Congressional Democrats seek changes in restructuring agreement for Puerto Rico utility FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Bond Buyer ($):Thirty-six Democratic members of Congress are asking Puerto Rico’s legislature to reject a May 3 proposed agreement for restructuring $8 billion in debt issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA).The agreement “would increase prices by up to 21%” and it’s “highly unlikely PREPA will be able to completely offset the legacy debt charges,” resulting in “considerably higher electricity rates for decades to come,” said the letter signed by four senators and 32 House members.House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva of Arizona spearheaded the letter which was signed by three senators seeking the Democratic 2020 presidential nomination — Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.Tom Sanzillo, who last month criticized the deal as too generous to bondholders, said in an email he welcomed the congressional opposition to the deal.“There is a growing concern expressed now by Congress but also from labor and business and community that this deal is wrong for Puerto Rico, said Sanzillo, director of finance at The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “As the consensus about the problems with the deal grow, we think it may make it less likely that it is approved. The debate is taking place in public opinion, in courts, in legislative halls, in the houses of finance on Wall Street and the energy companies involved. We expect that if a response is made on the merits that it will be disapproved.”PREPA agreed to the May 3 Restructuring Support Agreement in a multiparty deal involving the Financial Oversight Board, the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”), the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders, and Assured Guaranty Corp.More ($): Congressional Democrats urge Puerto Rico lawmakers to reject PREPA debt deal
The ocean outlook from 25 Hedges Ave, Mermaid Beach.He said the buyers were wanting to build their dream home in Mermaid Beach and had forfeited a “reasonable deposit”.“The buyers have elected to buy something else where they didn’t have to remove the house and it was $200,000 cheaper,” he said.More from news02:37Purchasers snap up every residence in the $40 million Siarn Palm Beach North11 hours ago02:37International architect Desmond Brooks selling luxury beach villa1 day ago“The market down there (Hedges Ave) is so tightly held, there are only four homes for sale and two beachfront villas at the moment.”He predicted No. 25 would resell quickly. “We already have three other people looking at it so it will go pretty quickly,” he said. 25 Hedges Ave, Mermaid Beach is on the market for $6.75 million.A CHANGE of mind has cost a Gold Coast buyer their house deposit on Mermaid Beach’s Millionaire’s Row.The cashed-up locals walked away from what is understood to be $100,000 after finding another property 600m up the street.They bought a 1970s beachfront house at 25 Hedges Ave last month for $6.5 million before changing their minds this week and snapping up a vacant block at 127 Hedges Ave for $6.3 million instead. No. 127 had only been on the market two days before the buyers made their move. Both blocks are beachfront and 607sq m in size.Kollosche Prestige Agents principal Michael Kollosche negotiated the initial sale of No. 25 which is now back on the market at $6.75 million. 25 Hedges Ave, Mermaid Beach is on the market for $6.75 million.Professionals John Henderson Real Estate director Luke Henderson said the last home on Hedges Ave he sold was No. 73.“The sale price was $4.775 million and we got a 10 per cent deposit which was more than $470,000,” he said.“You try and get 10 per cent but on the larger properties a deposit of that percentage isn’t as easily attainable.”He said in 16 years of selling real estate he could only recall a “handful” of buyers walking away once a property was unconditional.REIQ CEO Antonia Mercorella said the maximum deposit that could be collected was 10 per cent.“Strictly speaking there’s no legal requirement for a deposit, but it rarely happens that there is no deposit down,” she said.“It’s always advisable to seek a deposit, and always the maximum, if you can get it.”She said the rights of the vendor would depend on the contract.“In addition to the deposit being forfeited, the vendor may be entitled to further compensation depending on the circumstances of the case,” she said.