 13,226 $ 275,767 Components of BIG Net Par Outstanding (Insurance and Credit Derivative Form) As of December 31, 2016 BIG Net Par Outstanding Net Par BIG 1 BIG 2 BIG 3 Total BIG Outstanding (in millions) Public finance: U.S. public finance $ 2,402 $ 3,123 $ 1,855 $ 7,380 $ 244,798 Non-U.S. public finance 1,288 54 — 1,342 26,381 Public finance 3,690 3,177 1,855 8,722 271,179 Structured finance: U.S. RMBS 197 493 2,461 3,151 5,637 Triple-X life insurance transactions — — 126 126 2,057 TruPS 304 126 — 430 1,892 Other structured finance 304 263 78 645 15,553 Structured finance 805 882 2,665 4,352 25,139 Total $ 4,495 $ 4,059 $ 4,520 $ 13,074 $ 296,318 BIG Net Par Outstanding and Number of Risks As of September 30, 2017 Net Par Outstanding Number of Risks(2) Description Financial Guaranty Insurance(1) Credit Derivative Total Financial Guaranty Insurance(1) Credit Derivative Total (dollars in millions) BIG: Category 1 $ 4,628 $ 544 $ 5,172 150 9 159 Category 2 1,382 65 1,447 48 4 52 Category 3 6,520 87 6,607 151 8 159 Total BIG $ 12,530 $ 696 $ 13,226 349 21 370 BIG Net Par Outstanding and Number of Risks As of December 31, 2016 Net Par Outstanding Number of Risks(2) Description Financial Guaranty Insurance(1) Credit Derivative Total Financial Guaranty Insurance(1) Credit Derivative Total (dollars in millions) BIG: Category 1 $ 3,861 $ 634 $ 4,495 165 10 175 Category 2 3,857 202 4,059 79 6 85 Category 3 4,383 137 4,520 148 9 157 Total BIG $ 12,101 $ 973 $ 13,074 392 25 417 _____________________ (1) Includes net par outstanding for VIEs. (2) A risk represents the aggregate of the financial guaranty policies that share the same revenue source for purposes of making debt service payments. Exposure to Puerto Rico The Company has insured exposure to general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico or the Commonwealth) and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations aggregating $5.0 billion net par as of September 30, 2017 , all of which are rated BIG. This amount includes $389 million related to the 2017 commutations of previously ceded business. Please refer to Note 13, Reinsurance and Other Monoline Exposures, for more information. In recent years, Puerto Rico has experienced significant general fund budget deficits and a challenging economic environment. Beginning on January 1, 2016, a number of Puerto Rico credits have defaulted on bond payments, and the Company has now paid claims on most of its Puerto Rico credits as shown in the table "Puerto Rico Net Par Outstanding" below. On November 30, 2015 and December 8, 2015, Governor García Padilla of Puerto Rico (the Former Governor) issued executive orders (Clawback Orders) directing the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury and the Puerto Rico Tourism Company to "claw back" certain taxes pledged to secure the payment of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority (PRIFA), and Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (PRCCDA). The Puerto Rico credits insured by the Company subject to clawback are shown in the table “Puerto Rico Net Par Outstanding” below. On June 30, 2016, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) was signed into law by the President of the United States. PROMESA establishes a seven-member federal financial oversight board (Oversight Board) with authority to require that balanced budgets and fiscal plans be adopted and implemented by Puerto Rico. PROMESA provides a legal framework under which the debt of the Commonwealth and its related authorities and public corporations may be voluntarily restructured, and grants the Oversight Board the sole authority to file restructuring petitions in a federal court to restructure the debt of the Commonwealth and its related authorities and public corporations if voluntary negotiations fail, provided that any such restructuring must be in accordance with an Oversight Board approved fiscal plan that respects the liens and priorities provided under Puerto Rico law. On January 2, 2017, Ricardo Antonio Rosselló Nevares (the Governor) took office, replacing the Former Governor. On January 29, 2017, the Governor signed the Puerto Rico Emergency and Fiscal Responsibility Act (Emergency Act) that, among other things, defined an emergency period that has since been extended to December 31, 2017, continued diversion of collateral away from bonds the Company insures, and defined the powers and duties of the Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (FAFAA). In mid-March 2017, the Oversight Board certified Puerto Rico’s fiscal plan, dated March 13, 2017 (Fiscal Plan). The Fiscal Plan provides only approximately $7.9 billion for Commonwealth debt service over the next ten years, an amount less than scheduled debt service for such period. The Fiscal Plan itself acknowledges that there are a number of legal and contractual issues not addressed by the Fiscal Plan. On April 28, 2017, the Oversight Board approved fiscal plans for Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and PRHTA, and directed Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) to amend its proposed plan in several ways. The Oversight Board approved the amended PRASA plan on June 30, 2017. The PRHTA plan assumes that PRHTA will not pay any debt service at least through 2026. The PRASA plan assumes it will pay only approximately 65% of its debt service through 2026. The Company does not believe the fiscal plans of PRHTA or PRASA in their current forms comply with certain mandatory requirements of PROMESA. On May 3, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition with the Federal District Court of Puerto Rico for the Commonwealth under Title III of PROMESA. Title III of PROMESA provides for a process analogous to a voluntary bankruptcy process under chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (Bankruptcy Code). On May 5, 2017, the Oversight Board certified a filing under Title III of PROMESA for the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA). On May 21, 2017, the Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA for PRHTA. On July 2, 2017, after the rejection by the Oversight Board and termination by PREPA of the Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) described below, the Oversight Board commenced proceedings for PREPA under Title III of PROMESA. The Company believes that a number of the actions taken by the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others with respect to obligations the Company insures are illegal or unconstitutional or both, and has taken legal action, and may take additional legal action in the future, to enforce its rights with respect to these matters. Please see “Puerto Rico Recovery Litigation” below. Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the Southern District of New York was selected by Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court to preside over any proceedings under PROMESA. Judge Swain has selected a team of five federal judges to act as mediators for certain issues and disputes. On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico as a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, causing loss of life and widespread devastation in the Commonwealth. Damage to the Commonwealth’s infrastructure, including the power grid, water system and transportation system, was extensive, with the entire island being without power in the aftermath of the storm. Officials continue to assess the extent of the damage, but rebuilding and economic recovery are expected to take years. While the federal government is expected to provide very substantial resources for relief and rebuilding -- which is expected to help economic activity and address the Commonwealth’s infrastructure needs in the intermediate and longer term -- economic activity in general and tourism in particular, as well as tax collections, are all expected to decline in the short term. Out migration to the mainland is also expected to increase, at least initially. Litigation and mediation related to the Commonwealth’s debt have been delayed by Hurricane Maria. The final form and timing of responses to Puerto Rico’s financial distress and the devastation of Hurricane Maria eventually taken by the federal government or implemented under the auspices of PROMESA and the Oversight Board or otherwise, and the final impact, after resolution of legal challenges, of any such responses on obligations insured by the Company, are uncertain. The Company groups its Puerto Rico exposure into three categories: • Constitutionally Guaranteed. The Company includes in this category public debt benefiting from Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which expressly provides that interest and principal payments on the public debt are to be paid before other disbursements are made. • Public Corporations – Certain Revenues Potentially Subject to Clawback. The Company includes in this category the debt of public corporations for which applicable law permits the Commonwealth to claw back, subject to certain conditions and for the payment of public debt, at least a portion of the revenues supporting the bonds the Company insures. As a constitutional condition to clawback, available Commonwealth revenues for any fiscal year must be insufficient to pay Commonwealth debt service before the payment of any appropriations for that year. The Company believes that this condition has not been satisfied to date, and accordingly that the Commonwealth has not to date been entitled to claw back revenues supporting debt insured by the Company. Prior to the enactment of PROMESA , the Company sued various Puerto Rico governmental officials in the United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico asserting that Puerto Rico's attempt to “claw back” pledged taxes is unconstitutional, and demanding declaratory and injunctive relief. Please see "Puerto Rico Recovery Litigation" below. • Other Public Corporations. The Company includes in this category the debt of public corporations that are supported by revenues it does not believe are subject to clawback. Constitutionally Guaranteed General Obligation. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $1,419 million insured net par outstanding of the general obligations of Puerto Rico, which are supported by the good faith, credit and taxing power of the Commonwealth. On July 1, 2016, despite the requirements of Article VI of its Constitution, the Commonwealth defaulted on most of the debt service payment due that day, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds, and has continued to make claim payments on these bonds. As noted above, the Oversight Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA with respect to the Commonwealth. Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (PBA). As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $141 million insured net par outstanding of PBA bonds, which are supported by a pledge of the rents due under leases of government facilities to departments, agencies, instrumentalities and municipalities of the Commonwealth, and that benefit from a Commonwealth guaranty supported by a pledge of the Commonwealth’s good faith, credit and taxing power. On July 1, 2016, despite the requirements of Article VI of its Constitution, the PBA defaulted on most of the debt service payment due that day, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds, and has continued to make claim payments on these bonds. Public Corporations - Certain Revenues Potentially Subject to Clawback PRHTA. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $882 million insured net par outstanding of PRHTA (transportation revenue) bonds and $495 million insured net par of PRHTA (highways revenue) bonds. The transportation revenue bonds are secured by a subordinate gross lien on gasoline and gas oil and diesel oil taxes, motor vehicle license fees and certain tolls, plus a first lien on up to $120 million annually of taxes on crude oil, unfinished oil and derivative products. The highways revenue bonds are secured by a gross lien on gasoline and gas oil and diesel oil taxes, motor vehicle license fees and certain tolls. The non-toll revenues consisting of excise taxes and fees collected by the Commonwealth on behalf of PRHTA and its bondholders that are statutorily allocated to PRHTA and its bondholders are potentially subject to clawback. Despite the presence of funds in relevant debt service accounts that the Company believes should have been employed to fund debt service, PRHTA defaulted on the full July 1, 2017 insured debt service payment, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds. As noted above, on April 28, 2017, the Oversight Board approved a fiscal plan for PRHTA that PRHTA will not pay any debt service at least through 2026. The Company does not believe the PRHTA fiscal plan in its current form complies with certain mandatory requirements of PROMESA. PRCCDA. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $152 million insured net par outstanding of PRCCDA bonds, which are secured by certain hotel tax revenues. These revenues are sensitive to the level of economic activity in the area and are potentially subject to clawback. There were sufficient funds in the PRCCDA bond accounts to make only partial payments on the July 1, 2017 PRCCDA bond payments guaranteed by the Company, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds. PRIFA. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $18 million insured net par outstanding of PRIFA bonds, which are secured primarily by the return to Puerto Rico of federal excise taxes paid on rum. These revenues are potentially subject to the clawback. The Company made its first claim payment on PRIFA bonds in January 2016, and has continued to make claim payments on PRIFA bonds. Other Public Corporations PREPA. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $853 million insured net par outstanding of PREPA obligations, which are secured by a lien on the revenues of the electric system. On December 24, 2015, AGM and AGC entered into an RSA with PREPA, an ad hoc group of uninsured bondholders and a group of fuel-line lenders that would, subject to certain conditions, result in, among other things, modernization of the utility and a restructuring of current debt. Upon finalization of the contemplated restructuring transaction, insured PREPA revenue bonds (with no reduction to par or stated interest rate) would be supported by securitization bonds issued by a special purpose corporation and secured by a transition charge assessed on ratepayers. In March 2017, the Governor indicated a desire to modify certain aspects of the RSA. On April 6, 2017, the Governor announced that an agreement in principle had been reached to supplement the RSA. As supplemented, the RSA called for AGM and AGC to provide surety insurance policies aggregating approximately $113 million ( $14 million for AGC and $99 million for AGM) to support the securitization bonds contemplated by the RSA, to extend the maturity of all of the relending financing provided in 2016, and to provide $120 million of principal payment deferrals in 2018 through 2023. In addition, the RSA as supplemented provided for a consensual restructuring under Title VI of PROMESA. The Oversight Board did not certify the RSA under Title VI of PROMESA as the Company believes is required by PROMESA, but rather, on July 2, 2017, commenced proceedings for PREPA under Title III of PROMESA. PREPA defaulted on its July 1, 2017 debt service payments, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds to bondholders as a result of these defaults. The Company believes that a number of the actions taken by the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others with respect to the PREPA obligations it insures and the RSA are illegal or unconstitutional or both, and has taken legal action, and may take additional legal action in the future, to enforce its rights with respect to these matters. Please see “Puerto Rico Recovery Litigation” below. PRASA. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $373 million of insured net par outstanding to PRASA bonds, which are secured by a lien on the gross revenues of the water and sewer system. On September 15, 2015, PRASA entered into a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that requires it to spend $1.6 billion to upgrade and improve its sewer system island-wide. The PRASA bond accounts contained sufficient funds to make the PRASA bond payments due through the date of this filing that were guaranteed by the Company, and those payments were made in full. As noted above, on April 28, 2017, the Oversight Board considered a fiscal plan for PRASA that assumes PRASA will pay only approximately 65% of its debt service through 2026, and approved the amended plan on June 30, 2017. Because PRASA has several categories of debt outstanding and the Company insures only PRASA debt with a senior lien on gross revenues of PRASA, it is unclear whether (or to what extent, if any) the payment of only 65% of debt service through 2026 would result in a reduction in PRASA payments of Company-insured debt. The Company does not believe the PRASA fiscal plan in its current form complies with certain mandatory requirements of PROMESA. Municipal Finance Agency (MFA). As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $360 million net par outstanding of bonds issued by MFA secured by a lien on local property tax revenues. The MFA bond accounts contained sufficient funds to make the MFA bond payments due through the date of this filing that were guaranteed by the Company, and those payments were made in full. COFINA. As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $272 million insured net par outstanding of junior COFINA bonds, which are secured primarily by a second lien on certain sales and use taxes. As noted above, the Oversight Board filed a petition on behalf of the Commonwealth under Title III of PROMESA. COFINA defaulted on its August 1, 2017 insured debt service payment, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds. University of Puerto Rico (U of PR). As of September 30, 2017 , the Company had $1 million insured net par outstanding of U of PR bonds, which are general obligations of the university and are secured by a subordinate lien on the proceeds, profits and other income of the University, subject to a senior pledge and lien for the benefit of outstanding university system revenue bonds. As of the date of this filing, all debt service payments on U of PR bonds insured by the Company have been made. Puerto Rico Recovery Litigation The Company believes that a number of the actions taken by the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others with respect to obligations it insures are illegal or unconstitutional or both, and has taken legal action, and may take additional legal action in the future, to enforce its rights with respect to these matters. On January 7, 2016, AGM, AGC and Ambac Assurance Corporation (Ambac) commenced an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Federal District Court in Puerto Rico) to invalidate the executive orders issued by the Former Governor on November 30, 2015 and December 8, 2015 directing that the Secretary of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Tourism Company claw back certain taxes and revenues pledged to secure the payment of bonds issued by the PRHTA, the PRCCDA and the PRIFA. The Commonwealth defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the Court denied on October 4, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Commonwealth defendants filed a notice of PROMESA automatic stay. While the PROMESA automatic stay expired on May 1, 2017, on May 17, 2017, the Court stayed the action under Title III of PROMESA. On May 3, 2017, AGM and AGC filed in the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico an adversary complaint seeking a judgment that the Commonwealth's Fiscal Plan violates various sections of PROMESA and the Contracts, Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, an injunction enjoining the Commonwealth and Oversight Board from presenting or proceeding with confirmation of any plan of adjustment based on the Fiscal Plan, and a stay on the confirmation of any plan of adjustment based on the Fiscal Plan pending development of a fiscal plan that complies with PROMESA and the U.S. Constitution. On October 6, 2017, AGC and AGM voluntarily withdrew without prejudice the complaint, based on their expectation that the Fiscal Plan would be modified as a result of Hurricane Maria. On May 16, 2017, The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for the bonds issued by COFINA, filed an adversary complaint for interpleader and declaratory relief with the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico to resolve competing and conflicting demands made by various groups of COFINA bondholders, insurers of certain COFINA Bonds and COFINA, regarding funds held by the trustee for certain COFINA bond debt service payments scheduled to occur on and after June 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, an order to show cause was entered permitting AGC and AGM to intervene in this matter. While AGM has insured COFINA Bonds, AGC has not. On June 3, 2017, AGC and AGM filed an adversary complaint in Federal District Court in Puerto Rico seeking (i) a judgment declaring that the application of pledged special revenues to the payment of the PRHTA Bonds is not subject to the PROMESA Title III automatic stay and that the Commonwealth has violated the special revenue protections provided to the PRHTA Bonds under the Bankruptcy Code; (ii) an injunction enjoining the Commonwealth from taking or causing to be taken any action that would further violate the special revenue protections provided to the PRHTA Bonds under the Bankruptcy Code; and (iii) an injunction ordering the Commonwealth to remit the pledged special revenues securing the PRHTA Bonds in accordance with the terms of the special revenue provisions set forth in the Bankruptcy Code. On June 26, 2017, AGM and AGC filed a complaint in Federal District Court in Puerto Rico seeking (i) a declaratory judgment that the PREPA RSA is a “Preexisting Voluntary Agreement” under Section 104 of PROMESA and the Oversight Board’s failure to certify the PREPA RSA is an unlawful application of Section 601 of PROMESA; (ii) an injunction enjoining the Oversight Board from unlawfully applying Section 601 of PROMESA and ordering it to certify the PREPA RSA; and (iii) a writ of mandamus requiring the Oversight Board to comply with its duties under PROMESA and certify the PREPA RSA. On July 21, 2017, in light of its PREPA Title III petition on July 2, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a notice of stay under PROMESA. On July 18, 2017, AGM and AGC filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the PREPA Title III bankruptcy proceeding and a form of complaint seeking the appointment of a receiver for PREPA. That motion was denied on September 14, 2017. AGM and AGC filed a notice of appeal on September 28, 2017. On August 7, 2017, AGC and AGM filed an adversary complaint in Federal District |
