Category: Financial Services Law

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.

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming  Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

CFSB Sept 30 2013

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

  • University of Maryland
  • Francis King Carey School of Law
  • 500 W Baltimore St
  • Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
  • United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

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

Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act (FIAFEA): A Novel Approach To Protecting Financial Institutions From Themselves

tz logo 2

In a matter of first impression, Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) not only prohibits fraud perpetrated by a third party that harms a financial institution, but also renders unlawful fraudulent conduct committed by a financial institution that results in harm to itself. In the case of U.S. v. Bank of New York Melon (“BNYM”), the Government alleged that BNYM violated FIRREA by engaging in a scheme to defraud its clients regarding the pricing of foreign exchange trades and that the bank was ultimately harmed by its own misconduct.

FIRREA was passed in the late 1980s in reaction to the savings and loan crisis, and although it has been around for nearly a quarter century, it has not been utilized very often until recently. The law allows the Government to bring a civil action against any individual or entity for violating a number of criminal statutes prohibiting fraud, including mail and wire fraud, if the fraud affects a federally insured financial institution. In the case against BNYM, the Government asserted that the bank committed mail and wire fraud by making false representations regarding its pricing of foreign currency trades in connection with its “standing instruction” program. Under BNYM’s standing instruction program, the bank automatically set the price of foreign currency trades, relieving the client of the need to contact the bank directly and negotiate a price. BNYM allegedly represented that its standing instruction program provided “best execution” with respect to its foreign currency trades, which within the financial industry was commonly understood to mean that the client received the best available market price at the time the trade was executed. According to the lawsuit, however, BNYM did not provide best execution as the term was understood within the industry and instead priced its currency trades within a range least favorable to its clients.

Over time, BNYM’s clients allegedly learned about its pricing practices, which led to a number of lawsuits being filed against the bank by investors and customers, potentially exposing the bank to billions of dollars in liability. In addition, many of BNYM’s clients allegedly terminated their relationship with the bank in the wake of the revelations about its currency pricing policies. Thus, according to the lawsuit, BNYM’s fraudulent misrepresentations with regard to its currency pricing practices ultimately harmed the bank by causing it to lose customers and exposing it to liability.

In response, BNYM argued that it could not be held liable under FIRREA because the financial institution harmed by the fraud must be the victim of the fraud or an innocent bystander, not the perpetrator of the fraud. The Court rejected this argument explaining that, in passing FIRREA, Congress’s goal was to broadly deter fraudulent conduct that might put a federally insured financial institution at risk. Accordingly, it was entirely consistent with Congress’s intent to render unlawful fraudulent conduct perpetrated by a financial institution and its employees that affects the financial institution itself in order to deter these institutions from engaging in such misconduct in the future.

This decision represents a potentially important breakthrough for whistleblowers. Under the Financial Institutions Anti-Fraud Enforcement Act (“FIAFEA”), a whistleblower that provides information to the Government regarding fraudulent activity affecting a financial institution that constitutes a violation of FIRREA may be entitled to a reward if the Government obtains a monetary recovery. Unlike other whistleblower statutes, a whistleblower recovery under FIAFEA does not hinge on whether the Government has suffered a monetary loss. If a whistleblower is aware of fraudulent conduct affecting a financial institution-even if the only financial institution that is harmed by the fraud is the very same institution that engaged in it-FIAFEA provides an avenue for disclosing the fraud to the authorities with the potential upside of a substantial reward for doing so. Given the recklessness and misconduct that led to the Great Financial Disaster, the Government’s use of FIRREA and FIAFEA to protect financial institutions from their own excesses is not only warranted, but may also deter future misconduct, just as Congress intended.

 

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming  Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

CFSB Sept 30 2013

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

  • University of Maryland
  • Francis King Carey School of Law
  • 500 W Baltimore St
  • Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
  • United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Is a Limited Liability Company (LLC) good for Canadians buying in the U.S.?

Altro Levy Logo

If you are Canadian, the answer to that question is: it depends.

People purchasing real estate in the U.S. are faced with different challenges depending on whether they plan on using the property personally or renting it. In this article, we will address the latter issue and its different implications.

A Tax Efficient Structure

There are two main issues to be considered when renting property in the U.S.; income tax and liability. Because rental properties generate income, it is necessary to determine the most tax efficient structure in which to hold the property. On the other hand, because a third party (most likely a tenant) will be using the property, it is essential to create a structure that also offers creditor protection to protect against potential civil liability claims from such third party. A limited liability company (LLC) provides both those elements.

In the U.S., an LLC allows a purchaser to benefit from the low individual tax rates and therefore avoid the higher corporate tax rates inherent to owning property in a corporation. A corporation is an independent taxpayer and is taxed at a higher rate. However, an LLC is not an independent taxpayer but rather a “flow through” entity, which means that its revenue is taxed in the hands of its owner. Therefore, if the owner is an individual, the LLC’s revenue is taxed at the low individual rate.

Creditor Protection

Although one of the main goals of tax planning is to minimize tax, the main advantage of the LLC is creditor protection. When owning property in your personal name, you are exposed to liability claims from creditors such as a tenant who may have suffered injuries on your property while renting it. Should a judgement be rendered against you finding you liable for the injuries, the creditor could seek execution of this judgment not only against your U.S. property but also against the rest of your assets. However, when owning property in an LLC, only the assets in your LLC (i.e. your U.S. property) are within reach of the creditor.

The Issue for Canadian Buyers

After reading this, you may be thinking an LLC is the best solution for your U.S. real estate purchase. Unfortunately this structure can be disastrous for Canadian residents due to double taxation. Under the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty, a Canadian resident is granted foreign tax credits for any tax paid to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Those credits can be used to offset the tax owed to the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) on the same revenue or capital gain. Although the IRS considers the LLC as a flow through entity and taxes only the owner personally, the CRA does not recognize the flow through nature of the LLC but rather considers it a separate taxpayer, therefore creating a mismatch on said foreign tax credits. In this type of situation, the CRA will tax the owner of the property on the full amount of the revenue or capital gain and will not allow the use of any foreign tax credits for what was paid to the IRS. This is the known and dreaded double taxation. The owner of the property will pay taxes twice on the same revenue or capital gain, once in the U.S. and once in Canada. Depending on the values and amounts involved, Canadian residents can be required to pay in excess of 70% of taxes on their property income or capital gain due to double taxation. In extreme circumstances, this rate can even climb up to 80%.

That being said, even though LLCs should be avoided in the above-described situation, LLCs can be a valuable tool in a carefully planned structure. As general partner of a Limited Partnership for example. When used in such a structure, an LLC can help provide an extra layer of creditor protection to a Canadian resident while creating very limited tax consequences.

As you probably realised by now, the way you own property in the U.S. is crucial and putting your asset(s) in the wrong structure can lead to very unpleasant surprises. Always talk to a cross-border legal advisor before making any decisions in order to make sure you are aware of all the tax implications.

Article By:

 of

Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013 – September 30 – October 01, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming  Consumer Financial Services Basics 2013.

CFSB Sept 30 2013

When

September 30 – October 01, 2013

Where

  • University of Maryland
  • Francis King Carey School of Law
  • 500 W Baltimore St
  • Baltimore, MD 21201-1701
  • United States of America

Facing the most comprehensive revision of federal consumer financial services (CFS) law in 75 years, even experienced consumer finance lawyers might feel it is time to get back in the classroom. This live meeting is designed to expose practitioners to key areas of consumer financial services law, whether you need a primer or a refresher.

It is time to take a step back and think through some of these complex issues with a faculty that combines decades of practical experience with law school analysis. The classroom approach is used to review the background, assess the current policy factors, step into the shoes of regulators, and develop an approach that can be used to interpret and evaluate the scores of laws and regulations that affect your clients.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Proposes Rules for Systemically Important Derivatives Clearing Organizations (SIDCO) to Conform to International Standards

Katten Muchin

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has proposed additional standards for systemically important derivatives clearing organizations (SIDCOs) that are consistent with the Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures published by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions. The proposed rules include new or revised standards for governance, financial resources, system safeguards, default rules and procedures for uncovered losses or shortfalls, risk management, disclosure, efficiency, and recovery and wind-down procedures.

The proposed rules are designed to assure that SIDCOs will be deemed to be qualifying central counterparties (QCCPs) for purposes of international bank capital standards set by the BIS’ Basel Committee for Banking Supervision. The proposed rules would also allow a derivatives clearing organization (DCO) that is not a SIDCO to elect to opt in to the SIDCO regulatory requirements, thereby allowing the DCO to be deemed a QCCP.

The CFTC’s proposing release is available here.

Article By:

 of