January 2006 Issue No. 49

Welcome to the January 2006 edition of
Business Leasing and Finance News
formerly Business Leasing News

About BLFN: David G. Mayer, a Business Group partner at Patton Boggs LLP, founded this monthly e-newsletter in January 2002. BLFN’s mission is to provide leasing and financing strategies for your success.

Subscribe for Free: Sign up to receive BLFN’s monthly editions for free! Our subscribers hail from more than 35 countries and include business, finance, risk management, tax, accounting and legal professionals, government officials, entrepreneurs and media. Join us today!

*************************************************************

FOUNDER'S NOTE
By David G. Mayer

"A Forward Look"

This issue of Business Leasing News kicks off our FIFTH year of publication—this being the 49th consecutive monthly issue. Time sure flies, doesn’t it? This edition starts the new flexible and shortened format, including this simpler, shorter note (instead of the “Message from the Founder” article) from yours truly. Each Founder’s Note will focus on the topics contained in the current edition of BLN.

This issue supports the title of this Founder’s Note: Forward Look. It focuses on potential for hitting our numbers in foreign and domestic market transactions in 2006. For risk managers, lenders and lessors who finance large ticket assets, including real estate, you probably will yawn a bit at the extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. Insurers, however, will breathe a small sigh of relief as the federal government continues to backstop terrorism risk. BLN also provides you tax gurus, and asset sellers, a glance at how to effect a like-kind exchange and a reverse like-kind exchange, which is a method to defer taxes for a potentially long period of time. Take a look at recent articles I have written with help from people mentioned, relating to the Cape Town Convention, which enters into effect March 1, 2006. Aircraft leasing, selling and financing will never be the same, and it is crucial to understand this new Treaty for those involved in aviation finance, leasing and sales.

Happy New Year! Thanks, as always, for reading Business Leasing News.

 

1. A Financing Dilemma: Cash May Be King for Capital Spending in 2006

Business leaders generally express a positive view of business prospects for 2006. The gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to grow between 3 to 4 percent this year, demonstrating continued resilience in 2006 against downward pressure from costs in healthcare, energy, higher interest rates and natural disasters. See Business Outlook: U.S.: Business Gets Behind The Wheel, BusinessWeek Online (Dec. 26, 2005).

What Business Leaders Say About Economic Growth in 2006

As 2005 came to a close, a bevy of organizations issued their predictions for 2006, with certain industry sources predicting increases in capital spending. See Manufacturers to Spend $17.6 Billion on Capital Equipment in 2006, Monitordaily (Dec. 21, 2005).

*Tip: It is crucial for businesses and professionals to understand the 2006 outlook to help make the right strategic decisions for capital investment, financing, marketing, business planning and risk management. Global Insight offers ten predictions you should evaluate in making your business plans. See Top-10 Economic Predictions for 2006 by Nariman Behravesh, Chief Economist, Global Insight (Dec. 30, 2005).

The following offers a sampling of the surveys:

• Business Roundtable CEOs. Despite the devastation of the natural disasters in 2005, notably hurricane Katrina, CEOs in the Business Roundtable (BR), representing $4 trillion in sales, expressed optimism for economic growth in 2006. In its CEO Economic Outlook, BR reports expectations for 2006 at 101.4. This rating is the second-highest rating after its all-time high of 104.4 in the first quarter of 2005. Notably, 87 percent of CEOs expect sales increases in 2006. CEOs also indicate that 56 percent of their companies expect to increase capital spending while only 40 percent expect no change.

• Bank of America CFO Survey. Bank of America Business Capital conducted a survey of manufacturing Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) called the 2006 CFO Outlook. Nearly 73 percent of the CFOs expect their revenues to increase, while 46 percent expect increases in their profit margins. Tempering these generally positive views, only 58 percent of the CFOs expect the economy to grow this year, the lowest score in three years, as contrasted to 77 percent about a year ago who expected the business grow in 2005.

• Association of Financial Professionals. The APF published its APF 2006 Business Outlook Survey in December 2005. Like the other groups, APF sees growth in the GDP at 3 to 4 percent. Forty-seven percent expect improvement in business conditions in 2006 while about 41 percent expect no change. Seventy-nine percent of the financial professionals stated that inflation will increase in 2006 and 62 percent expect business investment to increase over the next twelve months. Most of the professionals expect interest rate increases to continue in 2006.

BusinessWeek’s article summarizes the trend it sees as follows:

For the past couple of years, housing and consumer spending have been in the driver's seat. Now it's time for the business sector to give those two a break. And by all indications, companies are ready to take over. They are optimistic, efficient, eager to expand their operations, and most of all financially fit.

An assemblage of economists for The Wall Street Journal agree: “Strong spending by businesses should power the nation’s economy to a fifth straight year of expansion in 2006 . . ..” The Wall Street Journal (S.W. Ed), Page A:1, Col. 6 (Jan. 3, 2006).

What Worries Business Leaders for 2006

Despite the upbeat reports, not all analysts agree with the positive trend. For example, in the 2006 CFO Outlook, for the fourth consecutive year, CFOs’ optimism about the manufacturing sector declined. Only one-third of CFOs forecast "expansion" in the manufacturing sector, a substantial decrease from the 44 percent citing expansion in last year’s survey. For the third year in a row, CEOs worried that health care costs (42 percent) present the most significant downward pressure on the economy followed by energy costs (27 percent). Fifty-seven percent of manufacturing company CFOs cited oil prices as having the greatest potential impact on the U.S. economy in 2006. Sixty percent of CFOs surveyed believed that the actions taken by the Federal Reserve Board helped the economy in 2005, as contrasted with 72 percent in 2004 and 83 percent in 2003. Even the economists polled by The Wall Street Journal caution that the “softening housing market is likely to slow the overall pace of growth.”

Financial professionals in the APF 2006 Business Outlook Survey identify factors that will increasingly affect the overall business environment. Unlike the other surveys, 75 percent of APF professionals cited rising interest rates as the greatest concern. They cited energy and health care costs as the next most worrisome economic threat. Not surprisingly, 40 percent expressed concern about rising deficits, up from 37 percent in the June 2005 survey. However, few professionals expressed any concern about availability of credit over the next 12 months, as 68 percent stated that short-term and long-term funding should remain stable this year.

*Opportunity Point: Thirty-one percent of the companies plan to increase their outstanding long-term credit over the next 12 months, suggesting that lessors and lenders will at least have new opportunities for new financing or leasing transactions in 2006.

The Institute for Supply Management reported a strong forecast in capital expenditures in non-manufacturing growth.  ISM stated that capital expenditures will increase by a “significant” 11.1 percent above the 2005 level of 5.3 percent. The largest increases in capital expenditures are expected in food, wood and wood products, electronic components and equipment, industrial equipment and computers, primary metals and other miscellaneous assets.

In a more specific survey on capital spending, Garner Publications, which focuses on discrete aspects of industrial markets, released its 38th annual survey on capital spending. The 2006 Capital Spending Survey and Forecast revealed that 61.6 percent of the respondents expect spending for machinery/equipment to increase 40 percent, down slightly from the 43.9 percent in 2005. About 45.2 percent expect spending to remain the same, up from 41.6 percent in 2005.

CFO Magazine conducted a survey of capital spending for the period 2001 to 2004. It found anything but clear sailing ahead, especially for those who argue that capital investment is the key to economic growth. See Sitting Tight: The 2005 Capital Spending Scorecard, CFO Magazine (Dec. 1, 2005). CFO Magazine stated:

There has been widespread fretting for the past two years as the nation's biggest companies have opted to squirrel away cash, buy back shares, or pay dividends rather than spend on new equipment and factories. U.S. capital spending among companies surveyed rose to $228 billion in 2004, up 6 percent from $215 billion in 2003 in a trend led by a broad cross-section of industries. . . . The question going forward, however, is whether companies can earn a satisfactory return on that spending, and here the study is not especially reassuring. On average, returns in the industries that account for most U.S. spending, telecom service providers and petrochemical makers, trail those in other industries.

 What Business Professionals Say About Increased Financing in 2006

In the Bank of America Capital 2006 CFO Outlook, only 25 percent of the CFOs expect their borrowing needs to increase in 2006. This finding is the lowest percentage in the eight-year history of the survey. Thirty-eight percent of the CFOs stated the top reason for financing is to make capital investments. However, 68 percent of manufacturing company CFOs plan to use internal sources as a means of financing in 2006, together with cash flow financing (46 percent), asset-based financing (39 percent) and leasing (34 percent).

What may be good news for business in general may represent bad news for financing. As BusinessWeek noted:

To begin with, the balance sheets of nonfinancial companies are about as pristine as they have ever been. . . . . Corporate debt, furthermore, is the most manageable in years. . . . Importantly, credit-market debt stood at only 45.5% of net worth in the third quarter, the lowest ratio in 18 years.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT COMPANIES are in good shape to borrow to meet their financing needs for next year's new buildings, equipment, inventories, and payrolls. It's that, as a sector, nonfinancial businesses don't really have to borrow at all. That's because internally generated funds from profits and depreciation allowances have grown 24.4% during the past year, the largest such increase in 25 years.

*Warning: Healthy company balance sheets bode well for financing transaction credit approvals, but if companies use cash to acquire capital assets, leasing or financing volume will fall, making growth targets for financing and leasing companies difficult to achieve in 2006. The most recent monthly leasing index (MLI) seems to support this concern. The MLI, issued December 30, 2005 by the Equipment Leasing Association, surveys approximately 20 major equipment leasing companies. It indicated a significant downturn in originations midway through the fourth quarter. It also stated that, in November, new business volume decreased from October’s $6.59 billion to $3.90 billion, representing a 40.8 percent decrease, the third lowest total in 2005.

The investment climate for 2006 appears partly cloudy with periods of bright sunshine. It is entirely possible that, for the financing and leasing operations, there may be some cloudy days ahead in 2006. Lenders and lessors will have to work hard this year to hit their numbers, but they should easily avoid bad financial results from any stormy economic conditions.

back to top

2. Fed Extends Terrorism Risk Insurance Act for Two Years

President Bush signed a two-year extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, 15 U.S.C. 6701 (Old TRIA) on December 22, 2005, preventing the federal backstop for terrorism insurance from expiring December 31, 2005. The new law, called the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 (New TRIA), extended and decreased the protection for insurers for a period of two years. New TRIA expires December 31, 2007.

After the events of September 11, 2001, the insurance industry argued that they needed protection under Old TRIA to backstop largely uninsurable and unpredictable terrorism risks and losses. Access to this federal protection arguably gave business confidence to recover from 9-11, re-ignited some economic growth and stabilized insurance markets. See TRIA Working Group Page of the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners).

New TRIA contains several important changes. New TRIA:

• Extends the Old TRIA program from December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2007 (Sec. 2);

• Raises the property and casualty insurance loss threshold that qualifies as an act of terrorism covered by New TRIA; namely, starting April 1, 2006, coverage for 90 percent of all losses above $5 million changes to 90 percent of $50 million in 2006 and 85 percent over $100 million in 2007 (Sec. 3(a) and Sec. 4);

• Excludes from covered lines of insurance: (1) commercial automobile insurance, (2) burglary and theft insurance, (3) surety insurance, (4) professional liability insurance, and (5) farm owners multiple peril insurance;

• Prescribes formulae for insurer deductibles of 17.5 percent of premiums in 2006 and 20 percent of premiums in 2007;

• Increases the retention by insurance companies under a new formula to $25 billion in 2006 and $27.5 billion in 2007; and

• Assures the federal government that it will recoup its share of insured loss compensation. 

*Technical Point: See TRIA To Be Extended: House & Senate Pass Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2005, FrankCrystal & Company (Dec. 20, 2005) for a more technical, industry description of the changes.

Despite the cost of Old TRIA and the implementation of New TRIA, insurance premiums may not rise immediately, though the premium levels will be subject to debate. See The Wall Street Journal (SW Ed.), Page A:2, Col. 3), Dec. 31, 2005. The irony is that terrorism insurance has gained little acceptance in the market from insureds even with the benefit of Old TRIA. See Despite Increased Risks, Terrorism Insurance Has Few Takers, Business Leasing News (April 2003).

*Tip: Even though the U.S. has not faced a known terrorist attack since 9-11, terrorism insurance should generally be obtained for any high-value asset, such as aircraft, that may be a potential terrorism target. See Despite Terrorism Threats, Insurance Market Offers Risk Mitigation Options, Business Leasing News (Oct. 2003). Make sure contracts to finance these assets require such coverage. You should fully understand the scope and exclusions of the terrorism coverage.

In all likelihood, New TRIA will not change the resistance to buying terrorism insurance because of its high cost and spotty coverage. Nonetheless, the insurance experts have argued, and undoubtedly continue to argue, for this unique federal program that protects insurers against catastrophic terrorism losses. See Consumer Federation: Let TRIA Program Die (April 26, 2004).

back to top

3. In 2006, International Markets Will Offer New Opportunities to Finance Capital Assets

As cheap capital floods U.S. markets, sophisticated lessors and lenders increasingly will turn to the international markets in 2006 to find new opportunities in cross-border and other international financings, as well as new opportunities in leasing.

*Term to Know: A cross-border financing is an arrangement between parties located in the U.S. and one or more foreign countries. Financing cash flows into, or out of, the U.S. to finance a transaction outside the country in which the funding originates. Many U.S. transactions involve the deployment of U.S. capital in non-U.S. markets such as Europe and Asia. For example, a U.S. lessor may, directly or through a local subsidiary or affiliate, lease railcars, vessels, aircraft, facilities or technology assets to a non-U.S. entity in Europe.

In its 2006 CFO Outlook, published in December 2005, Bank of America Business Capital found that, for the second consecutive year, 84 percent of manufacturing companies surveyed conduct business internationally. Sixty-seven percent sell to foreign markets and 45 percent have operations outside the United States. Sixty-eight percent of companies that sell to foreign markets expect sales to increase in 2006, compared to 62 percent last year.

In the State of the Industry Report 2005, the Equipment Leasing & Finance Foundation (ELFF) recognized the importance of international markets. The international markets present opportunities to increase volume and rate margins compared to domestic markets, but create a need for overseas presence and infrastructure. Despite these inherent risks and costs of international and cross-border operations, ELFF concludes in its section called Going Global 101:

In the U.S., business investment in equipment, the key determinant to the size of the leasing market, is expected to grow less than seven percent annually through 2006. Many lessors have growth goals that are significantly higher than the growth rate of the total industry. . . . In fact, [one lessor said] ‘planning growth at anything less than double-digits will likely get [you] fired.’ In order to meet growth and profitability goals, lessors may have to look overseas. The best players are already beginning to do so.

CFO Magazine reports in its article, Sitting Tight: The 2005 Capital Spending Scorecard, CFO Magazine (Dec. 1, 2005), that:

[T]otal capital expenditures for the 50 largest spenders in the United States fell slightly …between 2001 and 2004. In contrast, their European and Asian counterparts increased capital spending by 1.4 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively. Europe's biggest spenders have posted sales growth of 4.2 percent a year since 2001; Asia's big spenders recorded annual sales increases that averaged 9.7 percent.

*Tip: International markets may not suit the faint of heart among U.S. financial services companies, but with the assistance of knowledgeable risk management, legal, financial and other advisors, lessors and lenders can manage the various risks and rack up profits in numerous international markets. International markets have provided higher margins than U.S. markets in transportation, infrastructure/energy, technology and other transactions. It is crucial to note that the Cape Town Convention enters into force March 1, 2006. It should facilitate financing of business and commercial aircraft worldwide. See The Cape Town Convention: New Complexities and Opportunities, by David G. Mayer and Frank Polk, Aviation Partner at McAfee & Taft, LNJ’s Equipment Leasing Newsletter (Oct. 2005). To learn more about international leasing, visit the International Leasing Center of the web site of the Equipment Leasing Association.

With healthy balance sheets, Bank of America Business Capital’s 2006 CFO Outlook suggests that its respondent businesses expect to use their cash to seek ways to grow, including increased sales internationally. Forty-five percent of the respondents will have international operations this year as compared to 39 percent last year.

*Comment: With such a significant increase in foreign operations in one year, you could conclude that international expansion is a reasonable place for company expansion again this year as well as fertile ground to forage for growth in profits.

International markets no longer seem far away or as far-fetched a place for U.S. lenders and lessors to do business. In 2006 and beyond, non-U.S. markets may increasingly represent viable places to earn higher returns, provide a more sophisticated level of transaction capability and invest capital with manageable risks. The time to engage in cross-border and international transactions may have arrived in 2006 for lessors and lenders who understand that the future of investing may exist in all parts of the world.

back to top

4. Leasing 101: What Are a "Like-Kind Exchange," a “Reverse Like-Kind Exchange,” and a “Repetitive-Like-Kind Exchange”?

Would you like to defer paying taxes in 2006 on the sale of an asset or multiple assets? A like-kind exchange (LKE) or a reverse like-kind exchange (RLKE) under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, makes that possible.

Basic Like-Kind Exchange Concepts

Any U.S. taxpayer, which is the tax owner of property, such as a lessor, lessee or other seller, is eligible for this tax benefit. The taxpayer simply replaces existing business use or investment use property with similar assets in a like-kind or tax-deferred exchange transaction. Assets eligible for like-kind exchanges include aircraft, real estate, vehicles, heavy equipment, agricultural machinery and even billboards. For more on the LKE, see Leasing 101:  What is a "Like-Kind Exchange"?, by David G. Mayer, Business Leasing News (June 2002).

*Term to Know: Like-kind property is property of the same nature and kind used in a like manner by the taxpayer.  For tangible personal property like aircraft, you can exchange assets of a “like-kind” or “like-class.”  For example, like-class for aircraft falls into a General Asset Class as defined in the regulations under the Code.  The General Asset Class encompasses airplanes (airframes and engines), except those used in commercial or contract carry of passengers or freight, and all helicopters (airframes and-engines) (asset class 00.21).

Section 1031(a) provides that no gain or loss is recognized in a qualified LKE. The LKE occurs when property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment (called “relinquished property”) is exchanged solely for property of a like kind that is to be held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment (called the “replacement property”). The purpose of a like-kind exchange is to save the taxpayer from paying taxes on gains at the time of the sale. When you defer a tax payment, you save money. Taxpayers do pay the tax eventually, but can defer that day of reckoning as long as the taxpayer continues to complete valid exchanges under Section 1031 of the Code.

*Technical Point: A transaction may qualify for like-kind exchange treatment even though the taxpayer transfers cash with the property or the taxpayer receives cash in addition to the property, but in the latter case, the deferral benefit may be reduced or limited. If property subject to liability is transferred, the taxpayer may be treated as receiving cash equal to the liability, which reduces the amount of the deferral by that amount.

An exchange does not have to be simultaneous to qualify for favorable tax treatment. Under Section 1031(a)(3), a taxpayer must meet two crucial time requirements to qualify for each type of LKE:

First, the taxpayer must identify the replacement property on or before the 45th day after the taxpayer transfers the relinquished property; and

Second, the taxpayer must receive the replacement property before the 180th day after the date on which the taxpayer transfers the relinquished property.

*Warning: The 180-day period may be shortened to the due date (determined with regard to extensions) for the transferor’s federal income tax return (that is, the return of the taxpayer seeking to take the tax deferral benefit of the LKE from the transfer of property). The due date relates to the taxable year in which the transfer of the relinquished property occurs. By meeting these time periods, you still have to satisfy all requirements of Section 1031 and its regulations to achieve the deferral allowed by the LKE.

Taxpayers often used a qualified intermediary (often referred to as a “QI”), to facilitate LKEs. Various financial institutions, financial service companies or insurance companies offer services as a QI.

Repetitive Like-Kind Exchanges

A variation of the single LKE is the LKE program. In response to several inquiries by companies, which sought to use the benefits of LKEs for a multitude of assets on a repetitive basis, the IRS responded with the issuance of Rev. Proc. 2003-39. Rev. Proc. 2003-39 lists a series of safe harbors that address both operational and business considerations involved in implementing an ongoing or repetitive LKE program using a single intermediary. Recognizing that LKE programs may differ in many ways, the IRS described ten main characteristics that the LKE program must contain. The revenue procedure also addresses other business and operational issues raised in the issuance of several previous private letter rulings.

*Tip: Many of the burdens of administering a repetitive LKE program have been mitigated by the advancement in technology that automatically matches like-kind asset and tracks the 45-day and 180-day identification periods, depreciation calculations and various operational and tax compliance reporting. Find one of the several qualified companies that can assist you with LKEs, including the multiple asset type.

Reverse Like-Kind Exchanges

The more complicated version of the LKE is a reverse like-kind exchange (RLKE). The RLKE allows a taxpayer to purchase a replacement property (for example, a new aircraft) before the taxpayer sells the relinquished property (for example, a currently-owned aircraft). This transaction constitutes a reverse exchange because in an ordinary LKE, the exchange of property occurs simultaneously or the sale of the relinquished property occurs first, with the purchase of the replacement property to follow at a later date. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sanctioned RLKE transactions in Rev. Proc. 2000-37, 2000-40 IRB 1 (Sept. 15, 2000) and modified the rules in Rev. Proc. 2004-51, IRB 2004-33 (Aug. 16, 2004).

Section 2 of the IRS Rev. Proc. 2004-51 describes RLKEs:

Rev. Proc. 2000-37 addresses “parking” transactions. See sections 2.05 and 2.06 of Rev. Proc. 2000-37. Parking transactions typically are designed to “park” the desired replacement property with an accommodation party until such time as the taxpayer arranges for the transfer of the relinquished property to the ultimate transferee in a simultaneous or deferred exchange. Once such a transfer is arranged, the taxpayer transfers the relinquished property to the accommodation party in exchange for the replacement property, and the accommodation party transfers the relinquished property to the ultimate transferee. In other situations, an accommodation party may acquire the desired replacement property on behalf of the taxpayer and immediately exchange that property with the taxpayer for the relinquished property, thereafter holding the relinquished property until the taxpayer arranges for a transfer of the property to the ultimate transferee.

RLKE transfers occur through the use of a “Qualified Exchange Accommodation Arrangement.” The accommodation party described by the IRS above refers to a party (sometimes called an “Exchange Accommodation Titleholder”) unrelated to the taxpayer (often specialized financial services entities, insurance companies or divisions of banks) which receives the purchased property and then transfers it to the taxpayer in exchange for the relinquished property. Because the taxpayer is buying property first and parking it with the accommodation party, he or she must state in documents that he or she genuinely intends to qualify the property as like-kind property in the RLKE transaction.

Although LKEs and RLKEs may seem complicated, and usually require close attention to timing and detailed procedures, the tax benefit of paying tax later in time is often well worth the effort when a taxpayer considers entering into transactions involving like-kind property.

Thanks to George Schutzer, a senior tax partner at Patton Boggs LLP, and Edward J. Vanderslice and Brent Abrahm of Accruit, LLC for editing this article.

back to top

About Patton Boggs LLP; Recent Mayer Publications

Patton Boggs LLP is a law firm of more than 400 lawyers located in five offices in the United States and internationally in Doha, Qatar. The firm has extensive capabilities in four major practice areas: Business Transactions, Intellectual Property, Public Policy, and Litigation. I am a member of the Business Transactions Group. This group includes over 100 lawyers with a broad array of skills in equipment leasing and finance, corporate finance, secured transactions, syndications, wind power and other project finance, oil and gas transactions, mezzanine financing, hedge fund work and related creditors’ rights/bankruptcy, real estate, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, and technology law. We regularly work in teams to meet our clients' needs.

Our leasing and equipment finance work entails a full range of transactions. We help our clients buy, sell, finance, and lease real and personal property, including business and commercial aircraft, energy assets, facilities, vehicles, production equipment, technology hardware and software, and health care equipment. We have specific teams for aviation, infrastructure/power, healthcare, federal leasing/finance/marketing, municipal leasing/finance, and more.

We work from the "front-end" to the "back-end" of a transaction’s life. For example, we assist in the development, construction, and financing of infrastructure and power projects; structure and close securitizations, syndications, and asset sales; and complete large asset-based company financings. We also restructure troubled credits, appear in court on complex bankruptcies, and act for our clients in such routine matters as repossessions, lift stay actions, true lease contests, workouts, and forbearance arrangements. We provide extensive litigation resources with a record of proven success.

You are welcome to call me at 214.758.1545 or e-mail me at dmayer@pattonboggs.com. We value your contact with us on any topic, including questions arising from BLN articles or about our law practice.

Recent Mayer Publications

• Federal Leasing: A Lifeline in a Sea of Red Ink? – The Feds need us, by David G. Mayer, ELT Magazine, the leasing publication of the Equipment Leasing Association (Jan.- Feb. 2006).  Thanks to Jack Helmly of GTSI Financial Services and Michael Guiffre of Patton Boggs LLP for their editing and input on this article.

• Legal Opinions and Title Insurance Mitigate Risk Under The Cape Town Convention, by David G. Mayer and Frank Polk, aviation partner at McAfee & Taft, LNJ’s Equipment Leasing Newsletter (Nov. 2005).

• True Leases Under Attack: Lessors Face Persistent Challenges to True Lease Transactions, by David G. Mayer, Journal of Equipment Lease Financing (Special Issue, Fall 2005), a 17,000 word paper. Special thanks go to the many editors, including Patton Boggs bankruptcy partner, Jeff LeForce; Patton Boggs tax partner, George Schutzer; Patton Boggs Associate, Joel A. Bannister; three members of the ELA's Legal Committee; and two Foundation reviewers.

• The Cape Town Convention: New Complexities and Opportunities, by David G. Mayer and Frank Polk, aviation partner at McAfee & Taft, LNJ’s Equipment Leasing Newsletter (Oct. 2005).

back to top

Thanks to BLFN’s Team

I would like to thank BLFN’s team at Patton Boggs LLP. The team includes J. Atwood Jeter, a senior associate in the firm’s business transactions, real estate, and wind energy groups; the Patton Boggs staff editors, Paul Dumansky and Adrian Nicole McCoy; our Project Manager, Melissa Green; Claire Campbell; and our designer, Winston Jackson. Thanks also to Douglas C. Boggs, a Business Group/Securities partner and web site reviewer for BLFN, and our Marketing Chief, Mary Kimber, for assisting BLFN through our firm’s editing, design, and posting process.

All the best,

David

David G. Mayer
Founder: Business Leasing and Finance News
(formerly Business Leasing News)
Partner: Patton Boggs LLP
2001 Ross Avenue
Suite 3000
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 758-1545 (phone)
(214) 758-1550 (fax)

E-Mail: dmayer@pattonboggs.com

© David G. Mayer 2002-2007