AUGUST 2005
BUSINESS LEASING NEWS
"Offering leasing and financing strategies for your success"
Look at the new format and enhanced technology on BLN’s home page It’s available now for your review and use.
BLN’s home page follows the theme and bold new look of the firm’s web site that aptly describes Patton Boggs LLP as a "Power Base."
As you can see, BLN’s e-mail has the new look too, featuring a jet engine image that relates well to BLN and its topics.
From: David G. Mayer, a business transactions partner of the law firm of Patton Boggs LLP and author of the book, Business Leasing for Dummies® (BLFD). The book is out of print. You may be able to find a few copies, and there may be used ones on Amazon.com. If you want to find a copy, please search the web today! Thanks for buying my book for over 47 months.
This e-newsletter offers timely, concise information and analysis backed by supporting research. Please contact
Business Leasing News (BLN) to provide us with your ideas for topics and comments on BLN's articles. Our readers live in more than 23 countries and do communicate with BLN or its author, David G. Mayer. Thanks for taking your valuable time to read BLN.
|
1. Will Legal Opinions or Title Insurance Mitigate Risk Under the Cape Town Convention? The Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town) and the related Aircraft Protocol (Protocol) continue to rack up support as the Protocol approaches its expected effective date later this year or in 2006. When the Protocol enters into force it will affect virtually every commercial and business aviation transaction in the U.S. and many other nations around the world. Although Cape Town and the Protocol (collectively, the Treaty) promise to facilitate aircraft financing, the Treaty also raises numerous risks that legal opinions and title insurance can mitigate but not eliminate.Renewed Ex-Im Bank Support The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) understands the significance of the Treaty and demonstrated its continued support on July 14, 2005. On that day, it renewed its offer to reduce the Ex-Im Bank's exposure fee by one-third on asset-backed financings of new U.S.-manufactured large commercial aircraft for buyers in countries that sign, ratify and implement the Treaty. The offer now covers loan approvals issued through September 30, 2006. Ex-Im Bank also invited its counterpart European export credit agencies to work with Ex-Im Bank to develop a common approach to offering improved financing terms to airlines based in countries that ratify and implement the Treaty.Background on Treaty Although Cape Town is effective now, the Protocol is not. The Protocol has been ratified by six countries—the United States, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, and Panama. To enter into force, two more countries must ratify the Protocol. U.S. Ratifies Cape Town Convention, by David G. Mayer, Business Leasing News (Dec. 2004).*Technical Point: The effective date for the Protocol is the first day of the month that occurs three months after ratification by the eighth country. For example, if the eighth country ratifies on September 15, 2005, the Treaty will enter into force and apply to all U.S. transactions as of January 1, 2006.The Treaty’s scope and impact extends far beyond the airlines. Cape Town is designed to facilitate all asset-based financing and leasing of mobile equipment, including rail and space assets and most airframes and aircraft engines that meet certain minimum size characteristics. It is intended to expand the sources, increase the amount and lower the cost of financing available to airlines and general aviation. In addition, it establishes comprehensive laws in each ratifying country (Contracting State) that facilitate buying, selling, leasing and financing aircraft and engines. Cape Town provides rules on perfection and filing interests in aircraft as well as on defaults, remedies, insolvency, priorities, title and aircraft deregistration. See: Aviation Finance Players Focus on Potential Impact of Cape Town Convention, by David G. Mayer, Business Leasing News (March, 2005).*Tip : The Treaty gives Contracting States a number of options relating to default, remedies, insolvency rights and certain perfection issues the Contracting States must accept or reject when ratifying the Treaty. Contracting States express their choices with regard to these options in the form of "Declarations" that the Contracting State submits when it ratifies the Treaty. Interested parties should understand the Declarations in every Contracting State in which that party does business. These Declarations will be searchable at the International Registry located in Ireland discussed below.When the Treaty Applies to a Transaction There are four primary considerations in determining whether the Treaty applies to a transaction.
*Technical Point: Cape Town and the Protocol work and must be read together as one consolidated text. Cape Town refers to more assets than aircraft. The Protocol refers to aircraft assets as "Aircraft Objects." Aircraft Objects include an aircraft certificated for at least 8 seats (including crew), helicopters certificated for at least 5 seats (including crew) and engines rated with at least 1,750 pounds of thrust or 550 horsepower. Note that the FAA registration covers larger horsepower at 750 rated takeoff horsepower, but the U.S. rules will conform to the Treaty in this respect when the Treaty enters into force. The Treaty relates only to "international interests" in Aircraft Objects. An "international interest" includes a security agreement, lease agreement, title retention agreement, and assignments, amendments, subordinations and subrogation of these interests. Cape Town does not include contracts of sale and ownership interests, but the Protocol includes these interests. As a result, the Treaty treats them as the equivalent of an international interest.Since the United States is a Contracting State, the Treaty will apply to all significant aircraft transactions involving a U.S.-registered aircraft and related engines that meet the minimum size requirements. The International Registry: A Significant Change in the U.S. One of the most significant changes in United States law will occur in the method of perfecting interests in aircraft. The Treaty establishes an International Registry to be located in Ireland (International Registry), which will be administered by a company known as Aviareto. The International Registry is a computer driven, notice based system with no documents to be filed. It will operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week (unlike the FAA, which operates business days from 7:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., Central Time).If the Convention applies to a transaction, parties must register a notice of their interest (an ownership, security or leasehold interest) in an aircraft, helicopter or engine with the International Registry or that interest will be unperfected. But, as discussed below, there is more to the story. On January 3, 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration published the final rule (Docket No. FAA-2004-19944) implementing the Treaty, as required by the Cape Town Treaty Implementation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-297 (H.R. 4226), Aug. 9, 2004. The revisions to 14 C.F.R. Parts 47 and 49 implementing the Treaty announced in the January 3, 2005 Federal Register notice become effective immediately upon the Treaty’s entry into force. This legislation and the U.S. Declarations establish the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, located in Oklahoma City, as an entry point through which the registration of liens and international interests in Aircraft Objects must be authorized (this is known as an "authorizing entry point"). See: FAA Issues Final Rules to Implement the Cape Town Convention, by David G. Mayer, Business Leasing News (Jan. 2005).*Technical Point: The legislation contemplates that parties will continue to (i) register aircraft at the FAA (required), (ii) record liens against aircraft at the FAA (required for U.S. registered aircraft), and (iii) record liens against engines at the FAA (not required but recommended). As a result, the recordation of liens against U.S. registered aircraft at the FAA is a condition of a party’s ability to register a corresponding lien at the International Registry.After the Treaty is effective, the procedure for perfecting a lien against a U.S.-registered aircraft will be as follows: an interested party must file a document (a bill of sale, lease or security agreement) with the FAA for recordation, at which time the FAA will provide the filing party with a unique authorization code. The filing code will then be used when that party registers its corresponding international interest with the International Registry (interested parties will be responsible for making such registrations directly with the International Registry). *Warning: It is vital that you strictly follow these procedures, because failure to do so could result in a registration at the International Registry that is invalid and unperfected.New Issues and Risks After overcoming the threshold question of whether the Treaty applies to the transaction and giving consideration to the perfection issues, each buyer, seller, lessor, lessee or lender must address a host of new issues and risk factors.
What is the effect of a registration at the International Registry? How do I determine if I have filed at the right place and at the right time and what rights do I have vis-à-vis third parties? How does the Treaty deal with the perfection and priorities of non-consensual liens? If I amend, assign or subordinate certain rights after a closing, how does that affect my prior registration at the International Registry? After the Treaty is effective, is it necessary or advisable to perfect (or re-perfect) a pre-existing interest at the International Registry, or does my current perfection (for example, at the FAA) provide adequate notice and protection? *Tip: If you are at all troubled by or don’t know the answers to the questions outlined above, consider seeking the counsel of an attorney who is familiar with all of these issues now. Begin ramping up now to learn, understand and administer transactions under the Treaty so you can complete transactions without unnecessary delay.Risk Mitigation - Legal Opinions and Title Insurance to the Rescue? How do you answer all these questions and prepare for the Treaty? What options are available to a diligent and responsible lender, seller, buyer, lessor or lessee? Legal Opinions Under Cape Town Legal opinions can cover certain aspects of transactions related to the Treaty and registration at the International Registry. Legal opinions can identify and analyze the risks in a transaction subject to the Treaty. Most opinions contain limitations, assumptions and exclusions. A meaningful opinion should confirm most of the legal points (but not facts) inherent in the questions about the Treaty posed above. For example, the opinion should indicate that (1) the parties have made the registrations necessary to create and perfect the desired interest in an Aircraft Object; (2) the record at the International Registry indicates that the interest filed constitutes the first priority interest or other intended interest; and (3) no other filing or registration is necessary to obtain the desired registration (that is, the interest is properly evidenced by a filing at the FAA and the registration at the International Registry). *Tip: Opinion practices should develop quickly when the Protocol enters into force, if the transaction parties use legal opinions when closing their transactions. Legal opinions do not and cannot serve as insurance policies. Your goal initially should be to obtain a meaningful opinion, based on the facts and law known at the time of the transaction, that confirm the you have obtained the international interest that you expect to receive in the correct order of priority on the International Registry and at the FAA. FAA and aviation counsel will likely share the responsibilities for giving these opinions.Title Insurance Designed For Cape Town Risks A second alternative overcomes some of the limitations inherent in a legal opinion. Transaction parties should be able to purchase aircraft title insurance, which is designed to provide coverage for claims under the Treaty cover risks that legal opinions cannot. At least one title insurance company, First American Transportation Title Insurance Company, has issued a press release stating that it will provide coverage for claims under the Treaty (Cape Town Policy). The key question is whether the Cape Town Policy will insure transaction title or perfection risks including:
In short, a Cape Town Policy should offer protections that may assist parties in coping with the new risks and unanswered questions arising under the Treaty. *Warning: Neither legal opinions nor title insurance will prevent parties from registering international interests or prospective international interests that may create a claim or right, or merely a cloud on the title, in favor of the registering party even though the registering party is not ultimately entitled to the interest. For example, suppose a secured lender proposes to fund a $25 million jet aircraft purchase in the U.S. It then registers a prospective international interest in the aircraft but never closes the loan or removes the registration. The registered prospective international interest will be reflected in the records of the International Registry as a lien against the aircraft and will interfere with the actual closing and funding of a loan on the aircraft by another lender. Legal opinions are of no help in this situation. A title insurance company may be willing to provide coverage (often requiring an indemnity from one of the parties) on a case-by-case basis, which should allow the transaction to close. If the title insurance company declines coverage, then the parties will be forced to pursue other transactional solutions or judicial remedies to clear the encumbrance or cloud on the title to the aircraft.As the day approaches for the Treaty to enter into force, Ex-Im Bank and the Treaty itself will force the aviation world to focus on a variety of new issues, including existing rules relating to lien perfection. However, in the long run, the Treaty should provide greater uniformity, certainty and predictability in aviation financing worldwide. The learning curve may be steep for a while, but it should be worth the effort. Thanks to Frank L. Polk, a partner at McAfee & Taft in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (www.mcafeetaft.com) for his assistance in writing this article. Frank is also a participant on the Legal Advisory Panel to the Aviation Working Group (AWG).
2. Texas Doubles Requirement for Wind Power and Other Renewable Energy Resources Texas Senate Bill 20 ( SB 20) put more power behind the renewable energy initiative in Texas and should facilitate several years of growth of the wind power industry in Texas. With an estimated 1,298 megawatts (MW) of wind farms operating in Texas and interconnection requests for an additional 5,798 MW, wind power is big business in Texas.Background of Legislation and ERCOT In 1999, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 7 ( SB 7), which established a requirement known as the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). Under RPS, the Texas Legislature mandated that 2,000 MW of additional electric generating capacity from renewable energy technologies, such as wind energy, be installed in Texas by January 1, 2009, bringing the cumulative installed renewable capacity to 2,880 MW by January 1, 2009. SB 7 also established a renewable energy credits trading program administered by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) under which retail electric providers, municipally owned utilities, and electric cooperatives could purchase renewable energy credits in lieu of capacity from renewable energy. See: 39.904(b) of Texas Utilities Code.The Electric Reliability Council of Texas ( ERCOT) administers the RPS for the Public Utility Council of Texas (PUCT). ERCOT is one of 10 regional reliability councils in North America Electric Reliability Council (NERC). As a NERC member, ERCOT's primary responsibility is to facilitate reliable power grid operations in the ERCOT region that the Texas the Panhandle, far West Texas, Northeast Texas and Southeast Texas.*Technical Point: ERCOT represents the area in Texas served by electric utilities, municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives that are not synchronously interconnected with electric utilities outside the state. See: Section 31.002 of the Texas Utilities Code.ERCOT is also responsible for facilitating wholesale electricity transactions among power generators and retailers, ensuring customer information is provided to retailers, maintaining the reliability of the transmission network, and ensuring open access to the network. The Requirements of SB 20 SB 20 establishes new requirements for generating capacity from renewable energy in Texas. Most of the new wind generation capacity will be built in ERCOT’s jurisdiction. The bill requires a total of:
The bill also establishes the target of 10,000 MW of additional installed renewable energy capacity by January 1, 2025. See: Section 3 of SB 20 amending Section 39.904 of the Texas Utilities Code. In addition, of the renewable energy capacity installed after September 1, 2005, SB 20 establishes a target of having at least 500 MW of capacity from a renewable energy source other than wind energy. All renewable energy capacity installed in the state and all renewable energy credits in the state would count toward the goal. The PUC could cap the price of renewable energy credits and suspend the renewable energy goal if necessary to protect the reliability of the grid. *Opportunity Point: After consulting with ERCOT and other appropriate regional transmission organizations, the PUC must designate "competitive renewable energy zones" and develop a plan to construct the transmission capacity required to deliver the output from renewable energy technologies to customers. Watch for the designated zones as a hot spot of wind power development.PUC Ordered to Facilitate Renewable Energy The Texas legislation clearly puts the burden on the PUC to perform functions to facilitate the generation of renewable energy. The PUC must consider the level of financial commitment by generators for each zone in determining whether to designate an area as a competitive renewable energy zone and whether to grant a certificate of convenience and necessity. The PUC must also grant a certificate on a nondiscriminatory basis after considering the adequacy of existing service and the need for additional service. If the PUC issues a certificate of convenience and necessity or orders a utility to construct or expand transmission facilities for the purpose of meeting renewable energy goals, such construction and expansion will be used to determine the utility's rate base. The PUC could require renewable power facilities to have technology designed to reduce the facilities' effects on system reliability. The PUC must file a report with the Legislature by December 31 of each even-numbered year detailing:
The PUC and ERCOT must study the need for increased transmission and generation capacity and report findings and recommendations to the Texas Legislature by December 31 of each even-numbered year. Effective Date and Conclusion SB 20 takes effect September 1, 2005. With this legislation initiative and its natural resources, Texas virtually assures its place as one of the largest producers and builders of wind power nationwide for the next two decades. Thanks to Rafael Anchia for contributing this article. Rafael serves as the Texas State Representative for District 103. He is a member of the Corporate Finance, Public Finance, and Public Policy and Lobbying practice groups at Patton Boggs LLP in the firm’s Dallas office.
After an 18-month investigation, California prosecutors charged 46
pilots with crimes for allegedly not disclosing debilitating medical
conditions. If disclosed, some or all of the pilots may not
have been eligible to retain their pilots licenses. Seven of the
pilots held commercial aircraft certificates and 28 had private
aircraft licenses. The alleged actions of the pilots may have
compromised aviation safety and violated the law. If the allegations
prove that true, the pilots would have eluded detection and
enforcement for well over 18 months, which raises significant
questions about aircraft safety and security. *Warning: Although pilots presumably perform their duties well and qualify for their licenses in accordance with law, owner/lessors and lenders should consider this incident a warning signal.The circumstances suggest that lenders and lessors should, in this age of terrorism and deception, subject pilots who may fly their financed or leased corporate aircraft to routine due diligence evaluation before entering into a financing or leasing transaction. Lessors and lenders do not have operation control of the aircraft, and arguably should face no liability as a result of the actions of an errant or dishonest pilot. But insurance policies or exigent events may still adversely affect the value or interests of lenders and lessors. Prudent actions on the part of lessors may be the ounce of prevention that is far better than tons of cure for an incident or accident. *Action Point: As a corporate aircraft lessor, lender or owner, consider taking the following three simple steps during diligence to protect your interests:
Confirm Examine This simple diligence effort should enable lenders and lessors to make more informed security and safety decisions and avoid a potentially tragic deception by a pilot who flies the aircraft/collateral in which they have a significant investment. The pilots’ lies about their medical condition suggests the need to act prudently in aircraft transactions not only to protect public health, safety and security, but also to protect the investment and balance sheet of aircraft owners, lenders and lessors .Thanks to Steve McHale, a Partner and a member of the Aviation Team and Homeland Security Pracice Group at Patton Boggs for providing insights into security issues for this article.
The term "prospective international interest" arises under Article 1(y) of the definitions of the Cape Town Convention (Convention). It means "an interest that is intended to be created or provided for in an object as an international interest in the future, upon the occurrence of a stated event (which may include the debtor’s acquisition of an interest in the object), whether or not the occurrence of the event is certain." That definition may be as clear as mud without some context and other terms. As defined in the Convention, an "international interest" means an interest held by a creditor to which Article 2 of the Convention applies. A creditor includes lessors, secured lenders, purchasers under a bill of sale and sellers under a conditional sale agreement. A lien, a lease and a conditional sale of an object (aircraft and associated rights) constitute an "international interest" in the object under the Aircraft Protocol. A sale transaction is also treated as an international interest under the Protocol. The Convention covers international interests in rail, aircraft and space objects. Transaction parties may create and take steps to perfect a prospective international interest while still negotiating the terms of a transaction. The primary purpose of a prospective international interest is to allow a creditor to perfect its security interest in an object (such as an aircraft) prior to closing the transaction. Perfection is accomplished when both parties consent to a registration of a prospective international interest in an object (certain helicopters, aircraft or engines) at the International Registry to be located in Ireland. If the transaction closes and the documents in question create an actual international interest in the object, then the perfection relates back to the time the parties first registered their prospective international interest at the International Registry. If, on the other hand, the transaction does not close, no international interest is created and the registration of the prospective international interest is of no value or effect (although it is reflected as a lien on the International Registry, so the parties should release such an interest if the deal does not close). For example, a proposal for the lease of a helicopter will create an international interest in the helicopter in favor of the lessor if the transaction closes. A loan commitment, which requires a security interest in a commercial aircraft, contemplates the creation of an international interest in the aircraft at closing. A purchase agreement that is signed, but not yet funded, involving the sale of an engine will create the equivalent of an international interest in the engine at closing. If you enter any of these transactions, with or without transaction or commitment fees of any kind, you have a sufficient basis to register a prospective international interest in the object with the International Registry and, if the transaction is closed, the perfection of such interests relate back to the time of the initial registration of the prospective international interest. *Tip: Once properly filed, a prospective international interest will take priority over subsequently filed international interests in the International Registry.The examples above derive from the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (Protocol). The Protocol has been ratified by six of the eight countries needed to put the Protocol into force. The Convention and the Protocol each have a complex web of defined terms and provisions that modify the meaning of what you see in this article. For example, only certain size engines, helicopters and aircraft even fall within the Protocol, and various regulations, rules and interpretations already exist to complicate the meaning of the Convention and the Protocol. You should ask a lawyer who understands the Convention and Protocol, how these provisions work, and, in particular, how prospective international interests may affect your aircraft deals when the Protocol enters into force. For more on this topic, see the Article 1 above entitled Will Legal Opinions or Title Insurance Mitigate Risk Under the Cape Town Convention?*Technical Point: The United States has adopted unique rules and procedures for dealing with prospective international interests. If transaction parties wants to perfect a prospective international interest in a U.S.-registered aircraft the party must follow these procedures: (i) the parties file a form, AC Form 8050-X with the FAA Civil Aviation Registry in Oklahoma City; (ii) the FAA will provide the filing parties with a unique authorization code to allow them to then make a corresponding registration with the International Registry; (iii) the parties are then responsible for the registration of their prospective international interest at the International Registry; and (iv) at or after closing, the parties are required by US law to file the underlying recordable documents with the FAA (this filing must be made within 60 days after the AC Form 8050-X was originally filed with the FAA).
Despite California’s mandate to increase transmission capability of wind energy facilities, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) signaled it would take a business-as-usual approach to the expansion of renewable resources under the State of California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program. BACKGROUND: Southern California Edison Company (SCE) has planned to invest in transmission lines to comply with orders of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The orders require SCE to expand its capability to transmit electrical energy generated in the Tehachapi area, one of the premier areas in California for wind power. SCE submitted two applications to the CPUC for certificates of public convenience and necessity seeking permission to build the three-segment "Antelope Project," which would help it meet the requirements of the CPUC orders. SCE then sought a declaratory order from FERC that it could include the costs of the facilities in the electricity rates it charges its customers. ISSUE: Is SCE entitled to rate relief for investment in transmission facilities mandated by the CPUC to connect wind generation to the grid? OUTCOME: No, with limited exceptions. In a declaratory order issued on July 1, 2005 in Southern California Edison Company, 112 FERC ¶ 61,014 (July 1, 2005), FERC granted only minor cost-recovery relief to SCE’s for the State-mandated investments. LAW AND POLICY: FERC found that two segments of the project were network transmission upgrades, which could be paid for by the transmission provider. However, FERC found that the third segment was a generation-tie line, the cost of which is ordinarily paid by the interconnecting generator. Thus, FERC refused to depart from its long-standing policy requiring generators interconnecting to transmission grids to pay the costs of interconnection facilities when it refused to guarantee SCE cost-recovery for the new generation tie that SCE would have financed. SCE could not persuade FERC to approve its request for cost-recovery for interconnection facilities that are paid by generators under FERC’s rules. SCE argued that requiring generators of wind energy to pay the cost of interconnection facilities would create a barrier to entry for wind resources located in remote areas. The barrier would arise from: (1) the prohibitively risky and large capital outlays required to build transmission for project that may not be completed; (2) lack of priority for wind power transmission to overcome the rights of other transmission requests sequentially occurred to be first-in-queue for approval (that is, the policy should, but does not, give wind projects first priority to build needed transmission capability in remote locations); and (3) the parties involved in these project generally won’t work together to have jointly-owned or jointly-funded transmission upgrades. However, FERC found that SCE could recover 100 percent of the prudent costs incurred for the first two segments if SCE abandoned or cancelled two proposed network upgrades (not interconnection facilities). This part of FERC’s decision departed from its long-standing adherence to its Opinion No. 295, which requires that prudently incurred costs for cancelled facilities be shared equally among shareholders and ratepayers to balance their interests. See: New England Power Company, Opinion No. 295, 42 FERC ¶ 61,106 (1988), order on reh'g, 43 FERC ¶ 61,285 (1988). FERC found SCE’s circumstances were distinguishable from this policy because (1) SCE’s management did not control the decision to develop or abandon the wind generation projects, (2) SCE’s shareholders did not share the earnings associated with these new wind resources, and (3) SCE developed the Antelope Project pursuant to an order from the CPUC. *Comment: While the states continue to make efforts to promote renewable resources, such as wind power generation, this order signals that at this point FERC is not convinced that it should set new precedent to assist renewable resource development.Thanks to Amy Koch, a Partner in our Energy Practice Group, for contributing this article.
6. About Patton Boggs LLP and Our Law Practice; Publications; Aviation Briefing October 21 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 and technology law. We regularly work in cost-effective 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 specifically for aviation, infrastructure/power, health care, federal leasing/finance/marketing, municipal leasing/finance and more. We work with our clients from the "front-end" to the "back-end" of a variety of transactions. For example, we can 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.Publications; Aviation Briefing in October Recent Publications: Here are two recent publications covering the U.S. and Canada: Norvergence Strikes Again – Problems With Forum Selection Clauses, Aviation Briefing - October 21, 2005 On Friday, October 21, 2005, from 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Patton Boggs LLP will present a briefing for The New Era of Business Aviation II at our Washington, D.C. Office. Our unique line up of speakers will provide an insightful, succinct and interactive discussion of the hottest issues in business aviation. This is a second in a series of briefings. Our Aviation Team speakers include:
David G. Mayer, Author of Business Leasing For Dummies, Founder of Business Leasing News and Aviation Briefing Chairman Our additional speakers from the firm are:
We will also have a special guest speaker, Barry Justice, a dean of the general aviation industry and Chairman and CEO of Leading Edge Aviation Solutions. For more details, feel free to call me at (214) 758-1545 and if you would like to attend, please request registration/invitation by e-mailing me at dmayer@pattonboggs.com. Limited space is available. Clients of the firm will be given preference to this invitation-only event. More information will follow in coming issues of BLN and by mail and e-mail.
7. A Message from the Founder, David G. Mayer "Multitasking" It’s August, and time for vacations. Take a break from multitasking because everyone does it, right? I know I do. But did you know that many CEOs don’t multitask? In her recent book, Stephanie Winston examines this time-management concept in Organized for Success: Top Executives and CEOs Reveal the Organizing Principles That Helped Them Reach the Top (Crown Business 2005). To my surprise, she found that successful CEOs do not multitask. They concentrate on one task at a time until it is done. Do the rest of us do that? You may be one of the few that do, but the failure to achieve concentration stems from your unwillingness to set boundaries, according to Winston. Executives who do not multitask achieve that result by setting appointments, leaving open/drop-in times to see co-workers, and just saying "no" to interruptions. As you enjoy you vacation and take some much needed rest, try to return to the office with the idea that you don’t have to multitask to be successful. For those of you who have already had your vacation, reassess how to make the fourth quarter the most productive and efficient one of your 2005! Have a great month of August and thanks for reading Business Leasing News.
Thanks to the BLN Staff I extend special thanks to BLN’s editors at Patton Boggs LLP for their comments on this edition, J. Atwood Jeter, a real estate and wind power associate, and Margaret Anderson. Thanks also to the rest of our great BLN team, including our primary web site review partner, Doug Boggs, and Winston Jackson, our design and layout guru as well as Claire Campbell, our Chief Librarian in Dallas, who provides research for 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.
|
