THE PHOENIX FUND LLC

-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
IN RE:
THE PHOENIX FUND LLC
Debtor
CASE NO. 26-00712 (ESL)
CHAPTER 11
FILED & ENTERED MAR/11/2026
OPINION AND ORDER
The Phoenix Fund LLC (“Debtor” or the “Fund”) filed a voluntary petition under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code on February 23, 2026. The Fund is subject to the regulatory oversight
and authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico (“OCIF”,
by its Spanish acronym).
Prior to the petition for relief, the OCIF initiated an examination of the Fund’s operations.
The OCIF was unable to complete the examination due to the Fund’s alleged noncompliance. As
a result, the OCIF filed an Amended Complaint and Order of (I) Cease and Desist, (II) Liquidation
of Private Equity Fund and (III) Interim and Permanent Appointment of Receiver to Carry Out
the Liquidation on or about February 18, 2026 (the “Amended Complaint and Receivership
Order”). The filing of the Amended Complaint and Receivership Order commenced an
administrative enforcement proceeding against the Fund styled Office of the Commissioner of
Financial Institutions v. The Phoenix Fund LLC, Case No. C25-V-001 (the “Enforcement
Action”). Following the petition date, the OCIF filed two interrelated motions: a Motion For
Entry of an Order to Continue OCIF’s Enforcement Action Or, In The Alternative For Relief
From The Automatic Stay (“Motion to Continue Enforcement Action”, dkt. #13), and an Urgent
Motion For Order Recognizing Authority of the Pre-Petition Receiver, Driven, P.S.C., to Act on
Behalf of Debtor-In-Possession (“Motion Recognizing Authority”, dkt. #14), each filed on
February 25, 2026, and relating to the Enforcement Action.
The Motion to Continue Enforcement Action requests that this court enter an order
allowing for the continuation of the Enforcement Action relating to the Amended Complaint and
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 1 of 12

-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Receivership Order under Case No. C25-V-001, and argues that the automatic stay provisions of
Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply to bar or stay OCIF’s regulatory and police
powers against the Fund. The Motion Recognizing Authority seeks, on an emergency basis, the
entry of an order recognizing the authority of Driven, P.S.C. (“Driven” or the “Receiver”) to act
as debtor-in-possession on behalf of the Fund.
The court notes the preliminary arguments made by the Fund in the Notice of Intent to
Oppose Motions at dkt. Nos. 13 and 14 filed on February 25, 2026 (dkt. #19). As of the
undersigned date, the foregoing have not been supplemented.
Legal Issue
The issues before this court hinge on determining the direction that the case will take after
considering the effect of the intersection of two basic constitutional principles, that is, the right to
file for bankruptcy pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, of the Constitution of the United
States of America (“Constitution”) and, the police power of the state1 under the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution.
Traditionally, filing for protection under the Bankruptcy Code has been considered as a
tool to meet financial distress for “the honest but unfortunate debtor.” Local Loan Co. v. Hunt,
292 U.S. 233, 234 (1934). However, such right may be affected by the police power of the state.
“The central source of state regulatory power under the state constitutional system is the police
power. This is the power given to the state legislature to regulate in the service of the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizenry. The police power is commonly viewed as an essential power,
one that grows out of our constitutional tradition and therefore need not be established through
an explicit textual warrant. Indeed, the concept of the police power emerges out of the basic
principle that state constitutions as documents of limit, not of grant. It is no coincidence that the
classic exegeses on the police power are from the Progressive era and its environs.” Daniel B.
1 The term “State”, as defined in Section 101(52) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101(52), “includes the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico, except for the purposes of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9 of this title.”
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 2 of 12

-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Rodriguez, The Inscrutable (Yet Irrepressible) State Police Power, 9 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 662,
662 (2015).
The Parties
I. 	The OCIF
As stated by OCIF in its Motion to Continue Enforcement Action, “OCIF is the entity
charged under Puerto Rico law to oversee, supervise, and regulate private equity funds such as
the Debtor, among other financial entities. The Debtor’s business generally involves raising
capital from investors to pursue investments. As part of OCIF’s regulatory duties, OCIF has
attempted to conduct an examination of the Debtor’s financial condition for over a year and has
not been able to complete it as a result of the Debtor’s numerous defaults and actions.” dkt. #13,
p. 2 (footnote omitted). See also 7 L.P.R.A. § 2001, et seq., known as the “OCIF Enabling Act”.
Section 2044.03(g)(2)(iv) of Act No. 60-2019, in its relevant part, states as follows:
OCIF shall be empowered to examine and inspect Private Equity Funds or Puerto
Rico Private Equity Funds to ensure that they informed their operations and
financial results accurately, comply with their fiduciary duty to their Investors, and
meet the requirements of this Code. The Fund shall pay the cost prescribed by OCIF
through regulations to conduct such examinations and inspections. In the event of
noncompliance, OCIF may take actions as are necessary including the liquidation
of the fund and cessation of additional offerings of its securities.
13 L.P.R.A. § 45363 (g)(2)(iv). Similarly, Article 13 of Regulation No. 9461 states that, when the
circumstances so merit it and it is in the best public interest, the OCIF may, in cases of
noncompliance, take any measures it deems necessary, including, among other measures, the
liquidation of a private equity fund and the cessation of additional offering of its securities. See
Regulation for the Supervision of Private Equity Funds, Regulation No. 9461 (May 15, 2023)
(Spanish, no English Translation).
The Enforcement Action and the Amended Complaint and Receivership Order are within
the scope of OCIF’s regulatory duties, as authorized under the OCIF Enabling Act, which
provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
When any of the laws and regulations he administers does not provide otherwise,
to issue, after due notice and hearing, cease and desist orders, and prescribe the
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 3 of 12

-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
terms he determines are for the benefit of the public. When in the Commissioner’s
opinion said violation causes or could cause immediate grave damage to industry,
the citizenry or specific persons, he may issue said order of a summary nature,
passing over the requirement of due notice and hearing, until the final disposition
of any procedure instituted under this section.
7 L.P.R.A. § 2010(a)(10).
The OCIF Enabling Act further provides:
If as a result of an audit, examination or inspection, or of a report submitted by an
examiner, it is shown that a financial institution lacks a solid financial and
economic status or that it is operated or administered in such a way that the general
public or persons and entities that have funds or shares in its custody are in danger
of being defrauded, and in absence of a specific provision in the law to regulate the
financial institution in question and which likewise empowers it, the Commissioner
may assume the direction and administration of the financial institution, and
promptly appoint a trustee who, in the case of insured financial institutions can be
its insuring entity. The Commissioner shall hold a hearing before issuing an order
to place a financial institution under his/her direction, or that of a trustee.
Nevertheless, the Commissioner may issue a provisional order appointing a
receiver without having to hold a hearing, when in his/her judgment, the financial
institution’s status is of such a nature that it is causing or may cause irreparable
damage to its interests, or those of the persons and entities with funds or assets in
the institution. When the Commissioner issues a provisional order to appoint a
receiver, he/she shall notify the Governor of the details and grounds for his/her
determination and shall hold an administrative hearing within ten (10) days
following the date of notice thereof, in order to determine if it is made permanent
or revoked. The receiver thus appointed shall administer the financial institution
pursuant to the provisions of the law and the regulations that govern said institution,
and in accordance with the regulations that govern said institution, and in
accordance 	with 	the 	regulations 	promulgated 	by 	the 	Commissioner 	for
receiverships or emergency measures declared under this section. Said receivership
shall terminate upon the total liquidation of the financial institution, if it were
necessary, or when the operations thereof, as certified by the trustee in the
Commissioner’s judgment, allow the return of the administration of the institution
to the duly elected and appointed officers and officials, under the circumstances
stipulated by the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall fix a reasonable
compensation for the services rendered by the receiver and his/her employees. The
determination of the Commissioner to assume the administration and direction of a
financial institution or to appoint a receiver, can be reviewed by the Circuit Court
of Appeals, through a petition filed within the term of ten (10) days from the date
of the determination.
7 L.P.R.A. § 2010(b).
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 4 of 12

-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
II. 	The Debtor and/or the Fund
The Fund is a private equity fund created pursuant to Act No. 185 of November 12, 2014,
as amended, known as the “Private Equity Fund Law” (“Act No. 185-2014”), with a Tax
Exemption Decree effective as of December 30, 2022, pursuant to Act No. 60 of June 1, 2019, as
amended, known as the “Puerto Rico Incentives Code” (“Act No. 60-2019” or the “Incentives
Code”) and regulated by Regulation No. 9461 of May 15, 2023, known as the “Regulation for the
Supervision of Private Equity Funds” (“Regulation No. 9461”).
The court notes that the Certified Copy of Resolution of the Manager of the Phoenix Fund
LLC Authorizing the Filing of a Petition for Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code (the “Corporate Resolution”, dkt. #1-1) attached to the bankruptcy petition states as follows:
RESOLVED: Whereas The Phoenix Fund LLC (hereinafter “Company”)
received an Order from [the OCIF] placing the Company in receivership and
liquidation and consequently may undertake steps to obtain possession of the
Company’s assets; and;
WHEREAS, this action by [the OCIF] may not be in the best interest of all
the stakeholders of the Company;
WHEREAS, it is apparent that the continuation of the affairs of the
Company without the protection of the Bankruptcy Court may result in the
Company’s demise;
NOW 	THEREFORE 	BE 	IT 	RESOLVED 	THAT, 	a 	Petition 	in
Proceedings for Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code be filed
by the Company and that FRANCISCO J. RIVERA, the Company’s President is
hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Company and for all the necessary
documents for the filing of a Petition for Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1107,
the Company shall exercise the rights and powers set forth therein, subject to the
provisions thereof and unless the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Puerto Rico provides or orders otherwise, the Company will continue to operate
its business and manage its affairs, as provided in 11 U.S.C. §1108;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Alexis Fuentes Hernández,
Esq., of Fuentes Law Offices, LLC, be retained to act as counsel for the Company
in such reorganization proceedings or any other proceeding under the Bankruptcy
Code;
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 5 of 12

-6-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the undersigned hereby certify
that FRANCISCO J. RIVERA is the only seniormost Company Officer of THE
PHOENIX FUND LLC and that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution
adopted by the President of said Company at a duly constituted meeting held on the
23rd 	day 	of 	February, 2026, 	in 	accordance 	with 	its 	Company’s 	operating
agreement; that said resolution has not been revoked, modified, annulled or
amended in any manner whatsoever.
dkt. #1-1, p. 1.
The Corporate Resolution clearly sets forth that the Fund believes the receivership is not
in the best interest of stakeholders, and that the motivation leading to the filing of the instant
Chapter 11 petition is to prevent further actions by the OCIF that may result in the “demise” of
the Fund.
Jurisdiction
This court has jurisdiction over the Motion to Continue Enforcement Action (dkt. #13) and
the Motion Recognizing Authority (dkt. #14) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§157 and 1334. This is a core
proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(G). Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The relief requested in the motions are predicated on 11 U.S.C. §§
362(a) and (d), and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001 and 9014.
Relevant Factual Background
I. 	The Enforcement Action, Case No. C25-V-001
As stated, On January 27, 2025, the OCIF initiated an examination of TPF's operations
prior to the petition for relief. See Consent Order, dkt. #14-2, p. 1. The OCIF was unable to
complete the examination due to the Fund’s alleged noncompliance. Id. As a result, the OCIF
commenced the administrative Enforcement Action under Case No. C25-V-001, and appointed
Driven as Receiver of the Fund. After several procedural events, the OCIF issued a Consent Order
for (I) Special Examination and Designation of an Examiner to Conduct It and (II) Additional
Actions (the “Consent Order”, dkt. #14-2) dated June 25, 2025. Through the Consent Order,
whereby Driven (now the Receiver) was appointed to conduct a “thorough examination” of the
Fund, as well as all of its affiliated entities (the “Special Examination”). Id., p. 2.
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 6 of 12

-7-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
On February 18, 2026, OCIF issued the Amended Complaint and Receivership Order (dkt.
#14-12 ) (i) ordering the Fund to cease and desist from taking any new investments pursuant to
Article 10(a)(10)(A) of the OCIF Enabling Act, (ii) ordering the liquidation of the Fund pursuant
to Section 2044.03(g)(2)(iv) of the Incentive Code and Article 13 of Regulation No. 9461, (iii)
directing the Fund to fully cooperate with the Receiver for the taking of possession of the Fund’s
assets and the commencement and culmination of any investigation required to be carried out for
the orderly liquidation of the Fund, and (iv) appointing Driven ‒‒on an interim basis pending the
outcome of a hearing scheduled for February 26, 2026‒‒ as Receiver pursuant to Article 10(b)
for the implementation of the liquidation ordered pursuant to Section 2044.03(g)(2)(iv) of the
Incentive Code. See dkt. #14, p. 12, ¶ 32 (citing ¶¶ 34-35 of Amended Complaint and Receivership
Order). Through the Amended Complaint and Receivership Order, pursuant to the above-cited
statutes, the OCIF decreed that the Receiver (i) immediately be conferred all faculties and
authorities previously held by the Fund’s members, directors, managers or authorized persons to
act on behalf of the Fund, to take immediate control of the Fund’s assets, books and records and,
inter alia, (ii) act as exclusive administrative member and liquidator of the Fund with the authority
to, among other things, the possibility of filing voluntary petitions under the Bankruptcy Code
and to act as debtor-in-possession in such proceeding. See dkt. #14, p. 13, ¶ 33 (citing ¶ 36 of
Amended Complaint and Receivership Order).
The terms of the Consent Order, the Fund’s consent to its issuance3 , and the appointment
of Driven as Receiver in at least two administrative orders (see, e.g., Consent Order and Amended
Complaint and Receivership Order) make clear that the OCIF has exclusive and mandatory
2 The referenced documents are all in Spanish, and no English translation has been provided. This court may only
consider the merits of those documents filed in the English language. As such, the court will only note the existence
of the referenced documents, not their contents. Because the court cannot independently ascertain the context of those
materials in the absence of a translation, it defers to the allegations made by the OCIF regarding their context. See
48 U.S.C. § 864 (“All pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
shall be conducted in the English language.”); L. Civ. R. 5(c) (“All documents not in the English language which are
presented or filed, whether as evidence or otherwise, must be accompanied by a certified translation into English…”);
P.R. LBR 9070-1(c) (“All Exhibits and documentary evidence in Spanish or other language shall be fully translated
to the English language by a certified translator.”); In re Bernier, 2022 WL 17096264, at *6-7, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS
3283, at *17-18 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2022) (holding that documents not in the English language should not be considered).
3 See, e.g., Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order For (I) Special Examination and Designation of an Examiner
to Conduct Such Examination and (II) Additional Actions, dkt. #14-2, pp. 6-7.
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 7 of 12

-8-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
jurisdiction to enforce the Consent Order, as was determined in Bancredito Holding Corporation
v. Driven Administrative Services, LLC, 2024 WL 3401157 (D.P.R. 2024), and previously
addressed by the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals in Bancredito Holding Corp. v. Driven
Administrative Services, LLC (Síndico Para Bancrédito International Bank & Trust), 2023 WL
9379960 (P.R. Court of Appeals 2023). The Consent Order is thus mandatory and enforceable.
Applicable Law and Analysis
A. 	Police Power and Regulatory Exception
The automatic stay in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is one of the basic protections under the
Bankruptcy Code and becomes operative by the mere filing of a bankruptcy petition. See In re
Jamo, 283 F.3d 392, 398 (1st Cir. 2002); In re Soares, 107 F.3d 969, 971 (1st Cir. 1997). However,
the police power exception in § 362(b)(4) exempts from the automatic stay “the commencement
or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit ... to enforce such governmental
unit’s or organization’s police and regulatory power, including the enforcement of a judgment
other than a money judgment, obtained in an action or proceeding by the governmental unit to
enforce such governmental unit's or organization's police or regulatory power.” 11 U.S.C. §
362(b)(4). See also In re Ruiz, 122 F.4th 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2024). This exception ensures that
government agencies can still enforce laws “affecting health, welfare, morals and safety”, and
that debtors are not automatically protected in bankruptcy court from regulatory laws that directly
interfere or conflict with the bankruptcy court’s control over property involved in the bankruptcy
case. See In re Universal Life Church, Inc., 128 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1997). “When a
governmental unit decides to undertake an enforcement action and believes its action falls within
the police power exception, it need not petition the bankruptcy court for permission to proceed in
the ordinary course ....” Chao v. Hospital Staffing Servs., Inc., 270 F.3d 374, 385 (6th Cir. 2001).”
In re Ruiz, 122 F.4th at 13.
“In attempting to apply the § 362(b)(4) exception, courts look to the purposes of the law
that the government seeks to enforce to distinguish between situations in which a ‘state acts
pursuant to its police and regulatory power, and where the state acts merely to protect its status
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 8 of 12

-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
as a creditor.” Solis v. SCA Rest. Corp., 463 B.R. 248, 251–252 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), citing Safety–
Kleen, Inc. v. Wyche (In re Pinewood ), 274 F.3d 846, 865 (4th Cir. 2001), quoting Universal
Life Church, Inc. v. United States (In re Universal Life Church Inc.), 128 F.3d 1294, 1297 (9th
Cir.1997); United States ex. Rel. Fullington v. Parkway Hosp., Inc., 351 B.R. 280, 282–283
(E.D.N.Y. 2006). See also In re Montalvo, 537 B.R. 128, 143 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2025).
The police power exception analysis, as applied to the actions of an agency for purposes
of § 362(b)(4), is subject to two interrelated tests: (1) the public policy test and (2) the pecuniary
purpose test. See McMullen v. Sevigny (In re McMullen), 386 F.3d 320, 325 (1 st Cir. 2004). The
“pecuniary purpose” test focuses on whether the action relates to the protection of the pecuniary
interest of the government in the debtor’s property or to matters of public safety and welfare. The
“public policy” test distinguishes between government actions or proceedings that effectuate or
influence public policy, and those that adjudicate private rights. “If the governmental action is
designed primarily to protect the public safety and welfare, then it passes the ‘public policy’ test
and is excepted from the automatic stay. In contrast, if the government is attempting to proceed
against the debtor for a pecuniary purpose, that is, to recover property from the estate, the police
power exception offers no shelter and the proceeding is stayed.” In re Financial Oversight and
Management Board for Puerto Rico, 808 F. Supp. 3d 267, 275 (D.P.R. 2025) (internal marks and
citations omitted). Thus, at its core, “[t]he question is whether [the governmental action] enforces
a generally applicable regulatory law or whether it promotes a public policy interest beyond the
government’s pecuniary rights.” Id. (internal marks and citations omitted).
Application of the police power exception occurs in two steps. First, the court must apply
the statutory text of § 362(b)(4) to the facts of the case. Second, the court must consider both the
public policy and pecuniary purpose tests. See In re Financial Oversight and Management Board
for Puerto Rico, 2025 WL 3078311 (D.P.R. 2025). The police powers protected under § 362(b)(4)
are not limited to matters directly involving public health and safety; they extend more broadly
to regulatory efforts to protect public welfare, including consumer protection regulations. See In
re Ruiz, 122 F.4th 14.
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 9 of 12

-10-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
B. 	Discussion
Irrespective of the merits of the proceedings before the OCIF, the intervention by the
OCIF was due to the lack of compliance by the Fund of its obligations under the Incentive Code,
resulting in the issuance of a Consent Order and, ultimately, liquidation of the Fund to safeguard
the public welfare of the Puerto Rico financial system. The Enforcement Action in no manner or
form benefits the OCIF or any related Puerto Rico government agency with any financial interest,
nor does it constitute a collection action. Therefore, the police power exception of Section
362(b)(4) applies. Moreover, considering the reasons stated in the Corporate Resolution
authorizing the filing of this bankruptcy petition illustrates what the police power exception is
intended to avoid: “a debtor from frustrating necessary governmental functions by seeking refuge
in bankruptcy court.” SEC v. Brennan, 230 F.3d 65, 71 (2nd Cir. 2000); In re McMullen, 386
F.3d at 324-325 (“This exception discourages debtors from submitting bankruptcy petitions either
primarily or solely for the purpose of evading impending governmental efforts to invoke the
governmental police powers and/or consumer protection regulations”). See also In re Montalvo,
537 B.R. 142.
Under Puerto Rico law, namely Section 2044.03(g)(2)(iv) of the Incentive Code and
Article 10(b) of the OCIF Enabling Act, OCIF is authorized to order the liquidation of a private
equity fund, and to appoint a receiver with authority to assume direction and administration of a
financial institution when circumstances warrant. Federal bankruptcy law similarly recognizes
that when a receiver is appointed as management of a debtor entity with authority to control and
manage the entity’s affairs, that receiver’s status automatically transforms into debtor-in-
possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1101(1). See In re Bayou Grp., LLC, 564 F.3d 541 (2nd Cir.
2009); SEC v. Byers, 592 F. Supp. 2d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). It thus follows that Driven, and not
the Fund or its prior management, is the entity that is authorized to seek bankruptcy protection
and to act as debtor-in-possession. See Consent Order, dkt. #14-2. The OCIF, with the Fund’s
consent, issued the Consent Order through which Driven (now the Receiver) was appointed to
conduct the Special Examination on the Fund. As stated before, the OCIF issued the Amended
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 10 of 12

-11-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Complaint and Receiver Order against the Fund, (i) ordering it to cease and desist from taking
any new investments, (ii) ordering its liquidation, (iii) directing it to fully cooperate with the
Receiver for the taking of possession of the Fund’s assets and the commencement and culmination
of any investigation required to be carried out for its orderly liquidation, and (iv) appointing
Driven as interim Receiver for the implementation of the Fund’s liquidation. Through the
Amended Complaint and Receiver Order, issued pursuant to the applicable above-cited statutes,
the OCIF decreed that the Receiver to (i) immediately be conferred all faculties and authorities
previously held by the Fund’s members, directors, managers or authorized persons to act on behalf
of the Fund, to take immediate control of the Fund’s assets, books and records and, inter alia, (ii)
act as exclusive administrative member and liquidator of the Fund with the authority to file
voluntary petitions under the Bankruptcy Code and to act as debtor-in-possession in such
proceeding. On that same vein, the Consent Order, which may not be overturned by this court,
states that the appointment of Driven as Receiver and its powers enjoin the directors from filing
the present petition. See In re Milestone Educ. Inst., 167 B.R. 716, 720 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1994)
(noting that when an order appointing a receiver enjoins the directors from performing their
management functions, the corporation is for all practical purposes dissolved and the receiver
must perform the functions necessary to discharge his duties that the shareholders were barred
from performing).
In line with the above, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of In re
Bayou Grp., LLC, 564 F.3d 541, 545 (2nd Cir. 2009), concluded that, by virtue of a court’s
appointment of a person not only as a receiver of certain entities but also as new management of
the debtors with the authority and capacity to manage the bankruptcy proceedings as the debtor-
in-possession, that person’s status, in the face of a bankruptcy case, was transformed from
“corporate governor” to debtor-in-possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1101(1). Consequently, the
pre-petition receiver, Driven, is the entity vested with authority to file a bankruptcy petition on
behalf of the Fund and act as debtor-in-possession therein. Notwithstanding, “corporate authority
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 11 of 12

-12-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
to file a bankruptcy petition—while necessary—does not impact a bankruptcy court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction.” In re Parks Diversified, L.P., 2026 WL 588285 (9th Cir. 2026).
Conclusion
The automatic stay is inapplicable to the continued prosecution of the Enforcement Action
in the OCIF’s administrative forum, including the enforcement of the Amended Complaint and
Receiver Order, the Consent Order, and the appointment of Driven, P.S.C., as Receiver with
authority act as debtor-in-possession, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). In view of the foregoing,
both the Motion to Continue Enforcement Action (dkt. #13) and the Motion Recognizing Authority
(dkt. #14) are hereby GRANTED.
In view of the foregoing, the court orders Driven, P.S.C., to inform the court within
twenty-one (21) days how it intends to proceed in this case. The court notes that a status
conference is scheduled for May 19, 2026. At 10:00 AM. See dkt. #6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 11 th day of March 2026.
Case:26-00712-ESL11 Doc#:33 Filed:03/11/26 Entered:03/11/26 13:44:50 Desc: Main
Document Page 12 of 12