| Outstanding Exposure | Outstanding Exposure The Company primarily writes financial guaranty contracts in insurance form. Until 2009, the Company also wrote some of its financial guaranty contracts in credit derivative form, and has acquired or reinsured portfolios both before and after 2009 that include financial guaranty contracts in credit derivative form. Whether written as an insurance contract or as a credit derivative, the Company considers these financial guaranty contracts. The Company also writes a relatively small amount of non-financial guaranty insurance. The Company seeks to limit its exposure to losses by underwriting obligations that it views as investment grade at inception, although on occasion it may underwrite new issuances that it views as BIG, typically as part of its loss mitigation strategy for existing troubled exposures. The Company also seeks to acquire portfolios of insurance from financial guarantors that are no longer writing new business by acquiring such companies, providing reinsurance on a portfolio of insurance or reassuming a portfolio of reinsurance it had previously ceded; in such instances, it evaluates the risk characteristics of the target portfolio, which may include some BIG exposures, as a whole in the context of the proposed transaction. The Company diversifies its insured portfolio across asset classes and, in the structured finance portfolio, typically 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. The Company also provides non-financial guaranty insurance and reinsurance on transactions without special purpose entities but with similar risk profiles to its structured finance exposures written in financial guaranty form. 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 exposures in quarterly, semi-annual or annual cycles based on the Company’s view of the exposure’s quality, loss potential, volatility and sector. Ratings on exposures in sectors identified as under the most stress or with the most potential volatility are reviewed every quarter. For assumed exposures, the Company may use the ceding company’s credit ratings of transactions where it is impractical for it to assign its own rating. The Company provides surveillance for exposures assumed from SGI, so for those exposures assigns its own rating. Exposures identified as BIG are subjected to further review to determine the probability of a loss. See 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. The Company uses a tax-equivalent yield, which reflects long-term trends in interest rates, to calculate the present value of projected payments and recoveries and determine whether a future loss is expected in order to assign the appropriate BIG surveillance category to a transaction. On the other hand, the Company uses risk-free rates, which are determined each quarter to calculate 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. 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. Financial Guaranty Exposure 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 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 June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 , the Company excluded $1.9 billion and $2.0 billion , respectively, of net par attributable 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 June 30, December 31, June 30, December 31, (in millions) Public finance $ 382,564 $ 393,010 $ 378,746 $ 386,092 Structured finance 14,655 15,482 14,251 15,026 Total financial guaranty $ 397,219 $ 408,492 $ 392,997 $ 401,118 In addition to amounts shown in the tables above, the Company had outstanding commitments to provide guaranties of $25 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 June 30, 2018 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 $ 520 0.3 % $ 2,429 5.3 % $ 1,778 16.5 % $ 282 22.8 % $ 5,009 1.9 % AA 26,408 13.1 201 0.4 3,688 34.3 66 5.3 30,363 11.8 A 113,915 56.8 14,260 31.4 1,306 12.1 198 16.0 129,679 50.3 BBB 53,221 26.6 27,419 60.4 888 8.3 587 47.6 82,115 31.9 BIG 6,314 3.2 1,133 2.5 3,089 28.8 102 8.3 10,638 4.1 Total net par outstanding $ 200,378 100.0 % $ 45,442 100.0 % $ 10,749 100.0 % $ 1,235 100.0 % $ 257,804 100.0 % Financial Guaranty Portfolio by Internal Rating As of December 31, 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 $ 877 0.4 % $ 2,541 5.9 % $ 1,655 14.7 % $ 319 22.5 % $ 5,392 2.1 % AA 30,016 14.3 205 0.5 3,915 34.9 76 5.4 34,212 12.9 A 118,620 56.7 13,936 32.5 1,630 14.5 210 14.9 134,396 50.7 BBB 52,739 25.2 24,509 57.1 763 6.8 703 49.7 78,714 29.7 BIG 7,140 3.4 1,731 4.0 3,261 29.1 106 7.5 12,238 4.6 Total net par outstanding $ 209,392 100.0 % $ 42,922 100.0 % $ 11,224 100.0 % $ 1,414 100.0 % $ 264,952 100.0 % Components of BIG Portfolio Financial Guaranty Portfolio Components of BIG Net Par Outstanding As of June 30, 2018 BIG Net Par Outstanding Net Par BIG 1 BIG 2 BIG 3 Total BIG Outstanding (in millions) Public finance: U.S. public finance $ 1,557 $ 390 $ 4,367 $ 6,314 $ 200,378 Non-U.S. public finance 871 262 — 1,133 45,442 Public finance 2,428 652 4,367 7,447 245,820 Structured finance: U.S. Residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) 182 375 2,115 2,672 4,763 Triple-X life insurance transactions — — 85 85 1,191 Trust preferred securities (TruPS) 97 — — 97 1,183 Other structured finance 183 85 69 337 4,847 Structured finance 462 460 2,269 3,191 11,984 Total $ 2,890 $ 1,112 $ 6,636 $ 10,638 $ 257,804 Financial Guaranty Portfolio Components of BIG Net Par Outstanding As of December 31, 2017 BIG Net Par Outstanding Net Par BIG 1 BIG 2 BIG 3 Total BIG Outstanding (in millions) Public finance: U.S. public finance $ 2,368 $ 663 $ 4,109 $ 7,140 $ 209,392 Non-U.S. public finance 1,455 276 — 1,731 42,922 Public finance 3,823 939 4,109 8,871 252,314 Structured finance: U.S. RMBS 374 304 2,083 2,761 4,818 Triple-X life insurance transactions — — 85 85 1,199 TruPS 161 — — 161 1,349 Other structured finance 170 118 72 360 5,272 Structured finance 705 422 2,240 3,367 12,638 Total $ 4,528 $ 1,361 $ 6,349 $ 12,238 $ 264,952 Financial Guaranty Portfolio BIG Net Par Outstanding and Number of Risks As of June 30, 2018 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 $ 2,734 $ 156 $ 2,890 138 5 143 Category 2 1,096 16 1,112 44 3 47 Category 3 6,555 81 6,636 150 10 160 Total BIG $ 10,385 $ 253 $ 10,638 332 18 350 Financial Guaranty Portfolio BIG Net Par Outstanding and Number of Risks As of December 31, 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 $ 4,301 $ 227 $ 4,528 139 7 146 Category 2 1,344 17 1,361 46 3 49 Category 3 6,255 94 6,349 150 9 159 Total BIG $ 11,900 $ 338 $ 12,238 335 19 354 _____________________ (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 June 30, 2018 , all of which was rated BIG. Puerto Rico experienced significant general fund budget deficits and a challenging economic environment since at least the financial crisis. Beginning on January 1, 2016, a number of Puerto Rico exposures have defaulted on bond payments, and the Company has now paid claims on all of its Puerto Rico exposures except for Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), Municipal Finance Agency (MFA) and University of Puerto Rico (U of PR). On November 30, 2015 and December 8, 2015, the former governor of Puerto Rico (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 exposures insured by the Company subject to clawback are shown in the table “Puerto Rico Net Par Outstanding”. 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 established a seven-member 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. In May and July 2017, the Oversight Board filed petitions under Title III of PROMESA with the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Federal District Court for Puerto Rico) for the Commonwealth, the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA), PRHTA, and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). 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). 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 legal 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, and rebuilding and economic recovery are expected to take years. In December 2017, legislation known as the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Tax Act) was enacted. Many of the provisions under the Tax Act are geared toward increasing production in the U.S. and discouraging companies from having operations or intangibles off-shore. Since Puerto Rico is considered a foreign territory under the U.S. tax system, the Tax Act may have adverse consequences to Puerto Rico’s economy. However, the Company is unable to predict the impact of the Tax Act on Puerto Rico. On June 7, 2018, the court-appointed agents for COFINA and the Commonwealth filed with the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico an agreement in principle to resolve a dispute between the Commonwealth and COFINA regarding ownership of the 5.5% Sales and Use Taxes (SUT). The agreement in principle, which requires, among other things, that future challenges to it be barred by the court or made illegal, provides that, beginning July 1, 2018, SUT would be paid first to COFINA until it has received 53.65% of the pledged sales tax base amount (PSTBA) and that the remaining 46.35% of the PSTBA would be paid to the Commonwealth thereafter. The agreement in principle does not address the proportion of the amount to be paid to COFINA that would be paid to the senior versus the junior creditors, nor does it address the restructuring of COFINA. On June 29, 2018, the Oversight Board certified a revised version of the fiscal plan for the Commonwealth as developed by the Oversight Board. The revised certified Commonwealth fiscal plan (which the Company believes covers its general obligations as well as obligations of certain of its other authorities and public corporations) indicates a primary budget surplus of $6.7 billion that would be available for debt service over the six -year forecast period (as compared to contractual debt service of approximately $15.5 billion over the same period). The certified PRHTA fiscal plan projects very limited capacity to pay debt service over the six -year forecast period, as the Commonwealth anticipates continuing to retain approximately three-fourths of PRHTA's total revenues. The certified PREPA fiscal plan indicates that no funds will be available for legacy debt service payments over the six -year forecast period unless rates are adjusted. Additionally, in June 2018, the Commonwealth enacted a law that would enable the partial privatization of PREPA. The certified PRASA fiscal plan projects cash flows available for debt service equal to approximately 56% of aggregate debt service during the six -year projection period, based on projection assumptions (including receipt of certain federal funding). The Company does not believe the certified fiscal plans for the Commonwealth, PRHTA, PREPA or PRASA comply with certain mandatory requirements of PROMESA. On July 30, 2018, the Oversight Board and the Governor announced that they had reached a tentative agreement with a certain group of PREPA bondholders regarding approximately $3 billion of PREPA’s outstanding debt. Bondholders would be able to exchange their debt for new securitization debt maturing in 40 years at 67% of par, plus growth bonds tied to the recovery of Puerto Rico at 10% of par. The Company and certain other creditors of PREPA have not agreed to the terms of that tentative agreement. 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. See “Puerto Rico Recovery Litigation” below. Litigation and mediation related to the Commonwealth’s debt were 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 Federal District Court for Puerto Rico asserting that Puerto Rico's attempt to “claw back” pledged taxes is unconstitutional, and demanding declaratory and injunctive relief. 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 June 30, 2018 , 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. Despite the requirements of Article VI of its Constitution, the Commonwealth defaulted on the debt service payment due on July 1, 2016, and the Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since that date. 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 June 30, 2018 , 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. Despite the requirements of Article VI of its Constitution, the PBA defaulted on most of the debt service payment due on July 1, 2016, and the Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since then. Public Corporations - Certain Revenues Potentially Subject to Clawback PRHTA. As of June 30, 2018 , the Company had $882 million insured net par outstanding of PRHTA (transportation revenue) bonds and $495 million insured net par outstanding 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 reserve 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 has been making claim payments on these bonds since that date. As noted above, the Oversight Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA with respect to PRHTA. PRCCDA. As of June 30, 2018 , 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 has been making claim payments on these bonds since that date. PRIFA. As of June 30, 2018 , 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 has been making claim payments on the PRIFA bonds since January 2016. Other Public Corporations PREPA. As of June 30, 2018 , 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 a Restructuring Support Agreement (RSA) with PREPA, an ad hoc group of uninsured bondholders and a group of fuel-line lenders that, subject to certain conditions, would have resulted in, among other things, modernization of the utility and a restructuring of current debt. The Oversight Board did not certify the RSA under Title VI of PROMESA as the Company believes was required by PROMESA, but rather, on July 2, 2017, commenced proceedings for PREPA under Title III of PROMESA. The Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since July 1, 2017. PRASA. As of June 30, 2018 , the Company had $373 million of insured net par outstanding of 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. MFA. As of June 30, 2018 , 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 June 30, 2018 , the Company had $273 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 COFINA under Title III of PROMESA. COFINA bond debt service payments were not made on August 1, 2017, and the Company made its first claim payments on these bonds. The Company has continued to make claim payments on these bonds. U of PR. As of June 30, 2018 , 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 commenced an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Federal District Court for 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 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 for 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 AGM to intervene in this matter. On June 3, 2017, AGC and AGM filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for 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 January 30, 2018, the district court rendered an opinion dismissing the complaint and holding, among other things, that (x) even though the special revenue provisions of the Bankruptcy Code protect a lien on pledged special revenues, those provisions do not mandate the turnover of pledged special revenues to the payment of bonds and (y) actions to enforce liens on pledged special revenues remain stayed. AGC and AGM are appealing the district court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On June 26, 2017, AGM and AGC filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for 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 in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico 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 are appealing the trial court's decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On May 23, 2018, AGM and AGC filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico seeking a judgment declaring that (i) the Oversight Board lacked authority to develop or approve the new fiscal plan for Puerto Rico which it certified on April 19, 2018 (Revised Fiscal Plan); (ii) the Revised Fiscal Plan and the Fiscal Plan Compliance Law (Compliance Law) enacted by the Commonwealth to implement the original Commonwealth fiscal plan violate various sections of PROMESA; (iii) the Revised Fiscal Plan, the Compliance Law and various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to prevent the payment of debt service (a) are unconstitutional and void because they violate the Contracts, Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and (b) are preempted by various sections of PROMESA; and (iv) no Title III plan of adjustment based on the Revised Fiscal Plan can be confirmed under PROMESA. On July 23, 2018, AGC and AGM filed an adversar |
