48 U.S.C. § 2128
Autonomy of Oversight Board
In any action brought by, on behalf of, or against the Oversight Board, the Oversight Board shall be represented by such counsel as it may hire or retain so long as the representation complies with the applicable professional rules of conduct governing conflicts of interests.
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 114–187,
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. v. FOMB, 35 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022).
Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. v. FOMB, 35 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2022). “exercise any control, supervision, oversight, or review over the Oversight Board or its activities," 48 U.S.C. § 2128 (a)(1); and directing that "[t]he Oversight Board may incorporate in its bylaws, rules, and procedures .”
United States v. Montalvo-Febus, 254 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D.P.R. 2017). “Not only did the People of Puerto Rico not vote for PROMESA, but as observed above, its elected representatives may not exercise any control, supervision, oversight or review over the Board or its activities; nor enact, implement, or enforce any statute, resolution, policy, or…”
FOMB v. Pierluisi-Urrutia (1st Cir. 2023). “" 48 U.S.C. § 2128 (a)(2). And section 104(k) gives teeth to the Board's aforementioned powers to intervene in the Commonwealth's legislative process, providing that "[t]he Oversight Board may seek judicial enforcement of its authority to carry out its responsibilities under…”
Pierluisi v. FOMB (1st Cir. 2022). “" 48 U.S.C. § 2128 (a). To that end, PROMESA outlines a multi-step, back-and-forth process by which the Oversight Board 1649 (2020)); Union De Trabajadores De La Industria Eléctrica Y Riego v.”
FOMB v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito (1st Cir. 2022). “See generally 48 U.S.C. §§ 2128 , 2141-2147. The Board's scrutiny of those matters, the course it charted to deal with them, and Appellants' interests converge here, forming the foundation for today's dispute.”
La Liga de Ciudades de P.R. v. FOMB (1st Cir. 2024). “48 U.S.C. § 2128 (a)(2). Third, the Board points out that the Title III court also relied upon section 204(c) to find Law 29 a "nullity" and "of no effect.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.