In re Ignacio Cueto Plaza

 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
Before the 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
 
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
Release No. 77057 / February 4, 2016 
 
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT 
Release No. 3738 / February 4, 2016 
 
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 
File No. 3-17100 
 
 
In the Matter of 
 
Ignacio Cueto Plaza 
 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-AND-
DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 21C OF THE SECURITIES 
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING 
FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A CEASE-
AND-DESIST ORDER  
  
I. 
 
 The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that cease-
and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), against Ignacio Cueto Plaza (“Cueto” or “Respondent”).   
 
II. 
 
 In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer 
of Settlement (the “Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept.  Solely for the 
purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the 
Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the 
findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of 
these proceedings, which are admitted, and except as provided herein in Section V, Respondent 
consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to 
Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-
and-Desist Order (“Order”), as set forth below. 

 
 2 
III. 
 
 On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds
1
 that:  
 
 Summary        
  1.     In 2006 and 2007, Ignacio Cueto Plaza (“Cueto”), the CEO of LAN Airlines S.A. 
(“LAN”), authorized $1.15 million in improper payments to a third party consultant in Argentina 
in connection with LAN’s attempts to settle disputes on wages and other work conditions 
between LAN Argentina S.A. (“LAN Argentina”), a subsidiary of LAN, and its employees.  At 
the time, Cueto understood that it was possible the consultant would pass some portion of the 
$1.15 million to union officials in Argentina.  The payments were made pursuant to an unsigned 
consulting agreement that purported to provide services that Cueto understood would not occur.  
Cueto authorized subordinates to make the payments that were improperly booked in the 
Company’s books and records, which circumvented LAN’s internal accounting controls.   
Respondent 
 
2. Ignacio Cueto Plaza, age 51, is a Chilean citizen and, since 2012, has been CEO of 
LAN.  From 1995 to 1998, Cueto served as President of LAN Cargo, a LAN subsidiary located in 
Miami, Florida.  He served on the Board of Directors of LAN from 1995 to 1997.  From 1999 to 
2005, Cueto was CEO of LAN’s passenger airline business.  In 2005, Cueto became President and 
COO of LAN Airlines S.A.  He remained in that position until June of 2012, when LAN merged 
with Brazilian Airline TAM, S.A. (“TAM”) and became LATAM Airlines Group S.A. 
(“LATAM”).
2
  Cueto remains CEO of LAN, which is now part of LATAM. 
Relevant Entities 
 
3. LAN Airlines S.A. (“LAN”) was a publicly traded airline company headquartered 
in Santiago, Chile, that provided passenger and cargo airline services throughout Latin America.  
LAN merged with TAM, S.A. in 2012.  Throughout the relevant period, LAN’s common stock 
was registered in the United States pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act and LAN filed 
annual and quarterly reports as required under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 
thereunder.  Prior to the merger with TAM, LAN’s common stock traded on the NYSE under the 
symbol “LFL.”    
4. LATAM Airlines Group is a Chilean based holding company.  LAN became 
LATAM after the merger of LAN and its consolidated subsidiaries/or affiliates and TAM, S.A. and 
its consolidated subsidiaries on June 22, 2012.  Following the merger, LATAM’s holdings 
                                                 
1
  The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent's Offer of Settlement and are not  
binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.   
 
2
  The LAN brand, which was launched in 2004 and includes subsidiaries in Peru, Argentina, Columbia and 
Ecuador continues to exist as part of LATAM. 

 
 3 
included LAN and its subsidiaries/or affiliates in Peru, Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador, TAM 
and its subsidiaries, and LAN Cargo and its affiliates.  LATAM’s common stock is registered 
pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act and LATAM files annual and quarterly reports as 
required under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules thereunder.  LATAM’s common 
stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol “LFL.” 
5. LAN Argentina S.A. (“LAN Argentina”), formerly known as AERO 2000, was a 
subsidiary of LAN during the relevant period.  LAN Argentina began operations in 2005, and 
operated domestic and international flights throughout Latin America.  It continues to do business 
as part of LATAM.  LAN Argentina’s financial statements were consolidated into the financial 
statements of LAN and later LATAM. 
6. Atlantic Aviation Investments LLC (“AAI”) was an indirect subsidiary of LAN 
incorporated in Delaware.  LAN used AAI to conceal the sham payments to a company controlled 
by its consultant in Argentina.  AAI’s financial statements were consolidated into the financial 
statements of LAN and later LATAM.     
LAN’s Entry into Argentina 
 
7. For several years prior to 2004, LAN, a Chilean airline, explored expansion into 
Argentina.  LAN put its Vice President of Business Development at LAN Cargo, a LAN 
subsidiary, in charge of the expansion efforts.  The Vice President of Business Development was 
based in Miami, Florida, and, reported directly to Cueto. 
8. In late 2004, the Vice President of Business Development received a call from a 
lawyer and purported business consultant in Argentina offering to help LAN with its expansion 
efforts.  The two men later met in Buenos Aires and discussed the obstacles that LAN might face 
in trying to enter the Argentine airline market.  Following the meeting, they kept in touch.   
9. In early 2005, officials from the Argentine Transportation Secretary’s Office 
contacted LAN to ask whether it would be interested in purchasing Lineas Aereas Federales S.A. 
(“LAFSA”), a state owned airline, as a means to enter Argentina.  LAN declined the offer to 
purchase LAFSA but continued discussions with government officials to enter into the market.  
Eventually the officials informed LAN that LAFSA would cease operations and LAN would enter 
the Argentine market through the purchase of 49% of the shares of AERO 2000, a non-operating 
Argentinean airline that possessed an airline operation certificate and owned various flight routes.  
As part of the deal, LAN agreed to hire workers from LAFSA and another Argentine airline, 
Southern Winds, to operate AERO 2000.   
10. In March 2005, Cueto and the Vice President of Business Development met with 
the President of Argentina and the Transportation Secretary, as well as other officials from the 
Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services, and Transportation to finalize the 
terms of the deal.  LAN completed its purchase of AERO 2000 on or about April 2005, and AERO 
2000 began operations in June 2005.  In December 2005, AERO 2000’s name was changed to 
LAN Argentina S.A.  The LAN employees primarily involved in these negotiations were the Vice 

 
 4 
President of Business Development and the General Manager of LAN Argentina, who later 
became Chief Operating Officer of LAN.  Both employees reported directly to Cueto.  
LAN Faces Major Issues Upon Entering the Argentine Market 
11. Upon entering the Argentine passenger airline market LAN immediately faced 
several major issues impacting its viability and began losing money.  First, it needed to meet 
demands from labor unions representing the employees acquired from LAFSA and Southern 
Winds.  Second, LAN needed majority ownership of its Argentine subsidiary, and therefore had to 
persuade the Argentine government to change its existing law on foreign ownership of domestic 
airlines and to increase caps on airfares.  Third, LAN needed regulatory authorization to operate 
various flight routes, both domestically and internationally, in Argentina.  Since the Argentine 
passenger airline market was heavily regulated by the government, particularly officials within the 
Department of Transportation who had close ties to the unions, LAN sought help from the 
government officials with each of these issues.         
12. In early 2006, the consultant again contacted the Vice President of Business 
Development and offered to assist LAN in Argentina.  By this time, the consultant was a 
government official in the Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services, 
Department of Transportation.  On January 31, 2005, the Secretary of Transportation appointed the 
consultant as a Cabinet Advisor “ad-honorem.”
3
          
13. LAN executives, including Cueto, knew that for LAN Argentina to become 
profitable it would need an infusion of cash.  LAN asked Argentine government officials to 
liberalize the laws on foreign ownership so that LAN could own a majority share of LAN 
Argentina and sought government authorization to raise regulated airfares.  On or about August 8, 
2006, the President of Argentina signed a Decree that enabled LAN to become a majority owner of 
LAN Argentina and allowed LAN to raise airfares by 20%.  LAN Argentina was also awarded 
critical additional flight routes by the Transportation Secretary.       
            LAN Encounters Problems with the Unions in Argentina 
14.  As part of the deal that LAN reached with the Argentine government in March 
2005, LAN was required to hire between six and eight hundred employees from the defunct 
LAFSA and Southern Winds airlines.  LAN was bound by the existing bargaining agreements 
between LAFSA, Southern Winds and the labor unions.      
15. There were five unions representing airline employees in Argentina.  They included 
the grounds crew union, the Asociación del Personal Aeronáutico (APA), the pilots’ union, the 
Asociación de Pilotos de Lineas Aereas (APLA), the mechanics’ union, Asociacion del Personal 
Técnico Aeronáutico (APTA), the flight attendants’ union, Asociación de Tripulantes de Cabina de 
Pasajeros de Empresas Aerocomerciales (ATCPEA), and the supervisors’ union, Unión del 
Personal Superior y Profesional de Empresas Aerocomerciales (UPSA).   
                                                 
3
  The consultant resigned from the position on or about July 2, 2009. 

 
 5 
16. All of the unions were powerful and unafraid to make demands on LAN.  They 
sought wage increases and additional benefits, and used the terms of their respective Collective 
Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) as leverage.  These labor agreements contained provisions that 
LAN believed were unfavorable, such as restrictions on the hours employees could work and their 
work locations.     
17. The mechanics’ union, the flight attendants’ union and the supervisors’ union each 
had a single-function rule contained in their CBAs.  The single-function rule was a provision that 
limited workers from performing more than one work function at a time for LAN.  The single-
function rule was loosely interpreted and for the most part not enforced by the unions.  Had it been 
enforced, the single-function rule would have required LAN to double its work force and would 
have seriously imperiled LAN’s ability to continue its operations in Argentina. 
 
18. Around 2006 the unions began campaigning for wage increases.  The unions  
threatened to enforce the single-function rule unless LAN Argentina agreed to a substantial wage 
increase.  LAN’s management, including Cueto, attempted to negotiate on the wage issues but 
made no progress and things worsened over time.  Eventually there were work stoppages and 
slowdowns on the part of the workforce, including strikes involving the pilots’ and the mechanics’ 
unions. 
 
Cueto Approves Improper Payments   
 19. Beginning in the summer of 2006, the consultant supplied LAN executives with 
information on how to deal with specific union members and the unions in general.  Eventually, 
the consultant offered to negotiate directly with the unions on LAN’s behalf, making it clear that 
he would expect compensation for such negotiations, and that payments would be made to third 
parties who had influence over the unions.  After his staff informed Cueto that the consultant was 
well connected with the unions and could effectively negotiate an agreement with union officials, 
Cueto approved the retention of the consultant. 
 20. During the summer of 2006, Cueto approved payments totaling $1,150,000 to the 
consultant in connection with LAN’s attempts to settle disputes on wages and other work 
conditions with the unions.  At the time, Cueto understood that it was possible the consultant 
would pass some portion of the $1.15 million to union officials in Argentina.  Cueto approved the 
payments to get the unions to abandon their threats to enforce the single-function rule and to get 
them to accept a wage increase lower than the amount asked for in negotiations.  LAN and the 
consultant agreed that LAN would make the payment to a company controlled by the consultant in 
Argentina.  In 2006, LAN did not have a policy requiring that due diligence be performed on 
consultants, and neither Cueto nor LAN conducted any due diligence on the consultant or any of 
his related entities.       
 21. Around August 2006, Cueto’s staff informed him that the consultant had reached an 
oral agreement to settle the wage dispute with the mechanics’ union on LAN’s behalf.  Although 
the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with the mechanics’ union would remain 
unchanged, Cueto understood that the union would orally agree not to seek enforcement of the 
single-function rule for a period of four years in exchange for a wage increase of approximately 

 
 6 
15% of salary.  The wage increase of approximately 15% was lower than the amount originally 
sought by the mechanics’ union. 
 22. Around August 2006, the flight attendants’ and supervisors’ unions both agreed to 
accept wage increases of approximately 15% and 10% respectively of salaries.  The amounts were 
lower than the amounts originally sought by each union. 
Sham Contract with Consultant’s Company 
 23. On October 2, 2006, the consultant sent the Vice President of Business 
Development an e-mail attaching a draft consulting contract between LAN and the consultant’s 
company for his “consideration.”  The consultant copied the e-mail and draft contract to a chief 
advisor to the Transportation Secretary who oversaw airline and union issues.  The following day, 
the Vice President of Business Development forwarded the draft contract to Cueto for his review.  
The contract described the $1,150,000 to be paid to the consultant’s company in three installments, 
and falsely stated that the consultant would undertake a study of existing air routes in Argentina 
and the regional market as a basis for the payment.  The draft contract was never signed by the 
parties.  Cueto knew that the consultant would not perform a study.  Cueto did not inform anyone 
at LAN that the contract falsely stated the purpose of the payments to the consultant. 
 24. To further disguise the sham arrangement, an unrelated LAN subsidiary, AAI 
incorporated in Delaware, was used to make the improper payments to the consultant’s company.  
Around October 20, 2006, the consultant’s company sent a backdated invoice for $300,000 to AAI, 
the LAN subsidiary that was designated by LAN to make the improper payments to the 
consultant’s company.  The invoice indicated that the amount due was for “consulting services 
provided by and payable...under contract signed by both parties.”  It also contained wire transfer 
instructions to a brokerage account in Virginia owned by the consultant and his wife.  On October 
20, 2006, LAN wired the $300,000 to the brokerage account.  Additional invoices for $300,000 on 
November 21, 2006 and $550,000 on January 17, 2007 were sent to AAI and paid to the same 
brokerage account.  All of the improperly booked payments to the consultant’s company were 
intentionally mis-recorded as payments to “other debtors” on AAI’s books and records. 
 25. In November 2007, the Vice President of Business Development received an 
invoice from the consultant for $58,000 payable to an account in Spain in the name of another 
company, which was owned by the consultant’s son and wife and was headquartered in Costa 
Rica.  The invoice was also directed for payment by LAN’s AAI subsidiary.  This payment was in 
addition to the $1.15 million already authorized by Cueto and paid to the consultant.  Cueto 
received a copy of the invoice via e-mail from the Vice President of Business Development.  Like 
the consultant’s draft contract, the invoice indicated that it was for payment for a study of existing 
air routes in Argentina and the regional market, which Cueto knew was inaccurate.  In November 
2007, LAN paid the invoice. 
 26. Cueto approved the consultant’s compensation and instructed the CFO of LAN to 
pay the consultant’s invoices.  The invoices contained false references to consulting services that 
were never rendered by the consultant.  At the time he approved the payments to the consultant, 
Cueto knew that the unsigned consulting contract with the consultant’s company was a sham 

 
 7 
contract.  Cueto did not inform the CFO or LAN’s legal department that $1,150,000 in payments 
was being made to the consultant’s company pursuant to a fake contract for improper purposes.  
Further, while copied on an email attaching the $58,000 invoice for payment to the company 
owned by consultant’s son and wife, Cueto took no action to stop the payment, which he knew 
contained false references to services never rendered. 
   Cueto Caused LAN’s Inaccurate Books and Records 
 
27. Cueto authorized improper payments that were not accurately and fairly reflected 
on LAN’s books and records.  Cueto directed subordinates to make the improper payments.  The 
improper payments authorized by Cueto were improperly described in the books and records as 
“other debtors” costs in a LAN subsidiary that had no role in LAN’s argentine business.   
 
Cueto Caused LAN’s Internal Accounting Control Failure 
 
28. As President and Chief Operating Officer of LAN, Cueto, along with others, was 
responsible for devising and maintaining compliance with internal accounting controls at LAN.  
Cueto did not follow the company’s existing internal accounting controls when he authorized the 
payment of $1,150,000 to the consultant’s company and failed to prevent the payment of $58,000 
to another company owned by consultant’s son and wife.  Cueto received and approved the sham 
contract for the consultant’s company to provide consulting services to LAN, knowing that such 
services would never be provided.  Cueto also authorized payment of invoices from the 
consultant’s company that contained a description of services listed on the invoices that was false.      
 
Legal Standards and Violations 
29. Under Section 21C(a) of the Exchange Act, the Commission may impose a cease-
and-desist order upon any person who is violating, has violated, or is about to violate any provision 
of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, and upon any other person that is, was, 
or would be a cause of the violation, due to an act of omission the person knew or should have 
known would contribute to such violation. 
30. As a result of the conduct described above, Cueto caused violations of Section 
13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act by LAN, which requires issuers to make and keep books, records, 
and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect their transactions and 
dispositions of the assets of the issuer.  
 
 31. In addition, as a result of the conduct described above, Cueto caused violations of 
Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act by LAN, which requires issuers to devise and maintain a 
system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that (i) 
transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (ii) 
transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity 
with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, 
and (II) to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance 
with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets 

 
 8 
is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with 
respect to any differences.  Cueto also violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which states 
that no person shall knowingly circumvent or knowingly fail to implement a system of internal 
accounting controls or knowingly falsify any book, record or account.  Cueto also violated Rule 
13b2-1, which states that no person shall, directly or indirectly, falsify or cause to be falsified, any 
book, record, or account subject to section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act. 
  
Remedial Actions and Undertakings 
 
 32. As the CEO of LAN, which is now a division of LATAM, Cueto is subject to 
LATAM’s enhanced compliance structure and internal accounting controls.  Cueto is required to 
certify compliance with LATAM’s new Code of Conduct that was adopted in 2013, as well as 
other internal corporate policies, including an Anti-Corruption Guide, a Gifts, Travel, Hospitality 
and Entertainment Policy, an Escalation Policy, and Procurement and Payment policies.   
 
 33. Respondent has attended the Corporate Governance Training provided by the 
LATAM Chief Compliance Officer  and has provided a certification confirming acknowledgement 
of the Code of Conduct, the relevant applicable regulations, as well as the Company policies.  
Respondent has also executed an amendment to his employment agreement whereby Respondent 
acknowledges having been informed regarding the LATAM Manual for the Prevention of 
Corruption, among other matters, and his responsibilities to perform his duties with the highest 
ethical standards, in compliance with all Company Policies and Procedures.  Respondent 
undertakes to do the following:  in connection with this action and any related judicial or 
administrative proceeding or investigation commenced by the Commission or to which the 
Commission is a party, Respondent (i) agrees to appear and be interviewed by Commission staff at 
such times and places as the staff requests upon reasonable notice; (ii) will accept service by mail 
or facsimile transmission of notices or subpoenas issued by the Commission for documents or 
testimony at depositions, hearings, or trials, or in connection with any related investigation by 
Commission staff; (iii) appoints Respondent's undersigned attorney as agent to receive service of 
such notices and subpoenas; (iv) with respect to such notices and subpoenas, waives the territorial 
limits on service contained in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable 
local rules, provided that the party requesting the testimony reimburses Respondent's travel, 
lodging, and subsistence expenses at the then-prevailing U.S. Government per diem rates; and (v) 
consents to personal jurisdiction over Respondent in any United States District Court for purposes 
of enforcing any such subpoena. 
 
 34. Respondent also undertakes to attend all anti-corruption training sessions required 
for senior executives at LAN.  These sessions will include, but are not limited to, both live and 
online anti-corruption trainings to be completed on at least an annual basis and according to LAN’s 
Compliance Department’s training schedule.  These sessions will include, in addition to anti-
corruption laws and regulations, such as the FCPA, training on anti-trust laws, the Company’s 
Code of Conduct and all other applicable policies that each LAN employee must follow.  After the 
conclusion of each session Cueto will sign the appropriate documentation that acknowledges his 
attendance and understanding of the topics presented.  Should LAN modify the schedule of such 

 
 9 
training sessions for any reason, Cueto will, so long as he is a senior executive of LAN, attend a 
comparable anti-corruption session on an annual basis and complete appropriate documentation 
attesting to his attendance and the session’s contents.  The Respondent agrees to serve by hand 
delivery or by next-day mail all written notices and correspondence required by or related to this 
Agreement to Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, FCPA Unit Chief, Division of Enforcement, U.S. 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Mail Stop 5631, Washington, D.C. 
20549, unless otherwise directed in writing by the staff of the Division. 
 
 35. In  determining  whether  to  accept  the  Offer,  the  Commission  has  considered  these 
undertakings.   
  
IV. 
 
 In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions 
agreed to in Respondent Ignacio Cueto Plaza’s Offer. 
 
 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 
 
 A. Pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act, Respondent Ignacio Cueto Plaza 
cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 
13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(2)(A), 
78m(b)(2)(B) and 78m(b)(5)] and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-1].   
 
B. Respondent shall, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money 
penalty in the amount of $75,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission for transfer to the 
general fund of the United States Treasury, subject to Exchange Act Section 21F(g)(3).  If timely 
payment is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717.  Payment must be 
made in one of the following ways:   
 
(1) Respondent may transmit payment electronically to the Commission, which will 
provide detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request; 
 
(2) Respondent may make direct payment from a bank account via Pay.gov through the 
SEC website at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm; or  
 
(3) Respondent may pay by certified check, bank cashier’s check, or United States 
postal money order, made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission and 
hand-delivered or mailed to:  
 
Enterprise Services Center 
Accounts Receivable Branch 
HQ Bldg., Room 181, AMZ-341 
6500 South MacArthur Boulevard 
Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

 
 10 
 
Payments by check or money order must be accompanied by a cover letter identifying 
Ignacio Cueto Plaza as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these 
proceedings; a copy of the cover letter and check or money order must be sent to Tracy L. Price, 
Assistant Director, Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St., NE, 
Washington, DC 20549-5631.   
 
V. 
It is further Ordered that, solely for purposes of exceptions to discharge set forth in Section 
523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523, the findings in this Order are true and admitted by 
Respondent, and further, any debt for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty or other 
amounts due by Respondent under this Order or any other judgment, order, consent order, decree 
or settlement agreement entered in connection with this proceeding, is a debt for the violation by 
Respondent of the federal securities laws or any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set 
forth in Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19). 
 
 
 By the Commission. 
 
 
 
       Brent J. Fields 
       Secretary 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 77057 / February 4, 2016 

 

ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT 

Release No. 3738 / February 4, 2016 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING 

File No. 3-17100 

 

 

In the Matter of 

 

Ignacio Cueto Plaza 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

ORDER INSTITUTING CEASE-AND-

DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 21C OF THE SECURITIES 

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING 

FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING A CEASE-

AND-DESIST ORDER  

  

I. 
 

 The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that cease-

and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities 

Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), against Ignacio Cueto Plaza (“Cueto” or “Respondent”).   

 

II. 
 

 In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer 

of Settlement (the “Offer”), which the Commission has determined to accept.  Solely for the 

purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the 

Commission, or to which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the 

findings herein, except as to the Commission’s jurisdiction over him and the subject matter of 

these proceedings, which are admitted, and except as provided herein in Section V, Respondent 

consents to the entry of this Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to 

Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-

and-Desist Order (“Order”), as set forth below. 



 

 2 

III. 
 

 On the basis of this Order and Respondent’s Offer, the Commission finds
1
 that:  

 

 Summary        

  1.     In 2006 and 2007, Ignacio Cueto Plaza (“Cueto”), the CEO of LAN Airlines S.A. 

(“LAN”), authorized $1.15 million in improper payments to a third party consultant in Argentina 

in connection with LAN’s attempts to settle disputes on wages and other work conditions 

between LAN Argentina S.A. (“LAN Argentina”), a subsidiary of LAN, and its employees.  At 

the time, Cueto understood that it was possible the consultant would pass some portion of the 

$1.15 million to union officials in Argentina.  The payments were made pursuant to an unsigned 

consulting agreement that purported to provide services that Cueto understood would not occur.  

Cueto authorized subordinates to make the payments that were improperly booked in the 

Company’s books and records, which circumvented LAN’s internal accounting controls.   

Respondent 
 

2. Ignacio Cueto Plaza, age 51, is a Chilean citizen and, since 2012, has been CEO of 

LAN.  From 1995 to 1998, Cueto served as President of LAN Cargo, a LAN subsidiary located in 

Miami, Florida.  He served on the Board of Directors of LAN from 1995 to 1997.  From 1999 to 

2005, Cueto was CEO of LAN’s passenger airline business.  In 2005, Cueto became President and 

COO of LAN Airlines S.A.  He remained in that position until June of 2012, when LAN merged 

with Brazilian Airline TAM, S.A. (“TAM”) and became LATAM Airlines Group S.A. 

(“LATAM”).2  Cueto remains CEO of LAN, which is now part of LATAM. 

Relevant Entities 

 

3. LAN Airlines S.A. (“LAN”) was a publicly traded airline company headquartered 

in Santiago, Chile, that provided passenger and cargo airline services throughout Latin America.  

LAN merged with TAM, S.A. in 2012.  Throughout the relevant period, LAN’s common stock 

was registered in the United States pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act and LAN filed 

annual and quarterly reports as required under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 

thereunder.  Prior to the merger with TAM, LAN’s common stock traded on the NYSE under the 

symbol “LFL.”    

4. LATAM Airlines Group is a Chilean based holding company.  LAN became 

LATAM after the merger of LAN and its consolidated subsidiaries/or affiliates and TAM, S.A. and 

its consolidated subsidiaries on June 22, 2012.  Following the merger, LATAM’s holdings 

                                                 
1
  The findings herein are made pursuant to Respondent's Offer of Settlement and are not  

binding on any other person or entity in this or any other proceeding.   

 
2  The LAN brand, which was launched in 2004 and includes subsidiaries in Peru, Argentina, Columbia and 

Ecuador continues to exist as part of LATAM. 



 

 3 

included LAN and its subsidiaries/or affiliates in Peru, Argentina, Colombia and Ecuador, TAM 

and its subsidiaries, and LAN Cargo and its affiliates.  LATAM’s common stock is registered 

pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act and LATAM files annual and quarterly reports as 

required under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules thereunder.  LATAM’s common 

stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol “LFL.” 

5. LAN Argentina S.A. (“LAN Argentina”), formerly known as AERO 2000, was a 

subsidiary of LAN during the relevant period.  LAN Argentina began operations in 2005, and 

operated domestic and international flights throughout Latin America.  It continues to do business 

as part of LATAM.  LAN Argentina’s financial statements were consolidated into the financial 

statements of LAN and later LATAM. 

6. Atlantic Aviation Investments LLC (“AAI”) was an indirect subsidiary of LAN 

incorporated in Delaware.  LAN used AAI to conceal the sham payments to a company controlled 

by its consultant in Argentina.  AAI’s financial statements were consolidated into the financial 

statements of LAN and later LATAM.     

LAN’s Entry into Argentina 

 

7. For several years prior to 2004, LAN, a Chilean airline, explored expansion into 

Argentina.  LAN put its Vice President of Business Development at LAN Cargo, a LAN 

subsidiary, in charge of the expansion efforts.  The Vice President of Business Development was 

based in Miami, Florida, and, reported directly to Cueto. 

8. In late 2004, the Vice President of Business Development received a call from a 

lawyer and purported business consultant in Argentina offering to help LAN with its expansion 

efforts.  The two men later met in Buenos Aires and discussed the obstacles that LAN might face 

in trying to enter the Argentine airline market.  Following the meeting, they kept in touch.   

9. In early 2005, officials from the Argentine Transportation Secretary’s Office 

contacted LAN to ask whether it would be interested in purchasing Lineas Aereas Federales S.A. 

(“LAFSA”), a state owned airline, as a means to enter Argentina.  LAN declined the offer to 

purchase LAFSA but continued discussions with government officials to enter into the market.  

Eventually the officials informed LAN that LAFSA would cease operations and LAN would enter 

the Argentine market through the purchase of 49% of the shares of AERO 2000, a non-operating 

Argentinean airline that possessed an airline operation certificate and owned various flight routes.  

As part of the deal, LAN agreed to hire workers from LAFSA and another Argentine airline, 

Southern Winds, to operate AERO 2000.   

10. In March 2005, Cueto and the Vice President of Business Development met with 

the President of Argentina and the Transportation Secretary, as well as other officials from the 

Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services, and Transportation to finalize the 

terms of the deal.  LAN completed its purchase of AERO 2000 on or about April 2005, and AERO 

2000 began operations in June 2005.  In December 2005, AERO 2000’s name was changed to 

LAN Argentina S.A.  The LAN employees primarily involved in these negotiations were the Vice 



 

 4 

President of Business Development and the General Manager of LAN Argentina, who later 

became Chief Operating Officer of LAN.  Both employees reported directly to Cueto.  

LAN Faces Major Issues Upon Entering the Argentine Market 

11. Upon entering the Argentine passenger airline market LAN immediately faced 

several major issues impacting its viability and began losing money.  First, it needed to meet 

demands from labor unions representing the employees acquired from LAFSA and Southern 

Winds.  Second, LAN needed majority ownership of its Argentine subsidiary, and therefore had to 

persuade the Argentine government to change its existing law on foreign ownership of domestic 

airlines and to increase caps on airfares.  Third, LAN needed regulatory authorization to operate 

various flight routes, both domestically and internationally, in Argentina.  Since the Argentine 

passenger airline market was heavily regulated by the government, particularly officials within the 

Department of Transportation who had close ties to the unions, LAN sought help from the 

government officials with each of these issues.         

12. In early 2006, the consultant again contacted the Vice President of Business 

Development and offered to assist LAN in Argentina.  By this time, the consultant was a 

government official in the Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services, 

Department of Transportation.  On January 31, 2005, the Secretary of Transportation appointed the 

consultant as a Cabinet Advisor “ad-honorem.”3          

13. LAN executives, including Cueto, knew that for LAN Argentina to become 

profitable it would need an infusion of cash.  LAN asked Argentine government officials to 

liberalize the laws on foreign ownership so that LAN could own a majority share of LAN 

Argentina and sought government authorization to raise regulated airfares.  On or about August 8, 

2006, the President of Argentina signed a Decree that enabled LAN to become a majority owner of 

LAN Argentina and allowed LAN to raise airfares by 20%.  LAN Argentina was also awarded 

critical additional flight routes by the Transportation Secretary.       

            LAN Encounters Problems with the Unions in Argentina 

14.  As part of the deal that LAN reached with the Argentine government in March 

2005, LAN was required to hire between six and eight hundred employees from the defunct 

LAFSA and Southern Winds airlines.  LAN was bound by the existing bargaining agreements 

between LAFSA, Southern Winds and the labor unions.      

15. There were five unions representing airline employees in Argentina.  They included 

the grounds crew union, the Asociación del Personal Aeronáutico (APA), the pilots’ union, the 

Asociación de Pilotos de Lineas Aereas (APLA), the mechanics’ union, Asociacion del Personal 

Técnico Aeronáutico (APTA), the flight attendants’ union, Asociación de Tripulantes de Cabina de 

Pasajeros de Empresas Aerocomerciales (ATCPEA), and the supervisors’ union, Unión del 

Personal Superior y Profesional de Empresas Aerocomerciales (UPSA).   

                                                 
3  The consultant resigned from the position on or about July 2, 2009. 



 

 5 

16. All of the unions were powerful and unafraid to make demands on LAN.  They 

sought wage increases and additional benefits, and used the terms of their respective Collective 

Bargaining Agreements (“CBAs”) as leverage.  These labor agreements contained provisions that 

LAN believed were unfavorable, such as restrictions on the hours employees could work and their 

work locations.     

17. The mechanics’ union, the flight attendants’ union and the supervisors’ union each 

had a single-function rule contained in their CBAs.  The single-function rule was a provision that 

limited workers from performing more than one work function at a time for LAN.  The single-

function rule was loosely interpreted and for the most part not enforced by the unions.  Had it been 

enforced, the single-function rule would have required LAN to double its work force and would 

have seriously imperiled LAN’s ability to continue its operations in Argentina. 

 

18. Around 2006 the unions began campaigning for wage increases.  The unions  

threatened to enforce the single-function rule unless LAN Argentina agreed to a substantial wage 

increase.  LAN’s management, including Cueto, attempted to negotiate on the wage issues but 

made no progress and things worsened over time.  Eventually there were work stoppages and 

slowdowns on the part of the workforce, including strikes involving the pilots’ and the mechanics’ 

unions. 

 

Cueto Approves Improper Payments   

 19. Beginning in the summer of 2006, the consultant supplied LAN executives with 

information on how to deal with specific union members and the unions in general.  Eventually, 

the consultant offered to negotiate directly with the unions on LAN’s behalf, making it clear that 

he would expect compensation for such negotiations, and that payments would be made to third 

parties who had influence over the unions.  After his staff informed Cueto that the consultant was 

well connected with the unions and could effectively negotiate an agreement with union officials, 

Cueto approved the retention of the consultant. 

 20. During the summer of 2006, Cueto approved payments totaling $1,150,000 to the 

consultant in connection with LAN’s attempts to settle disputes on wages and other work 

conditions with the unions.  At the time, Cueto understood that it was possible the consultant 

would pass some portion of the $1.15 million to union officials in Argentina.  Cueto approved the 

payments to get the unions to abandon their threats to enforce the single-function rule and to get 

them to accept a wage increase lower than the amount asked for in negotiations.  LAN and the 

consultant agreed that LAN would make the payment to a company controlled by the consultant in 

Argentina.  In 2006, LAN did not have a policy requiring that due diligence be performed on 

consultants, and neither Cueto nor LAN conducted any due diligence on the consultant or any of 

his related entities.       

 21. Around August 2006, Cueto’s staff informed him that the consultant had reached an 

oral agreement to settle the wage dispute with the mechanics’ union on LAN’s behalf.  Although 

the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement with the mechanics’ union would remain 

unchanged, Cueto understood that the union would orally agree not to seek enforcement of the 

single-function rule for a period of four years in exchange for a wage increase of approximately 



 

 6 

15% of salary.  The wage increase of approximately 15% was lower than the amount originally 

sought by the mechanics’ union. 

 22. Around August 2006, the flight attendants’ and supervisors’ unions both agreed to 

accept wage increases of approximately 15% and 10% respectively of salaries.  The amounts were 

lower than the amounts originally sought by each union. 

Sham Contract with Consultant’s Company 

 23. On October 2, 2006, the consultant sent the Vice President of Business 

Development an e-mail attaching a draft consulting contract between LAN and the consultant’s 

company for his “consideration.”  The consultant copied the e-mail and draft contract to a chief 

advisor to the Transportation Secretary who oversaw airline and union issues.  The following day, 

the Vice President of Business Development forwarded the draft contract to Cueto for his review.  

The contract described the $1,150,000 to be paid to the consultant’s company in three installments, 

and falsely stated that the consultant would undertake a study of existing air routes in Argentina 

and the regional market as a basis for the payment.  The draft contract was never signed by the 

parties.  Cueto knew that the consultant would not perform a study.  Cueto did not inform anyone 

at LAN that the contract falsely stated the purpose of the payments to the consultant. 

 24. To further disguise the sham arrangement, an unrelated LAN subsidiary, AAI 

incorporated in Delaware, was used to make the improper payments to the consultant’s company.  

Around October 20, 2006, the consultant’s company sent a backdated invoice for $300,000 to AAI, 

the LAN subsidiary that was designated by LAN to make the improper payments to the 

consultant’s company.  The invoice indicated that the amount due was for “consulting services 

provided by and payable…under contract signed by both parties.”  It also contained wire transfer 

instructions to a brokerage account in Virginia owned by the consultant and his wife.  On October 

20, 2006, LAN wired the $300,000 to the brokerage account.  Additional invoices for $300,000 on 

November 21, 2006 and $550,000 on January 17, 2007 were sent to AAI and paid to the same 

brokerage account.  All of the improperly booked payments to the consultant’s company were 

intentionally mis-recorded as payments to “other debtors” on AAI’s books and records. 

 25. In November 2007, the Vice President of Business Development received an 

invoice from the consultant for $58,000 payable to an account in Spain in the name of another 

company, which was owned by the consultant’s son and wife and was headquartered in Costa 

Rica.  The invoice was also directed for payment by LAN’s AAI subsidiary.  This payment was in 

addition to the $1.15 million already authorized by Cueto and paid to the consultant.  Cueto 

received a copy of the invoice via e-mail from the Vice President of Business Development.  Like 

the consultant’s draft contract, the invoice indicated that it was for payment for a study of existing 

air routes in Argentina and the regional market, which Cueto knew was inaccurate.  In November 

2007, LAN paid the invoice. 

 26. Cueto approved the consultant’s compensation and instructed the CFO of LAN to 

pay the consultant’s invoices.  The invoices contained false references to consulting services that 

were never rendered by the consultant.  At the time he approved the payments to the consultant, 

Cueto knew that the unsigned consulting contract with the consultant’s company was a sham 



 

 7 

contract.  Cueto did not inform the CFO or LAN’s legal department that $1,150,000 in payments 

was being made to the consultant’s company pursuant to a fake contract for improper purposes.  

Further, while copied on an email attaching the $58,000 invoice for payment to the company 

owned by consultant’s son and wife, Cueto took no action to stop the payment, which he knew 

contained false references to services never rendered. 

   Cueto Caused LAN’s Inaccurate Books and Records 

 

27. Cueto authorized improper payments that were not accurately and fairly reflected 

on LAN’s books and records.  Cueto directed subordinates to make the improper payments.  The 

improper payments authorized by Cueto were improperly described in the books and records as 

“other debtors” costs in a LAN subsidiary that had no role in LAN’s argentine business.   

 

Cueto Caused LAN’s Internal Accounting Control Failure 

 

28. As President and Chief Operating Officer of LAN, Cueto, along with others, was 

responsible for devising and maintaining compliance with internal accounting controls at LAN.  

Cueto did not follow the company’s existing internal accounting controls when he authorized the 

payment of $1,150,000 to the consultant’s company and failed to prevent the payment of $58,000 

to another company owned by consultant’s son and wife.  Cueto received and approved the sham 

contract for the consultant’s company to provide consulting services to LAN, knowing that such 

services would never be provided.  Cueto also authorized payment of invoices from the 

consultant’s company that contained a description of services listed on the invoices that was false.      

 

Legal Standards and Violations 

29. Under Section 21C(a) of the Exchange Act, the Commission may impose a cease-

and-desist order upon any person who is violating, has violated, or is about to violate any provision 

of the Exchange Act or any rule or regulation thereunder, and upon any other person that is, was, 

or would be a cause of the violation, due to an act of omission the person knew or should have 

known would contribute to such violation. 

30. As a result of the conduct described above, Cueto caused violations of Section 

13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act by LAN, which requires issuers to make and keep books, records, 

and accounts which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect their transactions and 

dispositions of the assets of the issuer.  

 

 31. In addition, as a result of the conduct described above, Cueto caused violations of 

Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act by LAN, which requires issuers to devise and maintain a 

system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that (i) 

transactions are executed in accordance with management’s general or specific authorization; (ii) 

transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to permit preparation of financial statements in conformity 

with generally accepted accounting principles or any other criteria applicable to such statements, 

and (II) to maintain accountability for assets; (iii) access to assets is permitted only in accordance 

with management’s general or specific authorization; and (iv) the recorded accountability for assets 



 

 8 

is compared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals and appropriate action is taken with 

respect to any differences.  Cueto also violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, which states 

that no person shall knowingly circumvent or knowingly fail to implement a system of internal 

accounting controls or knowingly falsify any book, record or account.  Cueto also violated Rule 

13b2-1, which states that no person shall, directly or indirectly, falsify or cause to be falsified, any 

book, record, or account subject to section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act. 

  

Remedial Actions and Undertakings 

 

 32. As the CEO of LAN, which is now a division of LATAM, Cueto is subject to 

LATAM’s enhanced compliance structure and internal accounting controls.  Cueto is required to 

certify compliance with LATAM’s new Code of Conduct that was adopted in 2013, as well as 

other internal corporate policies, including an Anti-Corruption Guide, a Gifts, Travel, Hospitality 

and Entertainment Policy, an Escalation Policy, and Procurement and Payment policies.   

 

 33. Respondent has attended the Corporate Governance Training provided by the 

LATAM Chief Compliance Officer  and has provided a certification confirming acknowledgement 

of the Code of Conduct, the relevant applicable regulations, as well as the Company policies.  

Respondent has also executed an amendment to his employment agreement whereby Respondent 

acknowledges having been informed regarding the LATAM Manual for the Prevention of 

Corruption, among other matters, and his responsibilities to perform his duties with the highest 

ethical standards, in compliance with all Company Policies and Procedures.  Respondent 

undertakes to do the following:  in connection with this action and any related judicial or 

administrative proceeding or investigation commenced by the Commission or to which the 

Commission is a party, Respondent (i) agrees to appear and be interviewed by Commission staff at 

such times and places as the staff requests upon reasonable notice; (ii) will accept service by mail 

or facsimile transmission of notices or subpoenas issued by the Commission for documents or 

testimony at depositions, hearings, or trials, or in connection with any related investigation by 

Commission staff; (iii) appoints Respondent's undersigned attorney as agent to receive service of 

such notices and subpoenas; (iv) with respect to such notices and subpoenas, waives the territorial 

limits on service contained in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable 

local rules, provided that the party requesting the testimony reimburses Respondent's travel, 

lodging, and subsistence expenses at the then-prevailing U.S. Government per diem rates; and (v) 

consents to personal jurisdiction over Respondent in any United States District Court for purposes 

of enforcing any such subpoena. 

 

 34. Respondent also undertakes to attend all anti-corruption training sessions required 

for senior executives at LAN.  These sessions will include, but are not limited to, both live and 

online anti-corruption trainings to be completed on at least an annual basis and according to LAN’s 

Compliance Department’s training schedule.  These sessions will include, in addition to anti-

corruption laws and regulations, such as the FCPA, training on anti-trust laws, the Company’s 

Code of Conduct and all other applicable policies that each LAN employee must follow.  After the 

conclusion of each session Cueto will sign the appropriate documentation that acknowledges his 

attendance and understanding of the topics presented.  Should LAN modify the schedule of such 



 

 9 

training sessions for any reason, Cueto will, so long as he is a senior executive of LAN, attend a 

comparable anti-corruption session on an annual basis and complete appropriate documentation 

attesting to his attendance and the session’s contents.  The Respondent agrees to serve by hand 

delivery or by next-day mail all written notices and correspondence required by or related to this 

Agreement to Kara Novaco Brockmeyer, FCPA Unit Chief, Division of Enforcement, U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, N.E., Mail Stop 5631, Washington, D.C. 

20549, unless otherwise directed in writing by the staff of the Division. 

 

 35. In determining whether to accept the Offer, the Commission has considered these 

undertakings.   

  

IV. 

 

 In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to impose the sanctions 

agreed to in Respondent Ignacio Cueto Plaza’s Offer. 

 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 

 A. Pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act, Respondent Ignacio Cueto Plaza 

cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 

13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(2)(A), 

78m(b)(2)(B) and 78m(b)(5)] and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-1].   

 

B. Respondent shall, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money 

penalty in the amount of $75,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission for transfer to the 

general fund of the United States Treasury, subject to Exchange Act Section 21F(g)(3).  If timely 

payment is not made, additional interest shall accrue pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717.  Payment must be 

made in one of the following ways:   

 

(1) Respondent may transmit payment electronically to the Commission, which will 

provide detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request; 

 

(2) Respondent may make direct payment from a bank account via Pay.gov through the 

SEC website at http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm; or  

 

(3) Respondent may pay by certified check, bank cashier’s check, or United States 

postal money order, made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission and 

hand-delivered or mailed to:  

 

Enterprise Services Center 

Accounts Receivable Branch 

HQ Bldg., Room 181, AMZ-341 

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 



 

 10 

 

Payments by check or money order must be accompanied by a cover letter identifying 

Ignacio Cueto Plaza as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these 

proceedings; a copy of the cover letter and check or money order must be sent to Tracy L. Price, 

Assistant Director, Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F St., NE, 

Washington, DC 20549-5631.   

 

V. 

It is further Ordered that, solely for purposes of exceptions to discharge set forth in Section 

523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523, the findings in this Order are true and admitted by 

Respondent, and further, any debt for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty or other 

amounts due by Respondent under this Order or any other judgment, order, consent order, decree 

or settlement agreement entered in connection with this proceeding, is a debt for the violation by 

Respondent of the federal securities laws or any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set 

forth in Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19). 

 

 

 By the Commission. 

 

 

 

       Brent J. Fields 

       Secretary