BUSINESS LEASING NEWS
"Offering leasing and financing strategies for your success"
|
|
|
|
BUSINESS LEASING NEWS |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
1. Leasing Gets a Bonus From New Depreciation RegulationsWith the economy heating up, tax lessors should get a lift from new regulations on bonus depreciation. The Treasury Department and IRS recently issued temporary regulations ("regulations") and a related press release that clarify the availability and application of bonus depreciation in leasing and other transactions. The same regulations also contain certain pitfalls that, if not observed, could adversely impact lease pricing. Legislation Grants Additional Depreciation After September 11, the Bush Administration designed the 30 percent bonus depreciation rules in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 to motivate businesses to invest in capital assets. The slow economy thereafter spurred Congress to pass the additional $350 billion Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 on May 28, 2003, which increased the bonus depreciation percentage to 50 percent. Given such significant legislative action, it is understandable that many questions have arisen about how to apply the new depreciation rules. The newly issued regulations provide that clarification. *Term to Know: A depreciation deduction is an allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used in a trade or business or held for the production of income. The depreciation allowable for tangible, depreciable property placed in service after 1986 is generally determined under Section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (Code). This property is commonly referred to a MACRS property and arises under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS). Although the regulations cover a variety of issues, lessors may take the greatest interest in the rules on sale-leasebacks, syndications and fractional share transactions. These regulations apply to both the 50 percent first-year depreciation and to the original 30-percent bonus depreciation. *Tip: For lessors who don't need or want to use the additional first year depreciation, you can opt out of using 30 percent or 50 percent depreciation by class of property based on the recovery period of such property for each taxable year. As a lessor, you may elect to take bonus depreciation but not include all or any part of the benefit in your pricing for your lessee. This approach assumes that competition for your deals does not demand that you provide the full pricing benefit of the bonus depreciation to your lessee. Some lessors have been able to price their deals in this way and, as a result, enhance their after-tax yield. As a general rule, property must be originally placed in service by the taxpayer (that is, the taxpayer must be the original user) on or after September 11, 2001 to be eligible for 30 percent bonus depreciation and on or after May 6, 2003 to be eligible for 50 percent first-year bonus depreciation. The regulations provide guidance on how the placed-in-service rules apply in the cases of sale-leasebacks and syndications. Sale-Leasebacks Leased property will be treated as if it was originally placed in service not earlier than the date of the leaseback if two requirements are met. First, a person must originally place the property in service after September 10, 2001 for 30 percent bonus depreciation and after May 5, 2003 for 50 percent first year depreciation. Second, the property must be sold to a taxpayer-lessor and leased back to a user-lessee within three months after being originally placed in service by such lessee. If these requirements are met with respect to property used by a lessee before the date of a sale-leaseback transaction, the lessor is treated as originally placing the property in service on the date of the sale-leaseback for purposes of determining eligibility for the two types of bonus depreciation. Syndications If qualified property is originally placed in service by a lessor after September 10, 2001 (in the case of the 30 percent bonus) or after May 5, 2003 (in the case of the 50 percent first year depreciation) and the lessor subsequently sells (syndicates) the property to a purchaser, the purchaser in the last sale is considered the original user if two tests are satisfied. First, the property must be sold to the subsequent purchaser within three months after the date the taxpayer-lessor originally placed the property in service. Second, the user-lessee must remain the same during the three-month period. However, the placed in service date cannot be earlier than the date of the last sale during that three-month period. Sale-Leaseback Followed by Syndication If a syndication transaction occurs after a sale-leaseback and both transactions meet the requirements for sale-leasebacks and syndications described above, the syndication rules determine the original use of the property. As a result, it appears that the last purchaser of a property can take the bonus depreciation for property in a syndication transaction that occurs up to 6 months after the property was originally placed in service by the lessee. For example, if a person places qualified property in service on June 1, 2003, and then enters into a sale-leaseback transaction on August 31, 2003, a taxpayer which acquires an interest in the property from the lessor on or before November 30, 2003, should be eligible to claim the 50 percent first-year depreciation. Fractional Share Transactions The fractional share market also received a boost from the new regulations. The regulations on fractional interests provide that if a taxpayer sells fractional interests in qualified property to unrelated third parties, the first fractional owner of the property is considered the original user of its undivided share of the property. If a taxpayer uses the qualified property before selling all of the fractional shares to the property while still holding the property primarily for sale, the buyer of the share will still be considered an original user of the share for purposes of the bonus depreciation. In other words, the unrelated third party that buys a fractional share after the taxpayer begins using the property will still be treated as the original user and be entitled to the bonus depreciation. Such a benefit should encourage taxpayers to acquire fractional shares. The regulations illustrate how these rules work for fractional shares in an aircraft. In essence, if a seller of fractional shares in an aircraft puts the aircraft in service after selling some, but not all, shares, and continues in the ordinary course of its business to sell out the remaining shares, the fractional share buyers thereafter will still get the bonus depreciation on their respective shares. *Technical Point: Consider Example 4 regarding fractional shares in §1.168(k)-1T(b)(3)(v) of the regulations. This example shows how fractional share buyers can qualify for the 30 percent bonus depreciation or 50 percent first-year depreciation following the date the aircraft is placed in service by the fractional share seller. The regulations also cover like-kind exchange, binding contract and alternative minimum tax implications of bonus depreciation. For a general discussion of these regulations, see an Ernst & Young Summary on the Equipment Leasing Association web site. *Warning: While the regulations provide helpful direction for leasing, lessors should also watch for a few pitfalls that include the following:
Despite these pitfalls, the regulations have provided significant clarity on several important issues for leasing. The tax regulations on 30 percent bonus depreciation and 50 percent first-year depreciation should also contribute to the growth of tax leasing. It now depends on lessors and lessees (not to mention the economy) to make it happen. I would like to thank George Schutzer, one of my tax partners, for commenting on this article. 2. As Technology Investment Grows, Lessors and Lenders Focus on Software RightsYour financing of that magnetic resonance imaging system (MRI) or other technology property may not be as secure a transaction as you may think. Software plays a critical role in maintaining the value and utility of technology property. For lessors and lenders, this point may ring true during or after the term of a leasing or financing transaction. Software rights may determine whether you will have a fully operable asset to sell after a repossession or foreclosure. Knowing your software rights, in short, may make or break the value you anticipate receiving from your transaction. Legal principles and technology collide when considering your software rights. At the outset of a technology transaction, lessors and lenders need to determine whether software is “embedded” software or otherwise constitutes an independent (stand-alone) program. “Embedded” software is a term of art usually referring to specialized computer programs incorporated into a larger system. However, the term essentially relates to software code in a product that acts as an essential element that cannot be easily transferred (“migrated”) or removed. Although such code has become commonplace in consumer products like GPS navigation systems, it is also prevalent in commercial applications like MRIs. Embedded software is an integral part of “goods” under Revised Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). By contrast, independent, or “stand-alone” software is independent from the tangible property. Such software may include, for example, off-the-shelf software that is licensed for specific uses and limited to a specific number of copies. Unlike embedded software (code), such independent software is usually easily removable from the platform upon which it is installed. This distinction has a legal impact. Revised Article 9 of the UCC treats this software as a “general intangible.” The method of perfecting a security interest or protective rights (in a lease) may differ based upon how the UCC classifies the property—in this case embedded software versus standalone software results in these two classifications under Revised Article 9. As a lessor and lender involved with technology property, whether in healthcare, manufacturing or other industries with significant technology components, you should consider taking each of the following action steps:
I would like to thank my associate, Tom Kulik at Patton Boggs, for his assistance in preparing this article. 3. Synthetic Leases Revisited: Are They Dead or Alive?Synthetic leases seem to have taken a body blow as a result of the completion by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) of the Guaranty Project (FIN 45) and Consolidation Project (FIN 46). See: Final Off-Balance Sheet Rules Make a Significant Impact on Leasing, Business Leasing News (February 2003). But this operating lease product remains viable and useful despite understandable concern from the market. A Clear Message At the recent Accounting Conference of the Equipment Leasing Association held last month in Boston, I spoke on the topic of synthetic leasing and how to restructure these leases affected by FIN 46. I described how synthetic leases still work well for certain types of entities other than variable interest entities (VIEs). However, the response from the attendees seemed consistent: Very few public companies or other lessees want to use synthetic leases except in a select group of business aircraft transactions. In addition, a few real estate transactions may be completed under synthetics, but the negative public reaction to company disclosures of off-balance sheet deals (sometimes referred to as “bad optics”) have practically ended their viability in the current market. What is a Synthetic Lease? The synthetic lease acquired its name by "synthesizing" inconsistent provisions of the Financial Accounting Standard No. 13 (FAS 13) and the true lease rules arising under federal income tax law. A synthetic lease is an off-balance sheet "operating lease" under FAS 13 and, concurrently, a conditional sale for federal income tax purposes. As a result, the lessee takes the tax benefits as the tax owner of the leased property under federal income tax law while keeping the same lease off its balance sheet as an operating lease under FAS 13. The Impact of FIN 46 on Synthetic Lease Structures In an effort to correct the alleged wrongs by Enron Corporation, FASB nullified portions of the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issues No. 90-15 and No. 96-21. EITF 90-15 sanctioned an investment of 3 percent (or more) in a special purpose entity as a sufficient investment to keep the assets and liabilities of a special purpose entity off the books of its investor-sponsor. See: Appendix Paragraphs D(1)(a) and D(2)(b) of FIN 46. FASB also required evidence that a VIE (synthetic lessor) could stand alone and self-finance its existence. To test the ability of any entity to stand on its own, FASB substituted a 10 percent equity requirement for the 3 percent rule; however, FASB did not create a presumption that 10 percent equity would constitute sufficient equity. The acceptable equity level depended on the risk of the transaction. Further, FASB said that an equity investor/lessor must stand to lose the first dollars in a synthetic lease. This change turned the synthetic lease on its head because lessees had previously taken the first loss in the form of an implicit residual guaranty (of up to 89.9 percent of the original equipment cost). So far, according to what I have heard, no lessor has entered into a synthetic lease in which the lessor stands to lose the first 10 percent of its investment. Survival of Synthetic Leases Did these changes kill synthetic leases? The answer does not seem to conform with the market forces today. The answer, for now, remains clear. Nothing in FIN 45 or FIN 46 precludes a lessor from using a voting interest entity (such as an operating leasing company that it not a VIE) from directly entering into synthetic leases with its lessee-customer. FIN 46 focuses on VIEs. If a lessor uses a voting interest entity, the lessor does not conduct a VIE analysis in a synthetic lease transaction. Even the Guaranty Project has had little effect in deterring these deals. Under that project, the implicit residual guarantee of the lessee must be disclosed and recognized (that is, booked on a balance sheet) by a lessee at its "fair value." The participants at the Accounting Conference generally indicated that they neither fully understood how to apply the "fair value" calculation nor have any desire to use it. However, in practice, the value booked for the implicit residual guaranty actually seems to be so far below the maximum or face amount of the residual guarantee that it makes this item immaterial to most lessees. Moreover, the extra disclosure required by FIN 45 does not seem to play much, if any, role in a lessee’s decision to use a synthetic lease. *Prediction: Many companies have shunned this "operating lease" product due to the public furor over companies allegedly hiding their obligations off-balance sheet. I expect this negative perception to continue to impede widespread use of synthetic leases for the foreseeable future. (This prediction, by the way, is almost a reversal of my earlier views that synthetic leases would spring back faster than they have been.) However, those who know how to properly structure a synthetic lease should achieve full off-balance sheet treatment and favorable lease pricing. Private companies should lead the way in using synthetics because they may not face the ire of their shareholders by using this financing tool. In the long-term, the push toward on-balance sheet accounting may eventually deliver the knockout punch for synthetic leases. For now, however, they remain useful and viable in the contest to offer attractive lease products. 4. FAA Issues Controversial Rules on Fractional Ownership of AircraftEnding a two-year gestation period, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued its final rules on fractional ownership of aircraft. Assisted by a special committee of industry experts called the Fractional Ownership Aviation Rulemaking Committee (FOARC), the FAA’s release of these long-awaited rules accomplished several objectives and reignited a few controversies. The FAA published its proposed rules on July 18, 2001 based in part on the FAA’s determination that current regulations did not adequately define fractional ownership programs or allocate responsibility and authority for safety and compliance with the regulations. Background on Fractional Ownership Fractional share programs have gained in popularity and practicality since started in 1986. These programs now deploy about 650 business aircraft worldwide, representing about 5,000 fractional shares. A fractional shares program allows owners to acquire an undivided (fractional) interest in an aircraft (one half to one-sixteenth for fixed wing aircraft) for a committed term that typically lasts five years. A professional management company administers the program that generally involves at least two aircraft used by the share owners. The management company handles all aircraft maintenance, flight and business aspects of the program. A share owner:
As fractional ownership programs have grown in size, complexity and number, there has been much controversy within the aviation community of whether the FAA should regulate these programs under 14 CFR Part 91 (private operations) or under 14 CFR Part 135 (on-demand operations). The Final Rule The final rule establishes a new Subpart K in 14 CFR Part 91 to cover fractional ownership operations. A more complete review of Subpart K would require pages of discussion beyond the scope of BLN. However, Subpart K, in essence:
*Tip: This rulemaking also revises and updates certain requirements in Part 135 on-demand operations. Many of the requirements in new Subpart K of Part 91 are based on requirements that have been updated for on-demand operations in Part 135 reflecting new technology and other operational considerations. Controversy: Private Versus Commercial Operations One particular issue regarding fractional share programs took center stage during the rulemaking. The question, which has economic and operational implications, is whether the fractional share programs constitute personal/non-commercial operations that the FAA should regulate under Part 91 or commercial/on-demand operations that the FAA should regulate under Part 135. Part 135 contains more extensive training, maintenance and operational requirements than Part 91. The FAA uses the different or higher level of regulation under Part 135 for commercial operations to protect passenger safety, ensure proper commercial operations and impose higher maintenance standards on operators. Consequently, compliance with Part 135 involves greater expense to the aircraft owner than compliance under Part 91. A Part 135 operator may also face a variety of additional costs, including potentially higher airport fees. A related point of contention has pit the FAA against the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). The JAA has apparently treated fractional share aircraft programs as commercial operations because these programs require “money changing hands.” See: Frax rules spark FAA-JAA dispute, AIN Online, EBASE News, May 7-9 (2003). The JAA is working on its own regulations that it expects to be finalized in about a year. Subpart K generally treats fractional share programs as private aircraft operations with owners of the aircraft having responsibility and liability for their operation. The JAA may take the other approach and treat fractional share programs as commercial operations in its regulations. Such regulations could increase the cost of fractional share program operations in Europe and thereby impact U.S. fractional share programs. A Possible Trap for the Unwary The definition of a fractional ownership program under Subpart K is broadly drafted and will include many current operations that do not consider themselves true fractional shares programs. In essence, Subpart K provides that a fractional ownership program is any program which involves (i) the sharing of at least two aircraft (through a dry-lease aircraft exchange agreement), (ii) at least one aircraft with multiple owners, (iii) aircraft that are managed by a common fractional program manager, and (iv) multi-year program agreements such as a program management agreement and a dry-lease exchange agreement. *Warning: Two companies that have agreed to share their aircraft may have to comply with Subpart K to continue their sharing arrangement. Likewise, an aviation management company that has brought together several of its customers in a formal or informal sharing arrangement may have to incur added time and expense to comply with Subpart K. The trigger for Subpart K to apply in any sharing arrangement is that at least one of the shared aircraft has multiple owners (thus creating the "fractional" relationship). Effective Dates Subpart K will become effective November 17, 2003. A person who conducted flights before November 17, 2003 under a program that meets the definition of a fractional ownership program in Section 91.1001 may not conduct such flights after December 17, 2004 unless and until it has obtained management specifications under the final rule. See: 14 CFR Section 91.1002. *Warning: Watch for possible changes in the compliance period for fractional share program that start operations after September 17, 2003, the date of issuance of the final rule. The FAA may clarify that a fractional share program that has conducted flights before September 17, 2003 will have until December 17, 2004 to comply with Subpart K. All other fractional share programs that commence operations after September 17, 2003 may only have a shorter grace period until November 17, 2003 to comply with Subpart K. Clarification should be forthcoming from the FAA in the form of a technical amendment, but this point lacks clarity and certainty. The issuance of Subpart K represents both a significant accomplishment for the FAA and a major regulatory change for fractional share programs. How Subpart K will actually impact these programs remains to be seen. One point seems clear, however. The nature of the programs and the complexities of the regulations will present an interesting new challenge for all programs and their advisors. *Tip: In light of the increased regulatory requirements set forth in Subpart K and some of the favorable amendments to Part 135, fractional share programs (in the broadest interpretation of Subpart K) should carefully evaluate the regulations and decide whether to operate under Part 135 (rather than Part 91) or under Subpart K. In any event, affected businesses should promptly consult knowledgeable counsel on these issues and determine how to operate under the new regulatory regime. I would like to thank Frank Polk, an aviation law partner at McAfee & Taft, and Greg Walden, an aviation lawyer at Patton Boggs LLP and former Chief Counsel at the FAA, for their comments on this article. 5. Despite Terrorism Threats, Insurance Market Offers Risk Mitigation OptionsAs owners of leased property, lessors face incalculable risks of terrorism losses for many types of assets now or hereafter subject to leases. Unlike most causes of loss, terrorism involves deliberate acts of destruction. For insurance companies, such acts could stretch or exceed their available limits of insurability. See: White Paper - Terrorism Insurance, Insurance Information Institute (August 2003) (III Paper). Lessor Challenges Lessors face two key challenges when using insurance as a tool to manage terrorism risk with respect to leased property. The first challenge involves the significant cost of insurance coverage for terrorism. The second arises from the resistance of lessees to purchase terrorism insurance coverage. A lessor can and should expect its lessee to mitigate terrorism risk to:
Market Isn’t Buying Coverage The reality check for the parties is that terrorism coverage remains expensive for high-profile structures or businesses with large concentrations of employees. Moreover, customers continue to resist buying insurance coverage for several reasons. The key reasons seem to include the high cost, spotty coverage for terrorism risks and the disbelief that they face a real risk of loss or liability. According to the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (CIAB), the majority of small, medium and large businesses across the US have not purchased terrorism coverage. Nearly half of the brokers reported that fewer than 20 percent of their large business clients have terrorism coverage. CIAB noted that coverage for large businesses is generally available at 20 percent or less of the property premium even if the properties to be insured represent the most significant risk of future terrorist attacks. See: Despite Increased Risks, Terrorism Insurance Has Few Takers, Business Leasing News (April 2003). *Tip: Consequently, lessors should not be surprised if lessees resist carrying terrorism insurance for virtually all leased property or are willing only to carry modest amounts of coverage. Lessors should push hard for appropriate coverage because the perceived risk may be small, but the consequences of a terrorist act may seriously damage the financial condition of the lessee or cause dramatic property losses for both lessee and lessor. Risk Management Alternatives Lessors should, therefore, respond knowledgeably to anticipated lessee resistance. Lessors can suggest that lessees consider, or explain their resistance to, using at least one of four insurance-related options to mitigate terrorism risk. The options require lessors to consider significant credit and risk management issues of the lessee. A lessee may:
See: Counterterrorism Protocol and TRIA Captive Fundamentals, Presented by AON (September 22 - 23, 2003) Conclusion—To Mitigate or Not To Mitigate the Risk Terrorism risk management is, and will remain, a complex issue for years to come, but lessors and lessees have options they can pursue. The first step is to analyze the lessee’s particular risks and decide clearly whether to proactively manage the risk or simply admit that it exists and take your chances. A risk management initiative obviously has more upside for all concerned. 6. Leasing 101: What Is a Standby Letter of Credit?A standby letter of credit is (i) a definite undertaking in writing (engagement), (ii) by an issuer (typically a bank), (iii) to pay a named person (beneficiary), (iv) upon presentation of documents to the issuer to make a payment or delivery of an item of value to the beneficiary. In other words, three parties consisting of a bank, an account party and beneficiary often agree that the issuer (bank) will pay the beneficiary (lessor) if certain stated events or circumstances occur in any underlying transaction. For example, a lessee, as the account party/applicant, may use an irrevocable standby letter of credit to support its maintenance, insurance, rent, security deposit, indemnity or return obligations to a lessor under a lease. The letter of credit typically “stands by” and pays for these obligations if an event of default occurs under the lease documents. Because the issuer’s obligation to pay the beneficiary/lessor remains independent of the lessee under Section 5-103(4) of the UCC, the letter of credit usually provides significant credit support to a transaction. The governing law for these standby letter of credit deals includes The International Standby Practices (ISP 98), effective January 1, 1999, published by the International Chamber of Commerce (1998), and Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The most common authority in letter of credit transactions remains the Uniform Custom and Practice for Documentary Credits – 1993 Revision, published by the International Chamber of Commerce (also referred to as ICC No. 500 or UCP 500). UCP 500 does not relate specifically to standby letters of credit like ISP 98 does; rather, it operates generally with respect to commercial letters of credit. 7. BLN Briefs: FIN 46 Staff Interpretations Proposed; LILO Settlement Guidelines NearFIN 46 Staff Interpretations Proposed. FASB has five new proposed FASB Staff Positions (FSPs) with an October 3, 2003 comment deadline (now passed). The FSPs are as follows: FIN 46-a (defers the effective date of FIN 46 for certain investment companies), FIN 46-b (defers the effective date of decision makers that receives fees without variability, expected losses or residual returns), FIN 46-c (includes fees of decision makers in considering primary beneficiaries even though the decision maker can be kicked out), FIN 46-d (describes how fees paid by a VIE affect the calculation of expected losses and expected residual returns), and FIN 46-e (defers the effective date of FIN 46 to certain non-financial VIEs). LILO and Lease-Stripping Appeals Settlement Guidelines Near. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) expects to announce guidelines soon for settling appeals based on the strength of the respective positions of the IRS and the taxpayer regarding lease in-lease out and lease-stripping transactions. The IRS may treat these deals as abusive tax shelters that the IRS has pledged to shut down. See: Expanded Tax Shelter Rules Affect Leasing, Business Leasing News (April 2003). 8. Training Offered; Recent Publications; Upcoming SpeechTraining – Substance the Easy Way! To help improve your business operations, deal processing and risk management, I offer private training seminars tailored to your specific needs at your designated location. My interactive and informative approach relies, in part, on my book, Business Leasing for Dummies (BLFD)® and subjects I cover in BLN. I customize the format and content for your specific training needs - no canned programs. Feel free to call me at (214) 758-1545 to discuss the possibilities. Recent Publications Besides BLN, I write other articles on leasing and financing topics with a current emphasis on energy, tax and terrorism issues. Check these out:
Upcoming Speech
A Message From the Publisher, David G. MayerInnovation Lost Few players in leasing would argue that the leasing industry has matured, consolidated and taken some lumps in the last couple of years during our slow economy. Experts looking into the future find that the best talent that leasing once attracted is going elsewhere. Tax and accounting structures of the past seem to have no place in the current era of on-balance sheet deals, extensive disclosure and collapsing tax shelters. Some lessors at the ELA question whether innovation is dead or resting. Having participated in this industry for over 17 years, I have had concerns that prospects for leasing seem to be contracting; that the industry has gained less new talent, created fewer new products and lost experienced players in the last several years. Before you form your own views on this topic, look at Article 1 in this issue of BLN. The tax incentives for leasing have recently been expanded and clarified, leaving room for new structuring and pricing for tax leases. In earlier issues, I discussed how the codification of the economic substance doctrine has been rebuffed, leaving room for tax experts to work within existing rules to develop new ideas for appropriate tax leasing structures. Consider Article 3 above on synthetic leases. These deals remain viable in certain multi-asset entities that comport with the principles in FIN 45 and FIN 46. In the past, leasing professionals have worked through and around legislative challenges, found new cross-border products, developed novel pricing structures and elevated customer service to a passion where every task could be done on time. In my view, as the economy recovers so will the fortunes of the leasing industry. While change will continue to occur, perhaps dramatically, and the industry may still face some difficult times, I for one believe in the capability, continuity and creativity of its members. In short, I do not believe that innovation is lost or dead. And if innovation is resting, it will only do so until it can forge ahead in the improving economy. Feedback From You Most months I share comments I receive on Business Leasing News and my book Business Leasing For Dummies (BLFD)®.
As always, thanks for reading my publications and for your feedback. About the Web Site of Business Leasing News If you have book-marked BLN, please change your bookmark to BLN’s new address at Patton Boggs LLP: http://www.pattonboggs.com/newsletters/bln. Please stop by and see the BLN web site any time. It not only offers past issues but also speeches, a link to my book and various helpful search tools. About Patton Boggs LLP and My Practice As you may be aware, I am a part of the Patton Boggs LLP Business Transaction Group in the Dallas office. Patton Boggs LLP is a law firm of about 400 lawyers located throughout the United States with extensive capabilities in over fifty areas of legal practice that include leasing, secured transactions, securitizations, syndications, project and mezzanine financing, bankruptcy, public policy, litigation, intellectual property and technology law and much more. The leasing practice regularly involves the legal (and business) aspects of buying, selling, financing and leasing real and personal property of all kinds, including aircraft, energy, facility, production, technology and other transportation assets. We also structure, negotiate and close specialized transactions such as vendor and venture leasing programs, municipal, state and federal leasing arrangements, as well as corporate and portfolio acquisitions, to name of few. Given the state of the economy, we extensively assist our clients with troubled deals and bankruptcies, including repossessions, lift stay actions, deficiency litigation and forbearance agreements. Please feel free to call me at (214) 758-1545 or e-mail me at dmayer@pattonboggs.com for information about any of these areas or the many others available at Patton Boggs LLP, or to discuss anything I have written in Business Leasing News. I welcome opportunities to build relationships. Thanks to the BLN Staff I extend a special thank you to my editors at Patton Boggs LLP for their comments on this edition Adrian Nicole McCoy, Sheila McCoy, Steve Reagan and Jeff Turner. The technical team, consisting in part of George Barber and Winston Jackson, continues to provide talented skills and support to BLN. All the best, David David G. Mayer The "For Dummies" part of my book,
Business Leasing For Dummies (BLFD)®, is a registered trademark
of Wiley Publishing,
Inc.
|
||