NOVEMBER 2007 ISSUE No. 71

Welcome to the November 2007 edition of
Business Leasing and Finance News

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

FOUNDER'S NOTE
By David G. Mayer

Recession Drums Pounding

Here we go again. The media is pounding on the drums to warn you of yet another recession. A recent article starts: “When we look back next year at this time, it will be clear what caused the recession of 2007-08.” See Three Ingredient Recipe for Recession, The Wall Street Journal, SW Ed., Page A:2 (Oct. 25, 2007).

The writer offers three rules for reading a recession prediction: 1) forecasters rarely call recessions right; 2) when forecasters start shaving their growth forecasts, they keep shaving them; and 3) the reasons for “this time will be different” does not change the overall outcome.

So what, right? Wrong. The writer also provides three points as a rationale for a recession: 1) the home price collapse (which historically has heralded recessions), 2) lofty oil prices, and 3) the credit crunch. Together, these factors could add up to recession this year and next. In contrast, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has said that a recession is “less than a 50-50” probability. Greenspan says US recession not likely, Herald Sun (Australia) (Oct. 25, 2007).

Note that two views strike a rough balance. But for those of us who worry about credit of our customers or clients, perhaps we should take a somewhat cautious approach to extending and monitoring credit, quite apart from the subprime mortgage debacle. I hope the chorus of experts is wrong that a recession is here or near, and that Greenspan is right. But, as the drum beat reverberates, only time will tell whether another recession is at hand.

1. Is Private Investment the Answer to Repairing Structurally Deficient Bridges?

The tragic collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007 serves as a stark reminder that many bridges in the U.S. should urgently be repaired or replaced. See Minnesota Bridge Fall Kills 4; Divers Seek Victims (Update12), By Demian McLean and Angela Greiling Keane, Bloomberg Press (Aug. 2, 2007).

Structural Deficiencies in Bridges

In a parallel to the five-story drop of the I-35 bridge into the Mississippi River, structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges can collapse under the weight of normal use or for other reasons, endangering drivers and pedestrians and damaging property.

*Term to Know: Structurally deficient bridges are those that are restricted to light vehicles, require immediate rehabilitation to remain open, or are closed. Functionally obsolete bridges are those with deck geometry (e.g., lane width), load carrying capacity, clearance, or approach roadway alignment that no longer meet the criteria for the system of which the bridge is a part. In the 1990s, while the number of structurally deficient bridges steadily declined, the number of functionally obsolete bridges remained fairly constant. See Bridge Condition, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation.

A current study by the Reason Foundation leaves little doubt that many bridges in the U.S. need serious attention due to their structural deficiencies or obsolescence. A summary of the study states:

…[M]ost states should be concerned about the condition of their bridges. Of the 596,980 highway bridges in the National Bridge Inventory, 147,913—24.52 percent—were deficient or obsolete in 2005 the report found. Minnesota actually ranked 5th best in the nation, with “only” 13 percent of its bridges labeled deficient. Virginia ranked 21st and Maryland 32nd, with 22.4 percent and 26.9 percent of bridges deficient or obsolete respectively.

See Minnesota Bridge Collapse Puts Focus on Infrastructure Crisis Public-private partnerships can help rebuild America's roads, bridges, By Robert Poole, Reason Foundation (Aug. 8, 2007).

Who Pays for Repair and Replacement of Bridges?

The question is: How will states pay for the repairs and replacement of bridges and highways when state funding is considered largely insufficient to meet the need? The Reason Foundation report summary continues:

For the major highway investments we need—such as rebuilding Interstates and adding capacity to congestion-choked expressways—there’s a better way to pay. Texas, Virginia, and other fast-growing states have demonstrated the new model: highway public-private partnerships funded by tolls. In today’s new toll road model, private companies compete for long-term contracts to design, finance, build, operate, and maintain major highways and bridges. In return, the companies recoup their investments by charging tolls.

A series of related studies supports the conclusion that investment by public-private partnerships can lead to smoother and safer roads and bridges.

*Term to Know: “Public-private partnerships” refer to project arrangements between private entities and public agencies. The projects promote private sector participation in the delivery of infrastructure projects such as highways (toll roads), railroads, bridges, bus terminals, schools, health care facilities and other projects that have traditionally been publicly funded. See Leasing 101: What Is a "Public-Private Partnership"?, Business Leasing News (Feb. 2006).

A BusinessWeek article titled Road to Riches, with a cover page question of “Hey Buddy, You Wanna Buy A Bridge?”, illustrates the attention-grabbing impact of private-public partnerships and private bridge investment. But such investment may be unavoidable if not inevitable. According to the article:

The burden of maintaining roads, bridges, and other facilities, many built during the 1950s, is becoming difficult to bear. Federal, state, and local governments need to spend an estimated $155.5 billion improving highways and bridges in 2007, according to transportation officials, up 50% over the past 10 years. And that’s hardly the only obstacle they face. In 2006 alone, states increased their Medicaid spending by an estimated 7.7%, to $132 billion.

See Roads To Riches - Why investors are clamoring to take over America's highways, bridges, and airports and why the public should be nervous, By Emily Thornton, BusinessWeek (May 2007).

The value of selling bridges to private investors is evident from the billion-dollar numbers they represent. For example, BusinessWeek estimates that the Golden Gate Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge could probably each fetch as much as $3.4 billion to $3.5 billion from private investors. A lease of the Tappan Zee Bridge and other assets could yield the State of New York as much $70 billion. These numbers may cause current revenues from tolls and taxes to pale by comparison and create a nearly irresistible source of revenue for cash-starved government budgets.

Private Investment Controversial

Critics have expressed concerns that governmental officials have intentionally caused “defunding” of highway projects to attract private investment. They also have suggested that legislatures have killed gas taxes that would pay for new highways, leaving the door open to hungry investors. See They want to build a private toll bridge to the 21st century, Crosscut (July 18-20, 2007). A similar controversy surrounds the efforts to privatize roadways into a toll roads. See Infrastructure Projects Get a New Lease on Life, Business Leasing and Finance News (May 2007).

The fundamental goal is to secure funding for badly needed repairs. Private sources may be the best, if not the only answer for some projects or budgets. Private capital can, at a minimum, supplement state budgets and facilitate, or even accelerate, the pace of repairing structurally deficient or obsolete bridges.

*Warning: As a potential investor or lender, understand that the development of large infrastructure projects is not for the faint of heart or weak of funding. These projects, which have been sanctioned in more than 20 states, often require huge up-front investments for development costs and large interdisciplinary teams to complete the bids and project analysis, including economic, engineering, environmental, and legal issues.

Quick Action Needed

Regardless of these concerns, quick action is necessary to allay worries that another disaster like the one in Minneapolis will occur in any number of other states. See Bridge Collapse Spurs Concern, By Hol Wagner, Rocky Mountain Construction (Sept. 10, 2007).

As public-private partnerships become more common, private funding may avert more tragedies like the one in Minneapolis. Controversy will almost certainly continue among local citizens and other groups, but unless and until public funding becomes robust enough to keep pace with structural deficiencies, obsolescence and population growth, private investment will have an important role to play in bridge construction, repair, and replacement. The future of safe travel on the bridges of America may ultimately rest with people who use them.

Thanks to Jay Fortin of the Patton Boggs’ Transportation and Infrastructure for editing this article.

back to top

2. A Canadian Act: Unexpected Changes to the PPSA (Ontario)

A surprise in the implementation of the revised Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (PPSA) creates more work for lenders and borrowers to close deals.

Ontario, unlike other provinces in Canada, uses its own unique style in filing financing statements. Ontario does not require any collateral description. Proposed amendments to the PPSA would change this requirement to closely align with Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) style, but owing to computer program reasons, this potential requirement cannot be implemented for some time.

When Parliament introduced the Bill 152 (Act), it, many say inadvertently, revised Section 46(3) of the Act to create uncertainty about priority between lenders. This change complicates documentation and increases expense for borrowers and lenders.

UCC Type Changes

As a result, lenders should consider obtaining estoppel letters or waiver letters from each prior PPSA registered secured party pertaining to the same debtor. Typically, current lenders need not seek such waivers or estoppel letters when a collateral description is provided in the space indicated in the financing statement. To seek estoppels or waiver letters from prior lenders means that parties may experience delays and greater transaction expense to close loan deals involving the PPSA.

*Insight Point: This matter has been brought to the Minister’s attention and the Minister’s office is currently reviewing it. The only escape from this new practice is to obtain, without any doubt, a purchase money security interest, which is a security interest for lenders in property arising from the lender’s financing the sale of the property to the debtor. See BLFN’s Finance 101: What Is a “PMSI” or “Purchase Money Security Interest”?, By David G. Mayer, Business Leasing and Finance News (Oct. 2007).

Background: Bill 152

Bill 152 was introduced in 2005 to modernize certain provisions of the PPSA. Bill 152, an Act to amend the Ontario PPSA, received Royal Assent in December 2006. Many of its provisions were brought into force in August 2007. As is more fully explained in a commentary to the Act, Bill 152 will, when fully adopted, remove the “check the box” system.

*Term to Know: The “check the box” system refers to the boxes that have to be “checked” when registering an Ontario financing statement.

It was anticipated that when the “check the box” system was removed, the proposed new Section 46(3) of the PPSA would be implemented. What in fact did occur is that the new Section 46(3) was brought into force without the “check the box” system being replaced.

*Technical Point: Old Section 46(3) provided that if there was a description in the financing statement as to the assets being financed, then the secured party would be limited to that asset as set out in the statement. New Section 46(3) eliminated this provision. The result is that even if a secured party does set out a description in a financing statement so to the limit of the scope of the security interest (which they do not have to), the secured party could shelter other assets under this financing statement. Accordingly, unless a purchase money security interest is obtained, an inter-creditor agreement of some nature should be obtained from prior secured creditors. The form of that agreement can vary.

Another Unexpected Change

In another unexpected change, the legislature removed sale leasebacks as an exclusion from a purchase money security interest. In other words, the Act appears to allow sale leasebacks to be given purchase money security interest treatment – a privilege of the highest priority security interest only afforded to new purchases financed with a lender’s funds.

*Tip: Do not rely on any purchase money finance obligations with respect to a sale leaseback. There may be certain bankruptcy act issues of concern that would need to be addressed. It is also not entirely clear how a purchase money security interest could be achieved if the assets were owned by the lessee for more than ten (10) days prior to the sale as this would violate the ten-day rule in Section 33 of the Act.

On the other hand, it is possible this change may be helpful in cases where the lessee is purchasing new goods and then “sells” them to the lessor, but there was no commentary to determine if this was the intent of the legislation.

Thanks to Jonathan Fleisher of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP in Toronto for contributing this article.

back to top

3. Congress Restricts Use of Corporate Jets by Its Members and Staff

New legislation will effectively eliminate the use of corporate jets and other noncommercial aircraft by Members of Congress and their staffs. It will also affect those who provide and would like to provide transportation to Members and their staffs. See the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, Public Law 110-81, 121 Stat. 735 (signed by President Bush Sept. 14, 2007).

*Legislative Point: The travel rules for the House and Senate are similar but not identical regarding the use of noncommercial aircraft by Members and their staffs, whether for official, personal, or campaign purposes.

In the first week in January, the House essentially prohibited Members from flying on any plane other than one operated by air carrier, regardless of the purpose of the travel.

*Technical Point: The Democratic House created this prohibition by adopting a rule providing that a Member “may not use personal funds, official funds, or campaign funds for a flight on a non-government airplane that is not licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for compensation or hire.” H. Res. 6, Section 207 (amending House Rule XXIII). While this Resolution does not by its terms prevent a Member from flying on a noncommercial aircraft for free, the gift rules adopted in January forbid both Members and congressional staff from accepting any gift from a registered lobbyist or an entity that employs or retains a registered lobbyist, as well as any gift of $50 or more from any other person. House Rule XXV, cl. 5(a)(1)(A)(ii) (as amended in H. Res. 6, Sec. 203). The friendship exception is not available, because that exception is limited to gifts under $250.

The legislation enacted in September provides that a candidate for the House of Representatives (incumbent or challenger) may not make any expenditure for a flight on an aircraft unless the aircraft is operated by a commercial operator certificated by the FAA and the flight is required to be operated under air carrier safety rules. With respect to travel outside the United States, a candidate is similarly restricted to commercial operations. See 2 U.S.C. 439a(c)(2) (as amended in S.1 ENR, Sec. 601) and related regulation.

This limitation rules out the use of private jets and other noncommercial aircraft by candidates for the House of Representatives, subject to one narrow exception. This result is true for Members of the House regardless of the purpose of the Member’s travel or the amount the Member reimburses the operator.

*Tip: There is an accommodation for an aircraft owned or leased by a Member or the Member’s immediate family, and an aircraft in which the Member or immediate family member has an ownership interest. Thus, purchasing an aircraft or partial interest in one, such as a fractional share, would allow a Member to fly on the aircraft in which the Member has an ownership interest, but only to the extent of that interest.

Senators and Senate staff are subject to the same prohibition on accepting any gift from a registered lobbyist or an entity that employs or retains a registered lobbyist, and any gift of $50 or more from any other person. See Senate Rule XXXV, clause 1(a)(2)(B) (as amended in S.1 ENR, Sec 541). But, unlike the House, the Senate continues to allow Senators and Senate staff to travel on noncommercial aircraft, whether for official or personal purposes, provided that the aircraft operator receives payment for the fair market value for the flight, which is “the pro rata share of the fair market value of the normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of comparable size, as determined by dividing such costs by the number of Members, officers or employees of Congress on the flight.” See Senate Rule XXXV, clause 1(c)(1)(C) (as amended in S.1 ENR, Sec 544(c)(1)).

For campaign travel, candidates to the Senate are restricted to commercial airlines, subject to an exception when the candidate or political campaign committee pays the owner, lessee, or other provider of the aircraft “the pro rata share of the fair market value of such flight (as determined by dividing the fair market value of the normal and usual charter fare or rental charge for a comparable plane of comparable size by the number of candidates on the flight) within a commercially reasonable timeframe after the date on which the flight is taken.” 2 U.S.C. 439a(c)(1) (as amended in S.1 ENR, Sec 601). Thus, Senators, Senate staff, and Senate candidates must pay the comparable charter flight for any campaign use of noncommercial aircraft.

*Warning: As stated above, Senators and Senate candidates are now required to reimburse a noncommercial aircraft operator at the comparable charter rate. But a non-certificated aircraft operator may accept reimbursement only as provided in the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Under 14 C.F.R. Sec. 91.501(b)(5) a company may receive reimbursement for the travel of a guest of the company provided that the transportation is within the scope of the company's business and the business of the company is not considered transportation. Because the amount of reimbursement may not exceed the costs of owning, operating, and maintaining the aircraft, which necessarily exclude any profit component, reimbursing the operator at a charter rate will likely exceed the limits in paragraph 91.501(b)(5). Permitted reimbursement is likely to be lower than the charter rate. Consequently, this exception is no longer available for Senators or Senate staff. (And note it is also no longer available for House Members.)

A separate provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations, 14 C.F.R. Sec. 91.321, permits a noncommercial aircraft operator to accept reimbursement in the amount required to be paid by regulations of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) (or rules of a particular state for travel on behalf of a state or local candidate). Current FEC rules require reimbursement at the comparable first-class fare, where there exists commercial service with first-class availability.

*Technical Point: Where first-class seating is not available in the origin city, coach fare is used, and if either the origin or destination city is not served by a commercial airline, the charter rate is used. See 11 C.F.R. Sec. 100.93.

On October 23, 2007, the FEC issued a proposed rule to conform its rules to the legislation enacted in September, 72 Fed. Reg. 59953 (Oct. 23, 2007), to permit Senate campaign committees to pay a charter rate to the aircraft operator.

*Action Point: The comment period closed November 13, 2007 but the FEC held a hearing on November 15, 2007 to hear comments from the public on several alternatives it has proposed.

The legislation also requires candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency to reimburse the U.S. Government at the charter rate for the use of U.S. Government aircraft. In signing the bill, President Bush complained that it “would have the effect of unreasonably burdening sitting President’s and Vice President’s reelection campaigns. I look forward to working with Congress to amend these provisions to provide a reasonable process for allocating the cost of Presidential and Vice Presidential travel that is consistent with security needs.”

Previously, Presidential campaign committees reimbursed the Federal Government for the use of Air Force One or Two (and helicopters Marine One or Two) at the same rates established by Federal Election Commission regulations governing the use of noncommercial aircraft for the campaign travel of the President, Vice President, and all other persons traveling on the aircraft for other than official purposes. (No reimbursement is required of Secret Service staff and other “official travelers” accompanying the President.)

*Warning: Violations of the new restrictions on lobbyists, the gift rules, or the Federal Election Commission or Federal Aviation Regulations may result in punitive actions, such as civil penalties or criminal sanctions in some instances where the violation is knowing and willful.

The subject of campaign travel is complex, made more so by the recent legislation. The legislation affects all parties involved including aircraft owners, lessees, and operators.

*Tip: Before any noncommercial operator offers to carry a Member of Congress or candidate on a campaign trip, the operator should consult with aviation and election law counsel to ensure the transport is permitted and under applicable circumstances. The FEC rules, while currently in a state of flux, may be revised before the end of this year.

In the wake of this legislation, campaign committees have already shifted more to charter transportation and commercial airlines. For those who provide transportation, it will be essential to be aware of the consequences of not understanding or breaching the new tighter rules. The era of flying high for free on non-commercial aircraft has been grounded and is unlikely to return anytime soon, if at all.

Thanks to Greg Walden, former Chief Counsel of the FAA and a member of the Patton Boggs’ Aviation Team and Political Law practice group, for contributing this article.

back to top

4. BLFN’S Finance 101: What Is a “Deceptive Trade Practice”?

4. BLFN’s Finance 101: What Is a “Deceptive Trade Practice”?

No party to a sales or lease transaction wants to be fooled. State and federal entities have implemented legislation to ensure that misrepresentations of the quality or type of goods and services being provided do not occur. If the goods or services do not end up meeting industry standards, you could face a lawsuit. In these types of disputes, the alleged wrongdoer may have violated the Uniform Trade Practice Act (Uniform Act) and/or other state law, federal law, and even common law (case law arising from ordinary disputes in court) for deceptive trade practices. See Uniform Act in the Cornell Legal Library set forth as the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act [1964 Act or 1966 Revision, original text - 1966 Revision].

The Uniform Act can be roughly subdivided into conduct involving either misleading trade identification or false or deceptive advertising. Focused on the sale of goods and services, the Uniform Act prohibits a wide range of conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding in a transaction.

Lessors may face problems in connection with their purchase of goods to be leased or other conduct in a leasing transaction. To illustrate, suppose a lessee acquires and accepts goods subject to a lease. The seller represents that goods or services meet a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model. However, if the seller makes any related statement about the goods or services that ultimately proves to be incorrect, the seller may have violated the Uniform Act and the conduct could result in a fight over leased property.

*Technical Point: The “hell and high water” clause in most leases should generally prevent a lessee from not paying rent on the troubled article, but the Norvergence case (described below) demonstrates that such a conclusion is fraught with doubt. In any event, lessors do not need the aggravation of this sort of problem.

Lessors could potentially cause a problem by disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts.

Uniform Act

According to the collection of uniform laws presented by the Uniform Business and Financial Laws Locator at the Cornell Law Library, the Uniform Act is in effect in the following states:

• Colorado (1966 Revision) - §§ 6-1-101 to 6-1-115
  
  
• Delaware (1964 Act) - Del. Code, Title 6, Subtitle II, Ch. 25, Subchapter 3, §§ 2531-2536
  
  
• Georgia (1966 Revision) - §§ 10-1-370 to 10-1-375
  
  
• Hawaii (1966 Revision) - §§481A-1 to 481A-5
  
  
• Illinois (1964 Act)
  
  
• Maine (1964 Act)
  
  
• Minnesota (1966 Revision) - §§ 325D.43 to 325D.48
  
  
• Nebraska (1966 Revision) - §§ 87-301 to 87-306
  
  
• New Mexico (1966 Revision) - N.M. Statutes, Chapter 57, Art. 12
  
  
• Ohio (1966 Revision) - Ohio Revised Code, Title 41, Ch. 4165
  
  
• Oklahoma (1964 Act) - 78 §§ 51 to 55
  
  
• Oregon (1966 Revision) - §§ 646.605 to 646.656

These laws generally do not preclude the application of other state laws to deceptive or unfair conduct. For example, Section 325D.44(3) Subdiv. 2 of the Minnesota Statutes 2006 provides simply: Subd. 3. “Other law. This section does not affect unfair, deceptive, or misleading trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other statutes of this state.”

Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act

Other states have deceptive trade practices laws apart from the Model Act. For example, Texas has a statute called the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act. The statute affects most leasing, lending, and selling transactions completed in the state. See Section 17.41 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (DTPA).

The DTPA is designed to protect “Consumers” against, among other things, “false, misleading and deceptive business practices” (§17.44(a)) in connection with the “lease … of any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed … affecting the people of [Texas].”

*Warning: A “Consumer” in Texas includes virtually any person or entity that does not have “assets of $25 million or more, or that is not owned by a corporation or entity with assets of $25 million or more.” Section 17.45(4) of the DTPA defines a Consumer as “an individual, partnership, corporation, this state, or a subdivision or agency of this state who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services, except that the term does not include a business consumer that has assets of $25 million or more, or that is owned or controlled by a corporation or entity with assets of $25 million or more.”

In other words, the DTPA applies to a broad range of individuals and businesses even in the context of leasing and lending transactions. It includes any individual purchasing anything, as well as the vast majority of businesses purchasing goods or services for a business purpose. To be a consumer under the DTPA, an entity must do more than merely seek or acquire those goods or services. The goods or services must be sought or acquired by “purchase or lease.” See The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act - STILL ALIVE AND WELL, By Richard M. Alderman, The Journal of Texas Consumer Law (2005).

*Tip:  Lessors in Texas should consider including a protective lease provision that attempts to waive the impact of the DTPA in transactions governed by Texas law.

Federal Law

One of the most bitter lawsuits in recent leasing history, Norvergence, involves the application of laws under the FTC Act. In particular, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce for the benefit of consumers. See The Dangers of Bundling – A recent Norvergence case highlights potential bundled transaction pitfalls, By Paul D. Gamez, ELT Magazine at 48, 49 (Sept 2007).

Deceptive trade practices have hurt the reputation of the leasing business, especially because of Norvergence. Lessors and lenders really have little choice but to find applicable deceptive trade practices laws and strictly comply with them. See Norvergence Bankruptcy Forces Lessors To Mitigate New Risks, Business Leasing News, By David G. Mayer (Feb. 2005).

*Warning: This article is not even the tip of the iceberg on the meaning, scope, and impact of deceptive trade laws. Find the laws that affect you in each leasing or lending transaction and ask that your counsel advise you on how to structure your deals to comply with the appropriate statute for your jurisdiction.

Thanks to Jennifer Keefe of the Patton Boggs LLP Litigation Department for editing this article.

back to top

About Patton Boggs LLP

Patton Boggs LLP is a law firm of more than 600 attorneys and other professionals located throughout the United States and internationally in Doha, Qatar.

Patton Boggs has major practice areas in Business, Intellectual Property, Public Policy, and Litigation. These areas are composed of many practice groups designed specifically to meet client needs and the trends in developing legal markets. David G. Mayer often focuses on aviation, power, transportation, infrastructure, and technology matters.

The firm provides a broad array of skills in domestic and international business transactions, including equipment finance and leasing, corporate finance, secured transactions, syndications, mezzanine finance, federal leasing, project finance, real estate, health care, pharmaceuticals, technology transactions, and public policy work.

Publications

The following list offers a sample of articles by David G. Mayer:

Managed Service Providers Use Innovative Capital Structures to Fund CAPEX, Financier Worldwide, by David G. Mayer (May 2007).

The USA PATRIOT Act Renewed: Reassessing Money Laundering Risk in Finance Transactions, by Stephen J. McHale and David G. Mayer, LNJ Leasing Newsletter (Two Parts: Nov. & Dec. 2006).

Unique Pad Gas Lease Supports Project Financing and Development of Gas Storage Facility in U.S., by David G. Mayer (with Fortis Capital Corp.), Asset-Based Lending Review, Financier Worldwide (Nov. 2006).

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 editor, Paul Dumansky; our Project Coordinator, Melissa Green, and Project Manager-Dallas, Mark Holub; Claire Campbell and Ame Howard; and our designers, Winston Jackson and Kiasha Sullivan. 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 2007
NOTE: You may receive BLFN from other people, which often occurs. To SUBSCRIBE, change your address or to change your e-mail format, simply click here. To UNSUBSCRIBE, simply e-mail blfn@pattonboggs.com with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. To correspond with BLFN, send your message to blfn@pattonboggs.com. Thanks.

The “For Dummies” part of my book, Business Leasing For Dummies (BLFD)®, is a registered trademark of Wiley Publishing, Inc.