Camara de Mercadeo v. Emanuelli Hernandez, 72 F.4th 361

Cámara de Mercadeo (a Puerto Rico food‑distribution trade association) sued NTSP officials challenging freight‑tariff regulations and circular letters as unlawful under PROMESA.
Plaintiff alleged the regulations conflicted with the certified 2020/2021 Fiscal Plans and were invalid because they lacked prior approval from the Financial Oversight and Management Board (FOMB) as required by PROMESA § 204(b)(4) and the FOMB Policy.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing PROMESA provides no private right of action and that only the Oversight Board can invalidate regulations as inconsistent with a Fiscal Plan.
The district court dismissed the complaint in full, holding the regulations remained enforceable absent Board action and that PROMESA does not create a private cause of action; it also dismissed the Contracts Clause claim (not appealed).
On appeal the First Circuit affirmed, principally on waiver grounds: Appellant conceded it would not challenge the absence of a private right of action and failed to preserve its administrative‑law argument that Board approval is a prerequisite to regulatory validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PROMESA creates a private right of action to invalidate regulations as inconsistent with a certified Fiscal Plan	PROMESA authorizes enforcement against inconsistent rules; private parties may seek declaratory/injunctive relief	PROMESA grants enforcement authority to the Oversight Board and does not create a private cause of action	No effective challenge was preserved; Appellant conceded it would not dispute the district court's ruling that PROMESA creates no private right; dismissal affirmed
Whether § 204(b)(4) and the FOMB Policy require prior Board approval for agency regulations to be valid/enforceable (i.e., a new approval tier under Puerto Rico administrative law or the APA)	§ 204(b)(4) + Policy create a new layer requiring Oversight Board approval; regulations without approval are void/unenforceable	Regulations remain valid and enforceable unless the Oversight Board acts to invalidate them; Appellant failed to develop or preserve an APA/LPAU challenge below	Argument waived and insufficiently developed below; Court declined to reach the merits; dismissal affirmed

In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R., 60 F.4th 9 (1st Cir. 2023) (discussing Board authority under PROMESA and enforcement context)
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R., 37 F.4th 746 (1st Cir. 2022) (overview of PROMESA’s purpose and the Board’s powers)
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R., 916 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2019) (Board’s exclusive authority to certify Fiscal Plans)
United States v. Mayendía‑Blanco, 905 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2018) (standard for waiver and abandonment of issues)
Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2006) (arguments not raised below are waived on appeal)
McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1991) (perfunctory or underdeveloped arguments in district court are waived on appeal)