Commitments and contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure

Commitments And Contingencies

Note 20 – Commitments and contingencies

Off-balance sheet risk

The Corporation is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet credit risk in the normal course of business to meet the financial needs of its customers. These financial instruments include loan commitments, letters of credit and standby letters of credit. These instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amount recognized in the consolidated statements of financial condition.

The Corporation’s exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party to the financial instrument for commitments to extend credit, standby letters of credit and financial guarantees is represented by the contractual notional amounts of those instruments. The Corporation uses the same credit policies in making these commitments and conditional obligations as it does for those reflected on the consolidated statements of financial condition.

Financial instruments with off-balance sheet credit risk, whose contract amounts represent potential credit risk as of the end of the periods presented were as follows:

(In thousands)		March 31, 2021		December 31, 2020
Commitments to extend credit:
	Credit card lines	$	5,271,202	$	5,226,660
	Commercial and construction lines of credit		3,844,356		3,805,459
	Other consumer unused credit commitments		251,574		257,312
Commercial letters of credit			3,090		1,864
Standby letters of credit			21,330		22,266
Commitments to originate or fund mortgage loans			107,464		96,786

At March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Corporation maintained a reserve of approximately $10 million and $16 million, respectively, for potential losses associated with unfunded loan commitments related to commercial, construction and consumer lines of credit.

Other commitments

At March 31, 2021, and December 31, 2020, the Corporation’s also maintained other non-credit commitments for approximately $1.4 million, primarily for the acquisition of other investments.

Business concentration

Since the Corporation’s business activities are concentrated primarily in Puerto Rico, its results of operations and financial condition are dependent upon the general trends of the Puerto Rico economy and, in particular, the residential and commercial real estate markets. The concentration of the Corporation’s operations in Puerto Rico exposes it to greater risk than other banking companies with a wider geographic base. Its asset and revenue composition by geographical area is presented in Note 32 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Puerto Rico has faced significant fiscal and economic challenges for over a decade. In response to such challenges, the U.S. Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”) in 2016, which, among other things, established a Fiscal Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”) and a framework for the restructuring of the debts of the Commonwealth, its instrumentalities and municipalities. The Commonwealth and several of its instrumentalities have commenced debt restructuring proceedings under PROMESA. As of the date of this report, while municipalities have been designated as covered entities under PROMESA, no municipality has commenced, or has been authorized by the Oversight Board to commence, any such debt restructuring proceeding under PROMESA.

At March 31, 2021 and December 31, 2020, the Corporation’s direct exposure to the Puerto Rico government and its instrumentalities and municipalities totaled $375 million and $377 million, respectively, which amounts were fully outstanding on such dates. Of this amount, $342 million consists of loans and $33 million are securities ($342 million and $ 35 million at December 31, 2020). Substantially all of the amount outstanding at March 31, 2021 and March 31, 2020 were obligations from various Puerto Rico municipalities. In most cases, these were “general obligations” of a municipality, to which the applicable municipality has pledged its good faith, credit and unlimited taxing power, or “special obligations” of a municipality, to which the applicable municipality has pledged other revenues. At March 31, 2021, 74% of the Corporation’s exposure to municipal loans and securities was concentrated in the municipalities of San Juan, Guaynabo, Carolina and Bayamón.

The following table details the loans and investments representing the Corporation’s direct exposure to the Puerto Rico government according to their maturities as of March 31, 2021:

(In thousands)		Investment Portfolio		Loans		Total Outstanding		Total Exposure
Central Government
After 1 to 5 years	$	3	$	-	$	3	$	3
After 5 to 10 years		16		-		16		16
After 10 years		36		-		36		36
Total Central Government		55		-		55		55
Municipalities
Within 1 year		4,165		17,147		21,312		21,312
After 1 to 5 years		14,765		133,365		148,130		148,130
After 5 to 10 years		13,210		120,935		134,145		134,145
After 10 years		450		70,478		70,928		70,928
Total Municipalities		32,590		341,925		374,515		374,515
Total Direct Government Exposure	$	32,645	$	341,925	$	374,570	$	374,570

In addition, at March 31, 2021, the Corporation had $311 million in loans insured or securities issued by Puerto Rico governmental entities but for which the principal source of repayment is non-governmental ($317 million at December 31, 2020). These included $255 million in residential mortgage loans insured by the Puerto Rico Housing Finance Authority (“HFA”), a governmental instrumentality that has been designated as a covered entity under PROMESA (December 31, 2020 - $260 million). These mortgage loans are secured by first mortgages on Puerto Rico residential properties and the HFA insurance covers losses in the event of a borrower default and upon the satisfaction of certain other conditions. The Corporation also had at March 31, 2021, $45 million in bonds issued by HFA which are secured by second mortgage loans on Puerto Rico residential properties, and for which HFA also provides insurance to cover losses in the event of a borrower default and upon the satisfaction of certain other conditions (December 31, 2020 - $46 million). In the event that the mortgage loans insured by HFA and held by the Corporation directly or those serving as collateral for the HFA bonds default and the collateral is insufficient to satisfy the outstanding balance of these loans, HFA’s ability to honor its insurance will depend, among other factors, on the financial condition of HFA at the time such obligations become due and payable. The Corporation does not consider the government guarantee when estimating the credit losses associated with this portfolio. Although the Governor is currently authorized by local legislation to impose a temporary moratorium on the financial obligations of the HFA, a moratorium on such obligations has not been imposed as of the date hereof. In addition, at March 31, 2021, the Corporation had $11 million of commercial real estate notes issued by government entities but that are payable from rent paid by non-governmental parties (December 31, 2020 - $11 million).

BPPR’s commercial loan portfolio also includes loans to private borrowers who are service providers, lessors, suppliers or have other relationships with the government. These borrowers could be negatively affected by the Commonwealth’s fiscal crisis and the ongoing Title III proceedings under PROMESA. Similarly, BPPR’s mortgage and consumer loan portfolios include loans to government employees and retirees, which could also be negatively affected by fiscal measures such as employee layoffs or furloughs or reductions in pension benefits.

In addition, $1.7 billion of residential mortgages, $1.2 billion of Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and $60 million commercial loans were insured or guaranteed by the U.S. Government or its agencies at March 31, 2021 (compared to $1.8 billion, $1.3 billion and $60 million, respectively, at December 31, 2020).

At March 31, 2021, the Corporation has operations in the United States Virgin Islands (the “USVI”) and has approximately $103 million in direct exposure to USVI government entities (December 31, 2020 - $105 million). The USVI has been experiencing a number of fiscal and economic challenges that could adversely affect the ability of its public corporations and instrumentalities to service their outstanding debt obligations.

At March 31, 2021, the Corporation has operations in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”), which has been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly as a reduction in the tourism activity which accounts for a significant portion of its economy. Although the Corporation has no significant exposure to a single borrower in the BVI, it has a loan portfolio amounting to

approximately $250 million comprised of various retail and commercial clients, including a loan of approximately $18 million with the government of the BVI (compared to $251 million and $19 million, respectively, at December 31, 2020).

Legal Proceedings

The nature of Popular’s business ordinarily generates claims, litigation, investigations, and legal and administrative cases and proceedings (collectively, “Legal Proceedings”). When the Corporation determines that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted, it vigorously defends itself. The Corporation will consider the settlement of cases (including cases where it has meritorious defenses) when, in management’s judgment, it is in the best interest of the Corporation and its stockholders to do so. On at least a quarterly basis, Popular assesses its liabilities and contingencies relating to outstanding Legal Proceedings utilizing the most current information available. For matters where it is probable that the Corporation will incur a material loss and the amount can be reasonably estimated, the Corporation establishes an accrual for the loss. Once established, the accrual is adjusted on at least a quarterly basis to reflect any relevant developments, as appropriate. For matters where a material loss is not probable, or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual is established.

In certain cases, exposure to loss exists in excess of the accrual to the extent such loss is reasonably possible, but not probable. Management believes and estimates that the range of reasonably possible losses (with respect to those matters where such limits may be determined, in excess of amounts accrued) for current Legal Proceedings ranged from $0 to approximately $34.2 million as of March 31, 2021. In certain cases, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss at this time. Any estimate involves significant judgment, given the varying stages of the Legal Proceedings (including the fact that many of them are currently in preliminary stages), the existence of multiple defendants in several of the current Legal Proceedings whose share of liability has yet to be determined, the numerous unresolved issues in many of the Legal Proceedings, and the inherent uncertainty of the various potential outcomes of such Legal Proceedings. Accordingly, management’s estimate will change from time-to-time, and actual losses may be more or less than the current estimate.

While the outcome of Legal Proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, advice of counsel, and available insurance coverage, management believes that the amount it has already accrued is adequate and any incremental liability arising from the Legal Proceedings in matters in which a loss amount can be reasonably estimated will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters in a reporting period, if unfavorable, could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position for that period.

Set forth below is a description of the Corporation’s significant Legal Proceedings.

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO

Hazard Insurance Commission-Related Litigation

Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Insurance, LLC (the “Popular Defendants”) have been named defendants in a class action complaint captioned Pérez Díaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the class against the Popular Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company (the “Defendant Insurance Companies”). Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their hazard insurance policies. They demand the reimbursement to the purported “class” of an estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the “good experience” commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering them to pay those fees directly to the insured. A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by the Defendant Insurance Companies was denied with a right to replead following limited targeted discovery. Each of the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied the Popular Defendants’ request to review the lower court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint, and, in January 2018, defendants filed an answer thereto. Separately, in October 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it broadly certified the class, after which the Popular Defendants filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in relation to the class certification, which the Court declined to entertain. In November

2018 and in January 2019, plaintiffs filed voluntary dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance Company and Antilles Insurance Company, respectively, leaving the Popular Defendants as the sole remaining defendants in the action.

In April 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit it to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to a mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims against said policies during their effective term. The Court approved in September 2020 the notice to the class, which is yet to be published. The Popular Defendants expect to file a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting the dismissal of the action by May 7, 2021, which is the current deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. This deadline, and current deadlines for the Pre-Trial and Trial hearings, may be extended if the Court allows an additional expert witness recently disclosed by Plaintiffs and opposed by the Popular Defendants.

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Claims

BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action captioned Lilliam González Camacho, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel (or dual tracking). Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), the Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”) and other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that all defendants (over 20, including all local banks) be held jointly and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by the District Court, in August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In July 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision dismissing the complaint. In September 2020, the Appellants filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc, which was denied in December 2020. Proceedings before the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded, and Plaintiffs did not seek certiorari review before the U.S. Supreme Court. This matter is now closed.

BPPR has also been named a defendant in another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v. Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the González Camacho action referenced above, on behalf of residential customers of the defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage servicers. As in González Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel, all in violation of TILA, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and other consumer-protection laws and regulations. Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their complaint. After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the González Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately). BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which the Court granted in September 2018. In April 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting BPPR’s and several other defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration in April 2019, which Popular timely opposed. In September 2019, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants, denying the reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing final judgment. In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Amended Opinion and Order, which was denied in December 2019. In January 2020, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their appeal brief in July 2020, Appellees filed their brief in September 2020, and Appellants filed their reply brief in January 2021. The appeal is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Insufficient Funds and Overdraft Fees Class Actions

In February 2020, BPPR was served with a putative class action complaint captioned Soto-Melendez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, filed before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment due to BPPR’s purported practice of (a) assessing more than one

insufficient funds fee (“NSF Fees”) on the same “item” or transaction and (b) charging both NSF Fees and overdraft fees (“OD Fees”) on the same item or transaction, and is filed on behalf of all persons who during the applicable statute of limitations period were charged NSF Fees and/or OD Fees pursuant to these purported practices. In April 2020, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the case. On April 21, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part BPPR’s motion to dismiss; the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed, whereas the breach of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims survived the motion. Discovery is ongoing.

Popular has been also named as a defendant on a putative class action complaint captioned Golden v. Popular, Inc. filed in March 2020 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of New York consumer protection law due to Popular’s purported practice of charging OD Fees on transactions that, under plaintiffs’ theory, do not overdraw the account. Plaintiff describes Popular’s purported practice of charging OD Fees as “Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative Transactions” (“APPSN”) and states that Popular assesses OD Fees over authorized transactions for which sufficient funds are held for settlement. In August 2020, Popular filed a Motion to Dismiss on several grounds, including failure to state a claim against Popular, Inc. and improper venue. In October 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on that same date, filed an identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands against Popular, Inc., Popular Bank and BPPR. In November 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal against Popular, Inc. and Popular Bank following a Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of such entities which argued failure to state a claim and lack of minimum contacts of such parties with the U.S.V.I. district court jurisdiction. BPPR, the only defendant remaining in the case, was served with process in November 2020 and filed a Motion to Dismiss in January 2021. Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Dismiss in February 2021 and BPPR replied in March 2021. The Motion to Dismiss is now fully briefed and pending resolution.

Other Proceedings

In June 2017, a syndicate comprised of BPPR and other local banks (the “Lenders”) filed an involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against Betteroads Asphalt and Betterecycling Corporation (the “Involuntary Debtors”). This filing followed attempts by the Lenders to restructure and resolve the Involuntary Debtors’ obligations and outstanding defaults under a certain credit agreement, first through good faith negotiations and subsequently, through the filing of a collection action against the Involuntary Debtors in local court. The Involuntary Debtors subsequently counterclaimed, asserting damages in excess of $900 million. The Lenders ultimately joined in the commencement of these involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against the Debtors in order to preserve and recover the Involuntary Debtors’ assets, having confirmed that the Involuntary Debtors were transferring assets out of their estate for little or no consideration.

The Involuntary Debtors filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings and for damages against the syndicate, arguing both that this petition was filed in bad faith and that there was a bona fide dispute as to the petitioners’ claims, as set forth in the counterclaim filed by the Involuntary Debtors in local court. After the Court held hearings in June and July 2019 to consider whether the involuntary petitions were filed in bad faith, in October 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order determining that the involuntary petitions were not filed in bad faith and issued an order for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code granting the involuntary petitions. In October 2019, the debtors filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. District Court. In November 2020, the U.S. District Court issued an opinion affirming the order for relief issued by the Bankruptcy Court under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code granting the involuntary petitions. In January 2021, Debtors filed a Notice of Appeal from this decision before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In February 2020, the Debtors initiated an adversary proceeding seeking in excess of $80 million in damages, alleging that in 2016 the Lenders illegally foreclosed on their accounts receivable and as a result illegally interfered with contracts entered with third parties, forcing the Debtors into bankruptcy. Debtors further seek a judgment declaring that Lenders do not possess security interests over certain personal property of the Debtors because either such security interests were not adequately perfected according to Puerto Rico law, or the security interests were lost upon the lapsing date of the financing statements that the Lenders had originally perfected in connection with such interests. Debtors amended their adversary complaint to include references to the Lenders’ Syndicate and BPPR’s proof of claims and formally object to such proof of claims, as well as to demand that the District Court, not the Bankruptcy Court, entertains the complaint, requesting trial by jury on all counts. Lenders filed a Motion to dismiss in June 2020. In September 2020, the Court granted the parties an extension of all pending deadlines for 30 days in furtherance of settlement negotiations, and, thereafter, the Court granted, at the request of the parties, multiple additional 30-day extensions for the

parties to continue settlement conversations. On April 28, 2021, the Lenders, the Debtors and other related parties executed a settlement agreement that contemplates the resolution of any and all claims between the parties as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court set May 14, 2021 as the deadline to submit objections to the settlement agreement, May 20, 2021 as the deadline for objections to the Debtors’ disclosure statement and set a hearing for May 27, 2021 to approve the settlement agreement and the disclosure statement.

POPULAR BANK

Employment-Related Litigation

In July 2019, Popular Bank (“PB”) was served in a putative class complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with five (5) current PB employees (collectively, the “AB Defendants”), captioned Aileen Betances, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “AB Action”). The complaint, filed by five (5) current and former PB employees, seeks to recover damages for the AB Defendants' alleged violation of local and state sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation laws. Additionally, in July 2019, PB was served in a putative class complaint in which it was named as a defendant along with six (6) current PB employees (collectively, the “DR Defendants”), captioned Damian Reyes, et al. v. Popular Bank, et al., filed before the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “DR Action”). The DR Action, filed by three (3) current and former PB employees, seeks to recover damages for the DR Defendants’ alleged violation of local and state discrimination and retaliation laws. Plaintiffs in both complaints are represented by the same legal counsel, and five of the six named individual defendants in the DR Action are the same named individual defendants in the AB Action. Both complaints are related, among other things, to allegations of purported sexual harassment and/or misconduct by a former PB employee as well as PB’s actions in connection thereto and seek no less than $100 million in damages each. In October 2019, PB and the other defendants filed several Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs opposed the motions in December 2019 and PB and the other defendants replied in January 2020. In July 2020, a hearing to discuss the motions to dismiss filed by PB in both actions was held, at which the Court dismissed one of the causes of action included by plaintiffs in the AB Action and ordered the parties to submit a copy of the court reporter’s transcript. The parties submitted a copy of the court reporter’s transcript in August 2020 and the motions to dismiss are pending resolution.

POPULAR SECURITIES

Puerto Rico Bonds and Closed-End Investment Funds

The volatility in prices and declines in value that Puerto Rico municipal bonds and closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Puerto Rico municipal bonds have experienced since August 2013 have led to regulatory inquiries, customer complaints and arbitrations for most broker-dealers in Puerto Rico, including Popular Securities. Popular Securities has received customer complaints and, as of March 31, 2021, is named as a respondent (among other broker-dealers) in 131 pending arbitration proceedings with aggregate claimed amounts of approximately $139 million, including one arbitration with claimed damages of approximately $30 million. While Popular Securities believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in these proceedings, it has often determined that it is in its best interest to settle certain claims rather than expend the money and resources required to see such cases to completion. The Puerto Rico Government’s defaults and non-payment of its various debt obligations, as well as the Commonwealth’s and the Financial Oversight Management Board’s (the “Oversight Board”) decision to pursue restructurings under Title III and Title VI of PROMESA, have impacted the number of customer complaints (and claimed damages) filed against Popular Securities concerning Puerto Rico bonds and closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Puerto Rico bonds. An adverse result in the arbitration proceedings described above, or a significant increase in customer complaints, could have a material adverse effect on Popular.

PROMESA Title III Proceedings

In 2017, the Oversight Board engaged the law firm of Kobre & Kim to carry out an independent investigation on behalf of the Oversight Board regarding, among other things, the causes of the Puerto Rico financial crisis. Popular, Inc., BPPR and Popular Securities (collectively, the “Popular Companies”) were served by, and cooperated with, the Oversight Board in connection with requests for the preservation and voluntary production of certain documents and witnesses with respect to Kobre & Kim’s independent investigation.

On August 20, 2018, Kobre & Kim issued its Final Report, which contained various references to the Popular Companies, including an allegation that Popular Securities participated as an underwriter in the Commonwealth’s 2014 issuance of government obligation bonds notwithstanding having allegedly advised against it. The report noted that such allegation could give rise to an unjust enrichment claim against the Corporation and could also serve as a basis to equitably subordinate claims filed by the Corporation in the Title III proceeding to other third-party claims.

After the publication of the Final Report, the Oversight Board created a special claims committee (“SCC”) and, before the end of the applicable two-year statute of limitations for the filing of such claims pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the SCC, along with the Commonwealth’s Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (“UCC”), filed various avoidance, fraudulent transfer and other claims against third parties, including government vendors and financial institutions and other professionals involved in bond issuances being challenged as invalid by the SCC and the UCC. The Popular Companies, the SCC and the UCC have entered into a tolling agreement with respect to potential claims the SCC and the UCC, on behalf of the Commonwealth or other Title III debtors, may assert against the Popular Companies for the avoidance and recovery of payments and/or transfers made to the Popular Companies or as a result of any role of the Popular Companies in the offering of the aforementioned challenged bond issuances.