Tag: Financial Services Law

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Adopts Rule Amendments to Implement JOBS Act Provisions for the Elimination of Prohibitions Against General Solicitation in Private Offerings

VedderPriceLogo

On July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted final amendments to Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act in order to implement Section 201(a) of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act). Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act directed the SEC to eliminate the prohibition against general solicitation in private security offerings made under Rule 506 provided that all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors. New Rule 506(c) permits issuers to use general solicitation and general advertising in private security offerings made under Rule 506 provided that: (1) the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that investors are accredited investors; (2) each investor qualifies, or the issuer reasonably believes that each investor qualifies, as an accredited investor at the time of the sale of securities; and (3) all terms and conditions of Rules 501, 502(a) and 502(d) are satisfied.

The SEC noted that whether the steps taken by an issuer to verify accredited investor status are “reasonable” is an objective determination based on the particular facts and circumstances of each investor and transaction. Factors to be considered in this analysis are:

(1) the nature of the purchaser and type of accredited investor that the purchaser claims to be;

(2) the amount and type of information that the issuer has about the purchaser; and

(3) the nature of the offering, such as the manner in which the purchaser was solicited to participate in the offering, and the terms of the offering, such as the minimum investment amount.

In response to commenters’ requests, Rule 506(c) also provides a non-exclusive list of specific methods that investors may use to verify an investor’s accredited investor status. This list includes:

(1) with respect to verifying income, review copies of any IRS form that reports income (e.g., W-2, Form 1099 or a copy of a filed Form 1040), along with a written representation that the investor will likely continue to earn the necessary income in the current year;

(2) with respect to verifying net worth, review copies of bank statements, brokerage or other statements of securities holdings, or CDs for evidence of sufficient net worth, along with a credit report for evidence of total liabilities; or

(3) obtain a written confirmation from a broker-dealer, an investment adviser, a licensed attorney or a certified public accountant that such entity or person has taken reasonable steps to verify the investor’s accredited investor status.

Section 201(a)(1) of the JOBS Act also directed the SEC to revise Rule 144A(d)(1) to provide that securities resold pursuant to Rule 144A may be offered, including by means of general solicitation, to persons other than  qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) as long as the securities are sold only to persons that the seller and any person acting on behalf of the seller reasonably believe is a QIB. The SEC adopted amendments to Rule 144A as directed under the JOBS Act.

The rule amendments became effective on September 23, 2013.

 of

Financial Services Legislative and Regulatory Law Update – September 30, 2013

Mintz Logo

Leading the Past Week

Working through a rare weekend session, the Congress appeared no closer to being able to avoid a shutdown of the Federal Government.  Early Sunday morning the House sent back to the Senate its version of the spending bill, including two provisions – one delaying Obamacare for one year and the other repeals the medical device tax which helps fund the law.   While there are other differences in the bills – notably how long they keep the government operating, Leader Reid has made it clear that the Senate will strip out these two provisions when it meets at 2pm on Monday.  With the midnight Monday deadline quickly approaching, all sides appear resigned to a shutdown occurring and have turned their attention to positioning for the fallout.

While the political ramifications of a shutdown are unclear – with both sides believing that they will benefit, the practical results were announced late last week as various federal agencies disclosed how they will act starting on Tuesday.  For example on Friday, Treasury announced that a government shutdown would affect some activities, but that “critical functions” would continue. The IRS would have to pull back on some functions, such as fielding taxpayer queries, but other functions like managing the government’s funds, implementing tax policy would continue.  Other offices that are not funded under annual appropriations, such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), or the GSE’s, would continue to operate as normal.   The CFTC also released a shutdown plan, which outlined the “vast bulk” of oversight and surveillance responsibilities would be stopped.   Perhaps most troubling for the economy is the fact that the shutdown will also prevent the FHA from processing mortgages, and with nearly 45% of the market using FHA backed mortgages, the fear of a disruption to the real estate market, and thus potentially the economy as a whole.

Although there are options that both sides have to avert, or at least delay the shutdown, it now seems more likely than not, that the time will run out and the government will shut down for the first time since 1996 later this week.

Legislative Branch

Senate

Senate Banking Examines TRIA Extension

On September 25th, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing to examine the reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).  Similar to House hearing on the subject last week, the members of the Senate Banking Committee expressed general support for a reauthorization of the program but acknowledged that there is a need to evaluate and improve the program during an extension. For example, Ranking Member Crapo noted that several changes to the program which have been discussed are modifying the business deductible, changing the aggregate loss threshold, and instituting business co-insurance. Another option considered at the hearing for overhauling TRIA was instituting pre-funding of the government backstop. Lawmakers are also considering whether TRIA’s backstop should be extended to cover chemical, biological, radiological, cyber, and nuclear attacks

Majority of Senators Urge White House to Push for Currency Manipulation Protections in TPP

On September 24th, sixty senators signed onto a letter to the White House requesting the Obama Administration work to negotiate rules against currency manipulation as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other future trade deals. The letter was led by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) could complicate the Administration’s TPP talks with Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and other countries. The House, led by Representative Sander Levin (D-MI), sent a similar letter to the White House over the summer. Levin, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee has said that “there is no point in negotiating a TPP agreement to eliminate import duties if countries are allowed to effectively re-impose those duties by manipulating their currencies.”

Senate Budget Committee Examines the Economic Effects of Political Uncertainty

As Congress continues to debate a final version of the CR to fund the government and with the debt ceiling deadline fast approaching, the Senate Budget Committee met to hear testimony from three economists on the economic effects of political uncertainty. Witnesses included Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics; Chad Stone, chief economist for the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities; and Allan Meltzer, Professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University. Witnesses warned that a default would have a large effect on “everyday Americans” as it would become more difficult to get a mortgage, stock prices decline, and unemployment grows.

Senate Banking Subcommittee Explores Economic Conditions in India

On September 25th, the Senate Banking Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance held a hearing to consider investment and market access in India. Witnesses included Dr. Arvind Subramanian, Senior Fellow with the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics; Mr. Richard Rossow, Director for South Asia with McLarty Associates; and Dr. Reena Aggarwal, Professor of Business Administration and Professor of Finance at Georgetown University. The hearing came ahead of a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama.

House of Representatives

Lawmakers Question Big Banks on Student Debit Cards

On September 26th, Democratic lawmakers on the Education and Workforce Committee, joined by Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), wrote to the CEOs of several large banks requesting they explain their student debit card agreements with colleges.  Copies of the letter were sent to Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, PNC Financial Services Group, SunTrust Banks, Inc., TCF Bank, Citigroup, Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., and Higher One Holdings, Inc.

CBO Briefs House Committee on Budget Outlook

On September 26th, the House Budget Committee met to hear testimony from Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Doug Elmendorf on the nation’s long-term budget outlook. CBO’s most recent report was released on September 17th and notes that although in the short-term the budget will shrink, deficits are expected to begin to grow again after 2018.

Executive Branch

Federal Reserve

Basel Framework to Be Part of Stress Tests

On September 24th, the Federal Reserve announced two interim final rules clarifying how companies should incorporate Basel III regulatory capital requirements into their capital and business projections submitted as part of stress tests.  The first rule clarifies that during the upcoming stress test cycle, large banks with more than $50 billion in assets will be required to incorporate the Basel framework into their projections. The first interim final rule also directs banks to consider capital adequacy assessed against a minimum 5 percent tier 1 common ratio. The second rule provides a one-year transition period for stress test projections for most banking organizations with between $10 billion and $50 billion in total consolidated assets. The interim final rules are effective immediately but the Fed will accept comments through November 25th.

Banking Regulators Release Joint Guidance About Financial Abuse of Older Adults

On September 24th, regulators released joint guidance to clarify privacy provisions under the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, saying that it is generally permitted for financial institutions to report suspected elder financial abuse to appropriate authorities. Regulators noted that, as older adults can be attractive targets for financial exploitation, employees of financial institutions that are able to spot irregularities or other signs of financial abuse can help protect against elder financial fraud. The guidance was released by the Federal Reserve, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

SEC

White Lays Out Enforcement, Implementation Priorities

On September 26th, speaking at the Council of Institutional Investors fall conference, Chairwoman Mary Jo White laid out the agency’s enforcement plans. White said that the SEC plans to shift its focus, to bring more cases against individuals who are in violation of securities law and to seek more mandatory compliance measures in settlements to prevent future wrongdoings. Earlier in the week, in a speech before the 2013 Bloomberg Markets 50 Summit, White also addressed enforcement, saying she has sought to make improvements to their operations, including by revising the “neither admit nor deny” policies. White also spoke to other items on the SEC’s regulatory agenda, telling summit participants that regulators have made “lots of progress” on finalizing a joint Volcker Rule and noting that the agency’s “highest immediate priority” is finalizing rulemakings under the Dodd-Frank Act and the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.

CFTC

CFTC Announces Phase in of Swap Execution Facility (SEF) Rules

On September 27th, the CFTC announced that it would delay enforcement of new rules for Swap Execution Facilities (SEF).  The rules were slated to take effect on October 2nd but the Commission received significant push back from industry stake holders.  For example, on September 23rd the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) wrote to the CFTC requesting the agency delay the rules governing swap execution facilities (SEFs).  In addition, it was clear that within the CFTC, there were some who agreed with the industry’s perspective, as on September 26thCommissioner Scott O’Malia said an extension of the SEF effective date would allow market participants time for a smooth transition and then Commissioner Chilton echoed these comments on September 27th, saying that the Commission should extend the compliance date by two months as soon as possible.   Later that day, the CFTC announced that the delay would extend to October 30th for foreign exchange (fx) swaps, and until December 2nd for commodity and equity swaps.

Agriculture Committee Leadership Ask CFTC to Use Caution Crafting Customer Protections

On September 25th, the leadership of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees wrote to the CFTC urging the agency to use caution when drafting futures consumer protection rules which could have a large impact on the agriculture sector. The CFTC proposed rules in October 2012 following the collapse of ML Global and Peregrine Financial that the agriculture sector has warned could prove costly to customers. Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK), Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-MS), and Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-MN) advised the CFTC that it should “weigh the benefits of these regulations against both the costs to America’s farmers and ranchers and the potential impact on consolidation in the industry.”

CFPB

Bureau and Jackson, Mississippi Begin 311 Line for Financial Issues

On September 20th, the CFPB and the City of Jackson, Mississippi announced a partnership to connect consumers with the CFPB to answer questions and submit complaints about financial products and services using their local 311 service.  Residents who dial 311 with a financial problem or complaint will be transferred directly to the Bureau where the CFPB will work with consumers on financial problems and handle consumer complaints on credit cards, mortgages, bank accounts or services, private student loans, consumer loans, credit reporting, money transfers, and debt collection.

CFPB Denies Petition to Dismiss Investigation of Tribal Lenders

On September 26th the CFPB denied a petition from three tribal payday lenders requesting that the CFPB end their investigation into whether the companies violated consumer laws. The lenders argued that the Bureau lacked the authority to make civil investigative demands to the companies due to sovereignty of the lenders via their affiliation with Native American tribes. In announcing the Bureau’s decision to proceed with the investigation, Director Cordray said that courts have agreed that “Indian tribes, like individual states, do not enjoy immunity from suits by the federal government.”

FHA

FHA to Draw on Treasury Funds to Cover Shortfall

On September 27th, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) announced that it will need to draw on $1.7 billion from the Treasury in order to cover shortfalls in the mortgage insurance fund. The shortfall, though expected, was larger than the anticipated $942 million estimate that was included in the President’s FY2014 budget proposal. In a letter to Congress on the announcement, FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said that the “required mandatory appropriation is an accounting transfer and does not reflect an up-to-date view” of the long-term fiscal health of the insurance fund.

NCUA

NCUA Sues Firms Over MBS Credit Union Failures

On September 23rd, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) filed lawsuits against JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, Ally and Wachovia alleging the firms sold $2.4 billion in faulty mortgage-backed securities to two failed credit unions. Speaking on the suits, NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz said that credit unions the agency supervises are sharing the costs of the losses and “the people who are responsible should be required to shoulder that burden, as well.”

Miscellaneous

CRFP Examines Tax Exempt Status of IRAs

On September 27th, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) released an analysis of the preferential tax treatment of the Individual Retirement Account (IRA). The report notes that IRAs hold less than 25 percent of all the nation’s retirement assets and are used by only 5 percent of workers. The analysis notes numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation which estimates that the subsidy will cost $15 billion in lost income tax revenue in 2013, or more than $250 billion over 10 years.

Upcoming Hearings

**(Schedule subject to change contingent on status of Federal Government)**

On Monday September 30th, in H-313 of The Capitol, the House Rules Committee will meet to consider a rule for H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, and H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act.

On Tuesday October 1st at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on legislative proposals intended to create more accountability and transparency to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

On Tuesday, October 1st at 10am, in 538 Dirksen, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing titled “Housing Finance Reform: Fundamentals of a Functioning Private Label Mortgage Backed Securities Market.”

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 10am, in 106 Dirksen, the Joint Economic Committee will hold a hearing on the economic outlook.

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on the status of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

On Wednesday, October 2nd at 2:30pm, in 538 Dirksen, the Economic Policy Subcommittee of Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on rebuilding American manufacturing.

On Wednesday, October 9th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on legislation that would attempt to reduce impediments to capital formation.

On Thursday, October 10th at 10am, in 2128 Rayburn, the Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine international central banking models.

On Thursday, October 10th at 2pm, in 2128 Rayburn, the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing on un-banked and under-banked areas in the United States.

Article By:

 of

US Taxpayers with Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Accounts (RRSPs)? File now to avoid penalties!

Altro Levy Logo

This blog post focuses on the rules around US citizens or tax residents who have Canadian Registered Retirement Savings Accounts (RRSPs). RRSPs are a government sanctioned savings program in which contributions are deducted from taxable income, and any investment growth is deferred from taxation until the owner of the account makes withdrawals. This is a fantastic program for Canadian residents, as it provides significant tax savings in the short term, while allowing pre-tax retirement accounts to grow for use in a later year when income (and thus marginal tax rates) are expected to be lower.

However, there is a complication for US citizens resident in Canada, who are subject to both Canadian and US tax rules. Many assume that because the growth in an RRSP account is sheltered from tax in Canada, it need not be reported and taxed in a US tax return either. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. In fact, the default treatment of RRSP accounts under US tax law is no different than a non-registered investment account – interest, dividends or gains on invested funds are reportable in the Form 1040 tax return, with no deduction for contributions in a given year.

However, there is relief available under Article XVIII(7) of the Canada-US Tax Treaty. Since 2002, US income tax residents have been able to make an election to defer US tax on the growth within an RRSP. The election is made by filing Form 8891 with a timely filed income tax return. Of course, the IRS will not permit a deduction for RRSP contributions; even so, Canada’s generally higher income tax rates usually mean that no US income tax is payable on the difference in taxable income, after foreign tax credits are applied. And, it is important to recall that RRSP accounts must be disclosed on FBAR returns annually.

This Treaty election is certainly helpful, but what should be done for those just hearing about their US tax obligations? The difficulty is that Form 8891 must be filed with a Form 1040 income tax return, so coming into compliance after the fact will not necessarily be effective. However, a trio of recent Private Letter Rulings (PLRs) from the IRS does provide some comfort regarding the IRS’ view on this issue.

As background, PLRs are written memoranda released by the IRS in response to specific enquiries by taxpayers regarding their tax situations (all personal information is redacted prior to public release on the IRS website). While these rulings are completely fact-specific, and cannot be used as legal precedents in any future cases, the IRS reasoning and interpretation of the rules can be instructive.

On September 12, 2013, three PLRs were released in which the IRS granted an extension to taxpayers in order to file appropriate Form 8891 Treaty Elections without penalty or interest accruing. In each case, the taxpayer was seeking discretionary relief from the IRS to permit late filings of Form 8891 in respect of their RRSP accounts in Canada. In each case, the extension was granted.

While each case was ostensibly decided on its own facts, a few common elements from all three cases are worth noting. First, in each case the taxpayer was otherwise tax compliant. This may be a relevant factor in terms of how the IRS would view late-filed Form 8891 – if the tax returns were timely filed at first instance, amended returns attaching the Treaty election form may be less likely to attract attention.

More significantly, however, in each case the IRS made a point of noting that the taxpayers promptly took action upon learning about the need to file Form 8891. The taxpayers did not wait until the IRS sent letters or notices of deficiency regarding the RRSP income.

The regulation that permits the IRS to grant extensions (i.e. Treasury Regulation § 301.9100-3(a)) requires that the taxpayer must satisfy the Commissioner that she acted reasonably and in good faith, and that the grant of relief will not prejudice the interests of the US government.

This factor should serve as fair warning to anyone in this position who is still trying to decide how to deal with their US tax compliance issues. While it may be the simplest and cheapest option, leaving your head in the sand is unlikely to earn any sympathy from the IRS if and when your delinquency does come to their attention. Instead, acknowledging an honest mistake and taking action to come into compliance will help to build a set of facts that will permit the IRS to grant some leniency toward your situation.

Article By:

 of

The Financial Crisis and A New Round of Deaccessioning Debates

Sheppard Mullin 2012

When public institutions are suffering from financial deficits, one question is usually raised: can they sell art to survive? In the museum world it is generally understood that you are to deaccession art only if the work is duplicative of another work in the collection, or for similar collections-related reasons, and the sale proceeds are used exclusively for collections activities. Therefore, for example, you cannot seek to sell art to obtain sufficient liquidity to meet any financial obligation, or make debt service payments. There is little government regulation on deaccessioning (for example, the NY Board of Regents has the power to provide limitations on deaccessioning on New York museums chartered after 1890). However, private institutions such as the American Alliance of Museums (“AAM”) and the Association of Art Museum Directors (“AAMD”) have adopted for their members certain policy guidelines on deaccessioning. Their members are subject to sanctions such as censure, suspension and/or expulsion in the event they do not follow these guidelines.

This is the debate currently happening in the city of Detroit, which has recently filed for bankruptcy, and countries in Europe such as Spain, where steep cuts in its budget have affected state-sponsored museums such as the Prado museum.

As for Detroit’s bankruptcy, some have argued whether the Detroit Institute of Arts (“DIA”) should sell its artwork, yielding an estimate of $2 billion (the city of Detroit has a $20 billion debt). The DIA has 600,000 annual visitors and a collection of approximately 65,000 artworks. Michigan’s attorney general, Bill Schuette, has stated that DIA’s artworks were ‘held in trust for the public’ and could only be sold for the purpose of acquiring new art. Others have claimed that the collection should be sold to refrain Detroit’s retired employees from losing part of their pensions.

From a bankruptcy law perspective, municipalities, unlike businesses, cannot be forced to liquidate their municipal assets (the concept which provides that if a debtor wishes to reorganize it must provide creditors with at least as much as they would get in liquidation does not apply to municipalities). A municipal restructuring plan cannot be approved unless it complies with state law, and as mentioned above, Michigan’s attorney general issued a non-binding opinion stating that the artworks were held in trust for the citizens of Michigan, and thus cannot be sold.

As for Spain, the Spanish Official Gazette has published the annual statements of the Prado museum and one thing is clear: art is not immune to Spain’s recession. Patronage from the Spanish government had a 28% drop (from approximately €6.6 million to €4.8 million) in the last 2 years. However, rather than deaccessioning, this drop has been set off by increasing its international loans. Therefore, the museum authorities allocated these foreign loans receipts as deemed patronage, and this has allowed the museum to stabilize its balance sheet. The annual statements report that the main private sponsors for temporary exhibitions were Axa, Telefónica, BBVA and La Caixa, who contributed a total aggregate amount of €625,000. However, the statements do not specify how much the museums actually invested in setting up such temporary exhibitions. The Contemporary Art Institute (Instituto de Arte Contemporáneo) has been criticizing the lack of transparency in museums and art galleries that receive sponsorship or other type of financial assistance from the state. This Institute has created standards of best practices for contemporary art museums (the “Standards”), which attempt to follow the path of the AAM’s National Standards and Best Practices for U.S. Museums (see http://www.aam-us.org/resources/ethics-standards-and-best-practices/standards and http://www.iac.org.es/seguimiento-del-documento-de-buenas-practicas/documento-de-buenas-practicas-en-museos-y-centros-de-arte).

Spain’s Ministry of Culture was actively involved in drafting these Standards, which were revised and signed in 2007 by the Ministry of Culture, the Contemporary Art Institute, and other prestigious institutions, such as ADACE (Association of Directors of Contemporary Art in Spain), CG (the Consortium of Contemporary Art Galleries), UAAV (the Association of Visual Artists), CCAV (the Board of Critics of Visual Arts), and UAGAE (the Association of Art Galleries of Spain). As in the United States, the Standards are voluntary. The pressure by funders, regulators, the press and the public may be considerable, but museums still choose to follow, or not, the Standards. As of this date, of all 50 museums ranked by the Contemporary Art Institute, only two museums comply with the Standards’ minimum requirements: the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía and the Artium.

Spain is also trying to overcome the steep cuts in state subsidies and public grants for art institutions by enacting a bill that will heavily increase tax benefits for museum’s private donors (mirroring the French system) through the Patronage Act (Ley de Mecenazgo). If this bill is passed, tax deductions will increase from 25% to 70% for natural persons, and from 35% to 65% for legal persons. Moreover, small donations of less than €150 will be fully deductible. The aim is to achieve France’s success, where revenues increased from €150 million to € 683 million in a seven-year period (2004 to 2011).

In conclusion, the vast majority of museums are nonprofit and ask for public support in return for providing some kind of public good. Thus, it is essential that museums are broadly accountable for their conduct, in particular in times of recession.

Should they sell part of their collection, or should they choose Spain’s path? i.e. advocate for a subset of artworks in the collection to be sent on a 10-year tour (or less) to museums around the world, receiving a revenue stream while having part of its collection available for the public as a representative and emissary of the city of Detroit? Or is there another path?

 of

Lessons Learned about Real Estate Lending in this Last Recession

Michael Best Logo

We all know real estate, and especially real estate lending, was heavily affected by the recession. Now that banks are starting to lend again, what can we learn from those bad years to set us on a better course for the future?

1. Real estate lending in the last cycle. We learned problem loans arose principally on loans with high loan to value ratios, or based on projections that were too optimistic, or in geographic markets where the lender did not have good market knowledge, and especially where the bank became more of a joint venturer with the developer. Smaller community banks especially felt more pressure to help home grown companies expand.

2. Problems exposed in the recession and recovery.

  • Appraisal methodology. Through the hard lessons of foreclosure and bankruptcy we learned more acutely about appraisal methodology, and the weaknesses of this methodology in troubled times became transparent. We learned that, although appraisers are not supposed to take “forced sales” into account in calculating fair market value, when the market is thin, “forced sales” may be the only comparables.
  • Exercise of developer’s rights. We also learned a developer’s decisions can have a drastic impact on a lenders’ ability to recover collateral, and on holding costs during workout or foreclosure. This was especially clear in cases where a condominium developer suddenly expanded the condominium into future phases, even when units were not selling, thus creating many separate tax key numbers with separate real estate tax bills, separate condominium association assessments, and no means of reversing that decision except with unanimous or near-unanimous consent of all condo unit owners and their lenders.
  • Interstate Land Sale Act. Condo unit buyers attempting to cancel contracts to purchase condos whose value had fallen, started using the long-dormant Interstate Land Sale Act as a weapon, with increased liability to developers.
  • Priority of municipality’s rights under development agreements. The Baylake Bank case in Wisconsin highlighted the ability to challenge the priority of charges and obligations contained in municipal development agreements.
  • Drastic impacts to condominium and homeowners’ associations’ budgets. Failure of even a small percentage of condo unit owners or homeowners to pay their assessments resulted in grave difficulties in that association’s ability to function.
  • Foreclosing on less than all needed assets of a project. Lenders foreclosing on projects discovered they lacked the ability to make needed changes in the project to facilitate its resale and needed to negotiate with their delinquent borrowers to secure Declarant rights reserved in condo declarations, permits issued only in the borrower’s name, and necessary easements.

3. Reaction to market risks. In response to these risks exposed in the recession, parties in the real estate market took action.

  • Title insurance changes. In reaction to the sudden increase in title claims, title companies not only increased their fees substantially, but also reversed their practice of deleting the “creditor’s rights” exception in their policies.
  • Secondary mortgage market changes. In response to liability claims, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Department of Veterans Affairs and others modified their requirements for purchase of loans from primary lenders, which changed requirements for condominium declarations and strongly encouraged phasing of projects.
  • Lending changes. Lenders are now under more scrutiny and stiffer governmental oversight on all real estate loans.

Those of us who are involved in the commercial real estate world hope we are starting on a new cycle of expansion. However the “hangover” of this recession will require us to change our documents and practices for success in this new period.

Article By:

 of

Lawsuits Against Creditors of NewPage

Michael Best Logo

The trustee for the litigation trust resulting from the NewPage Corporation bankruptcy has launched nearly 800 lawsuits against pre-bankruptcy creditors of NewPage Corporation seeking payment to the trust.

The lawsuits (also called adversary proceedings) have been filed in Delaware bankruptcy court by litigation trustee Pirinate Consulting Group LLC to recover allegedly preferential payments made in the months prior to the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in September, 2011.

Much to the surprise of many who did business with the debtor prior to the bankruptcy filing, not only are they waiting for payment on amounts owed, but they will now face claims that they must give back monies previously received.

Defendants should know there are often defenses to these claims, including that the allegedly preferential payments were made in the ordinary course of business or that additional goods were shipped after those allegedly preferential payments were received. Upon receipt of a complaint, defendants should contact counsel knowledgeable about bankruptcy avoidance actions for assistance. Failure to respond to the adversary proceeding complaint in a timely manner, can result in a judgment and collection efforts by the litigation trustee.

Article By:

 of

Second Circuit Rules Against Make-Whole Premium for Refinancing of Accelerated Debt

MintzLogo2010_Black

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld a bankruptcy court’s decision enforcing indenture language providing for the automatic acceleration, without make-whole premium, of secured American Airline, Inc. notes upon American Airline Inc.’s bankruptcy filing.  The Second Circuit’s September 12 opinion generally follows that of the lower court, discussed in our February 20, 2013 blogpost, and likewise holds that the subsequent refinancing of the accelerated notes did not convert the acceleration into a voluntary redemption on which a make-whole premium would have been due.

The Second Circuit’s opinion does not hold that make-whole premiums are unenforceable in bankruptcy, it merely applies express language in a particular indenture stating that the make-whole premium is inapplicable to an acceleration upon bankruptcy.  Accordingly, creditors that wish to preserve the possibility of obtaining a makewhole premium (or other type of prepayment premium) if their debt is repaid in bankruptcy should insist upon express indenture language to the effect that a make whole premium (or other premium) is due upon acceleration.  Whether or not a court would enforce such a premium is left unaddressed by the Second Circuit ‘s decision; however, the opinion aligns the Second Circuit with courts that have held that automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy clauses in debt instruments are enforceable, because the bankruptcy code’s proscription on the enforcement of so-called ipso facto clauses triggered by bankruptcy applies only to executory contracts, and debt instruments are not executory.

Article By:

 of

 

Former Head of Investor Relations Penalized by SEC for Selectively Disclosing Material Nonpublic Information, While Self-Disclosing Company Escapes Charges

Katten Muchin

The selective and early disclosure of material non-public information resulted in a Securities and Exchange Commission cease and desist order and civil penalties against the former head of investor relations at First Solar, Inc. (First Solar or the Company), an Arizona-based solar energy company. The SEC determined that Lawrence D. Polizzotto violated Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation FD by informing certain analysts and investors ahead of the market that First Solar would likely not receive an important and much anticipated loan guarantee commitment of nearly $2 billion from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The day after those disclosures, the Company publicly disclosed this information in a press release, causing its stock price to dip six percent.

On September 13, 2011, First Solar’s then-CEO publicly expressed confidence at an investor conference that the Company would receive three loan guarantees of close to $4.5 billion, which the DOE previously committed to granting upon satisfaction of certain conditions. Polizzotto and several other First Solar executives learned a couple of days later that the Company would not receive the largest of the three guarantees. An in-house lawyer expressly advised a group of First Solar employees, including Polizzotto, that they could not answer questions from analysts and investors until the Company both received official notice from the DOE and issued a press release or posted an update on the guarantee to its website. According to the SEC, notwithstanding this instruction, Polizzotto and a subordinate, acting at Polizzotto’s direction, had one-on-one phone conversations with approximately 30 sell-side analysts and institutional investors prior to First Solar’s public disclosure. In the conversations, they conveyed the low probability that First Solar would receive one of the three guarantees. In some instances, Polizzotto went further and said that a conservative investor should assume that the guarantee would not be granted.

Polizzotto agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the charges without admitting or denying any of the SEC’s findings. He, however, was not subject to even a temporary industry bar. The SEC did not bring an enforcement action against First Solar due to the Company’s cooperation with the investigation, as well as its self-disclosure to the SEC promptly after discovering Polizzotto’s selective disclosure. In addition, the SEC emphasized the strong “environment of compliance” at the Company, including the “use of a disclosure committee that focused on compliance with Regulation FD” and the fact that the Company took remedial measures to address improper conduct, including conducting additional compliance training.

In the Matter of Lawrence D. Polizzotto, File No. 3-15458 (Sept. 6, 2013).

The Facts on FATCA – Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On August 19, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service introduced its new registration portal to assist Foreign Financial Institutions (“FFI”) as they make efforts to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA“). Financial firms (banks, investment funds, and insurance companies) around the world must comply with the law, aimed at keeping US persons from hiding income and assets overseas, or risk serious consequences that could shut them out of financial markets. In recent years, the U.S. government has suspected that U.S. persons are underreporting massive sums of money hidden in offshore accounts.

FATCA was enacted as part of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010 (“HIRE”). Under FATCA, FFIs are required to collect, verify, and provide information about their U.S. clients to the IRS. If they fail to do so, they are subject to a 30% withholding tax on U.S. source payments. To assist foreign countries with the Act’s reporting requirements, the U.S. Treasury Department developed model Intergovernmental Agreements (“IGAs”). FATCA implementation has been tumultuous, largely because there are foreign governments which have not entered into these IGAs with the U.S. government. To date, the Treasury has signed ten IGAs, and is engaged in ongoing conversations with more than 80 other countries. The Act was scheduled to take effect in January 2014, but the enforcement date has been postponed to July 2014. As of now, the IRS will start collecting firms’ customer account information in 2015.

FATCA implementation is set to occur in three phases. The first is implementation of the Act itself, with the collection of information regarding U.S. accountholders in FFIs. Second, FATCA partner countries will enter into bilateral agreements for the purpose of exchanging this information. Last, this information will be transferred to a centralized FATCA database that acts as the central repository for offshore account information for all countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (“OECD”). A list of these countries can be found here.

There has been significant resistance from FFIs, who are opposed to the IRS snooping into their financial affairs and frustrated with FATCA’s reporting and compliance requirements. Many FFIs believe that the law turns them into tax collectors and burdens them with a job that the IRS should be handling itself. Some FFIs, faced with the complicated burdens and tax exposure risks, have simply chosen to drop their U.S. clients. Major banks like HSBC, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and Commerzbank are among those that have done so. This, of course, presents a major problem to Americans who conduct business or invest internationally; it is harder to obtain bank accounts, find insurance coverage, and qualify for loans. Expatriates are especially hard hit by institutions that are dropping American clients. Businesses are not exempt, either. Pursuant to FATCA, FFIs are required to report any private foreign corporation, business, or partnership in which a U.S. citizen is a ten percent or greater shareholder. A foreseeable consequence of the law is that foreigners become hesitant to do business with U.S. citizens because FATCA could expose sensitive account information and compel tax investigations.

Curbing tax evasion is a worthy goal, but FATCA comes at an expense to the law-abiding Americans citizens, expatriates, and businesses that engage in financial transactions overseas. Whether it will be a successful endeavor remains to be seen, but you can be sure that the side effects of it are already being felt by many.

International Group Structures Are Subject to An Ongoing Review for Optimizing Their Tax Position

GT Law

The recent trends show that offshore jurisdictions are off the corporate agenda in view of the increased scrutiny and decreased levels of acceptance from both fiscal and corporate social responsibility perspectives. Client feedback confirms the following rationale for moving corporate tax planning solutions onshore:

  • Increased scrutiny on tax havens and statutory requirements regarding tax substance, potential issues concerning withholding tax and taxation of foreign profits; and
  • Avoiding overtly complicated tax systems with strict CFC (controlled foreign company) regulations, thin capitalization rules and prohibitive transfer tax applicability.

It is a well-known fact that the Netherlands is not a tax haven but a safe haven and a logical choice as an alternative with an extensive double taxation treaty network. In addition, the Netherlands has an extensive bilateral investment protection treaty network that is regarded to provide premium coverage in view of the broad definition of “investor” and “investment” and providing access to dispute resolution through arbitration against independent states and awards that are enforceable against states, often referred to as “the Dutch Gold Standard.” Dutch structures are increasingly a recurring feature in international corporate structures for the purpose of protecting key corporate and personal assets. In this GT Alert, we briefly set out the options for migrating a corporate structure to the Netherlands to benefit from the all of the features that the Netherlands has to offer.

How to Achieve a Corporate Migration

Migrating a corporate entity within the EU into the Netherlands is a straightforward process from a Dutch law perspective. The following options are available:

Registration of an EU member state entity with the Dutch Trade Registry

The tax residence of an existing holding company can often be changed by moving its place of effective management and control outside of its existing jurisdiction for tax purposes. This may trigger a tax charge on exit.

Cross border merger

EU parent companies can migrate to the Netherlands by effecting a statutory merger with a Dutch entity under the cross-border merger regulations. It is also possible for non-EU parent companies to merge with a Dutch company by initially entering into the EU through a conduit EU jurisdiction that permits cross-border mergers with non-EU entities.

Share swap

It is possible to incorporate a holding company in the Netherlands whereby the existing shareholders exchange their existing shares for shares in the newly created Dutch holding company.

Re-registration as Societas Europaea 

An EU parent company can re-register as a European Company (Societas Europaea) and transfer its statutory seat to the Netherlands followed by a re-registration in the Netherlands as a Dutch parent company.

Why migrate to the Netherlands?

Key drivers for migrating the top holding company of an international group structure to the Netherlands are:

  • Low corporate income tax rate of 25% on trading profits (20% up to EUR 200K first band);
  • The Netherlands has an extensive double taxation treaty network with well over 90 jurisdictions;
  • The Netherlands has entered into a vast number of bilateral investment protection treaties (BITS) that offer comprehensive protection against unfair treatment of investments by sovereign states through access to world class dispute arbitration;
  • International and well-recognized jurisdiction with one-tier corporate governance system similar to that of common law countries;
  • Straightforward, cost-efficient and fast incorporation process for Dutch entities;
  • Public company N.V. entities are widely recognized as listing vehicles;
  • The Netherlands is the premier port of entry to mainland Europe with excellent facilities in terms of corporate and financial services;
  • English language optional for proceedings before the Amsterdam courts; and
  • Limited and straightforward corporate reporting requirements.

Taxation

The Netherlands is a gateway to Europe and the rest of the world. For many years, the Netherlands has been a preferred location for foreign companies to establish a business. The location, the political stability and, especially, the beneficial tax regime have turned the Netherlands into one of the go-to countries in this respect. The following tax points are of particular relevance:

  • The general Dutch corporate income tax rate is 25% (20% up to EUR 200K first band). This rate is more than competitive in the region, as all countries surrounding the Netherlands have higher corporate income tax rates.
  • Traditionally, the Dutch participation exemption has been a major attractor of companies to the Netherlands. This facility allows the receipt of dividends and capital gains from subsidiaries free of tax in the Netherlands. The Dutch facility is still one of the most flexible and easy accessible compared to other jurisdictions, especially, with regard to the following conditions: no holding period is required, an interest of 5% is already sufficient to apply, interest in subsidiaries located in tax havens are allowed to benefit from the facility and certain other specific benefits are available.
  • No withholding tax on royalties and no withholding tax on interest.
  • Dividends are taxed at a statutory rate of 15%. However, this rate may be reduced by virtue of tax treaties to 0-10%. In principle, no dividend withholding tax applies to distributions made by a Dutch cooperative pursuant to the domestic rules.
  • No controlled foreign company/Subpart F rules
  • No thin capitalization rules.
  • There is no stamp duty or capital tax.
  • One of the most extensive international tax treaty networks (the Netherlands has concluded over 90 tax treaties, more than most other countries) and the membership of the EU (and corresponding access to EU treaties) ascertain minimal taxation on payments to any group company.
  • Another traditional benefit of the Netherlands is the open attitude of the Dutch tax authorities. The Netherlands offers the possibility to discuss and reach agreement on tax positions in advance with the Dutch tax authorities that can be formalized in agreements (or advance tax rulings) to offer optimum certainty in advance.
  • Currently, the Dutch government´s main focus is on innovation. In 2007, the government was one of the first countries to introduce a special tax regime aimed at innovation (Innovation box). Based on the Innovation box, income earned out of R&D activities can benefit from an 80% exemption, resulting in an effective tax rate of 5%;
  • The Netherlands has extensive experience in the use of hybrid structures (i.e. hybrid entities and hybrid loans). These structures can be used to further optimize the group tax rate.
  • The Netherlands has traditionally not only been very welcoming to foreign companies, but also to expatriates. In the Dutch Personal Income Tax Act, expatriates (with certain skills) can receive 30% of their income as a tax free allowance under the so-called “30%-ruling.” A benefit that also benefits the employer in negotiating (net) salaries.
  • Customs authorities in the Netherlands have a reputation for being cooperative, innovative and exceptionally efficient; all to facilitate the free flow of goods. Customs duties or import charges are charged at a later date, if the goods are stored in accordance with customs procedures in the Netherlands. This leads to considerable cash-flow advantages to foreign shippers.
  • The Netherlands’ position on Value Added Tax (VAT) is also advantageous. In contrast to other EU member states, the Netherlands has instituted a system that provides for the deferment of VAT at the time of import. Instead of paying VAT when the goods are imported into free circulations within the EU, the payment can be deferred to a periodic VAT return. The Dutch VAT system offers companies significant cash-flow and interest benefits.
  • Even though the Netherlands provides several unparalleled tax facilities, it is not blacklisted as a tax haven, but can be considered as a safe haven.
Article By:

 of