Banking and Finance Law Report : Banking & Finance Lawyer & Attorney : Porter Wright Morris & Arthur Law Firm : Bankruptcy, Commercial Lending

In the course of their business, bankers routinely encounter single member limited liability companies ("SMLLCs"), entities commonly used in real estate and small businesses. Despite the prevalence of SMLLCs, there is a fundamental legal uncertainty as to whether the assets of an SMLLC share the same level of protection from its member's creditors as is provided to the assets of a multi-member LLC through the charging order remedy.

Depending on state law, bankers may or may not be able to reach the assets of their debtors' SMLLCs through a charging order. Furthermore, changes to Ohio law have recently been discussed in the Ohio Legislature which attempt to remove any uncertainty and would prevent bankers and other creditors from reaching assets of a SMLLC through a charging order.

The following analysis discusses recent case law from around the country examining a judgment creditor's ability to reach the assets of an SMLLC in which its debtor holds the sole membership interest. The LLC charging order is a remedy through which a creditor who has won a judgment may reach its debtor's membership interest in an LLC. State LLC statutes generally require the unanimous consent of all members (other than the assigning member) in order for the assignee of an LLC membership interest, such as a creditor who has attached its debtor's membership interest, to participate "as a member" in the management of the LLC. To protect this approval right of the other members in a multi-member LLC, a charging order entitles a creditor only to the debtor's share of distributions and assets upon dissolution, and not to the right to participate in the management of the LLC. This prevents the judgment creditor from selling the LLC's assets and distributing the proceeds to itself.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we reported previously, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a rule in August requiring all employers to post workplace notices about employee rights to join a union. This effort by the NLRB to require posting about union organizing rights in all workplaces has caught the attention of the employer community more than any NLRB action in recent memory. The rule reaches into the workplace of all employers except for those few which are outside of the NLRB's jurisdiction. [See our earlier post that outlines NLRB jurisdiction]. Briefly, if you are wondering if you are covered, you probably are covered. The original effective date for the rule was to have been November 14, 2011, but that effective date was delayed when lawsuits were filed in two federal district courts challenging the NLRB's authority to issue such a rule. The new effective date is January 31, 2012 and the arguments in the lawsuits challenging the posting rule are beginning to take shape.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In October, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau published its first supervision examination manual which will be of interest to bankers and other financial service executives.

On one level, the manual is fairly pedestrian and may contain little surprising in that most bankers have a fairly extensive appreciation of (and experience with) an examination process. And, of course, the Bureau has direct supervisory authority only over the roughly 100 large banks, thrifts, and credit unions that have assets more than $10 billion.

What should be interesting to many bankers, however, is the insight the Manual provides into the examination approach of the Bureau, an approach that will doubtlessly influence and inform the practices and procedures of all other financial institution regulators, large and small. Essentially, the Manual describes the Bureau's process for risk assessment: first there will be the establishment of the inherent risk of a particular "product" line for consumers and then there will be an assessment of an entity's set of quality controls to manage and mitigate the risks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For good or for bad, interest rates are currently near all-time lows, including the “applicable federal rate” (“AFR”) which is used to set minimum interest rates for certain gift and estate tax planning techniques. While bankers and financial institution executives routinely consider the implications of such low rates for their institutions, they also should carefully consider the opportunities these low rates create for their estate planning and for that of their customers. Community bank owners and executives, in particular should not overlook these techniques that may help persevere years of wealth creation.

The October 2011 AFR is 0.16% for short-term obligations (up to 3 years), 1.19% for mid-term obligations (more than 3 years, up to 9 years), and 2.95% for long-term obligations (longer than 9 years). Such low interest rates could make this a good time to consider several estate and gift tax planning strategies that are generally more beneficial during periods of low interest rates. Here are some common techniques for bankers to consider: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Below are several of the latest posts from the Porter Wright blog network. They cover diverse topics ranging from protecting your trademark with the new adult entertainment industry domain names to say-on-pay and EU data protection to "Facebook firings."

Act now to prevent use of your trademark with the new adult entertainment industry TLD

A new top level domain will soon be available for use by adult entertainment providers. In order to address concerns from trademark owners not in the adult entertainment industry, a sunrise reservation period has been established to enable trademark owners to reserve or "block" the new adult entertainment industry domain names that correspond to their registered trademarks. The period for trademark owners to reserve such domain names runs through October 28, 2011. Read more.

Ohio Federal Judge Allows Say-on-Pay Lawsuit to Proceed

In a September 20, 2011 Opinion, Judge Timothy Black of the Southern District of Ohio ruled that a lawsuit brought against senior executives and directors of Cincinnati Bell, Inc. alleging a breach of fiduciary duty regarding compensation would be allowed to proceed. The lawsuit focuses on the "say-on-pay" provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act: specifically, attacking the Board's decision to increase 2010 executive compensation in light of the nonbinding vote by 66% of the voting shareholders to reject that increase. Read more.

Basic Principles of European Union Consent and Data Protection

Any US company that receives data about individuals living in the European Union must be familiar with the basic principles of consent and data protection within the EU to avoid costly mistakes that are easily made in obtaining consent, should the validity of such consent be challenged by the EU data protection agencies. Read more.

First "Facebook Firing" Case Decided by NLRB Administrative Law Judge

Earlier this year, speculation and educated guesses gave way to NLRB General Counsel Advice Memoranda on how the NLRB will address unfair labor practice charges challenging so-called Facebook firing cases. Now we have our first charge that actually has gone to hearing and resulted in an Administrative Law Judge decision. Read more.

Is The Judicial Ping Pong Game Over Health Care Reform Coming To A Merciful Close?

The Obama administration was faced with a deadline to ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals of a decision that declared the health care reform legislation’s individual mandate unconstitutional. Under applicable court rules, such a request had to be filed by Monday, September 26. A decision to seek such a review would have caused further delay, and very likely would have delayed the timing of a decision on the legislation by the Supreme Court until after the 2012 national elections.  Read more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The continuing struggle to improve the economy leaves many financial institutions of all sizes still looking for ways to improve  efficiency and profitability. Often the resulting business strategy includes cut backs in personnel.  But a reduction in the workforce that is not carefully planned and documented can result in costly and sometimes difficult to defend lawsuits and other legal challenges that can off-set the intended economic benefit. It is very common after a reduction-in-force for legal claims to be pursued by terminated employees, sometimes as multiple-plaintiff lawsuits. Possible claims include allegations that the reason for selection of a person to be terminated was illegal (i.e., age, race, sex, medical condition, use of FMLA, whistleblower, etc.). A successful defense requires showing not just that there were legitimate reasons to reduce the workforce but also the specific legitimate reason that the complaining employee was selected for termination. Not having a carefully planned and documented approach to the decision-making can result in time-consuming and expensive litigation. Also, a well-planned and documented approach to the reduction-in-force will promote reasoned, careful, and sound business decisions, which support the Company’s overall objective for reducing costs and improving efficiency.

 Here is a brief outline of steps that should be included in any plan for implementation of a reduction-in-force:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following was recently posted by our colleague Seth Hanft on our sister blog Employee Benefits Law Report . It provides a reminder to in-house counsel addressing employee benefit claims that their communications with their benefits personnel regarding employee benefits claims may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege, an issue frequently encountered by in-house counsel at financial institutions.

Keep in mind that both counsel and benefits managers often wear fiduciary and non-fiduciary hats when addressing benefits plans issues and it is not always clear which hat they are wearing when. Therefore, to avoid potential spill over of this fiduciary exception to their other areas of responsibility, in house – and outside – counsel should : (1) separate advice regarding fiduciary and non-fiduciary (e.g. plan sponsor, settlor, and employment) issues, so that privileged and non-privileged advice is not communicated at the same time and (2) be explicit in written communications as to the non-fiduciary purpose of legal advice being provided regarding non-fiduciary issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 27, we wrote a blog post regarding the NLRB proposed rule-making to require all employers to post notices advising employees of their rights to engage in union organizing. After a period of public comment, during which about 7,000 responses were submitted to the NLRB, the NLRB has now issued its final rule requiring the posting.

Effective November 14, 2011, all private sector companies covered by the National Labor Relations Act are required to post in the workplace a specific notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in union organizing, to bargain through a union with their employers, and to refrain from those activities. The notice also gives examples of employer and union conduct which is considered illegal and tells employees of actions they can file with the NLRB to enforce their rights. Here is a link to the NLRB announcement, which includes a copy of the required posting (as an Appendix.)  The NLRB promises that by November 1st, the posting will be available for downloading from the NLRB web site and that hard copies will be available from NLRB Regional Offices. All employers will be required to post the notices in conspicuous areas of the workplace where other employment notices are posted. Also, employers that routinely post notices regarding personnel rules or policies on an Internet or intra-net site will be required to post the new NLRB notice on those sites. However, employers are not required to distribute the notice to employees by email or other technological means. In workplaces where at least 20% of the workforce are not proficient in the English language, translated copies must be posted. The NLRB has indicated they will make copies available in various languages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In early July, the FDIC issued a report on an important subject to many community bankers: brokered deposits. The report to Congress, dated July 8, 2011, was required under Dodd-Frank and describes its view of the present role of brokered deposits in banking. Critical, of course, is the FDIC's observation that bank failures are frequently linked to brokered deposits.

Despite industry concerns that the present regulatory system for brokered deposits is outdated and poorly designed, the report concludes the present statutory scheme should not be amended or repealed.

Here is how the FDIC summarized the industry concerns it heard through the public comment process: (i) the brokered deposit statute creates liquidity problems if a bank becomes less than well capitalized; (ii) a combination of the statute and supervisory practices stigmatizes brokered deposits; and (iii) the brokered deposit statute is outdated and has not kept pace with technological change and innovation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Publicly traded companies may need to act quickly to review, and, if necessary, amend their stock option and stock appreciation right ("SAR") plans in order to preserve tax deductions for compensation in excess of $1 million paid to certain executives. The reason for this review is that the Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") and the United States Treasury Department recently issued proposed regulations that clarify a few items with respect to the application of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code") to such plans. One item relates to requirements that stock options and SARs must meet to qualify as performance-based compensation. Another item relates to a transition rule for companies that initially are privately held but that later become publicly traded companies.

As background, Code Section 162(m) limits the deduction a publicly traded company may take with respect to remuneration paid to its "covered employees"--- its CEO and 3 most highly paid officers (other than the CEO and CFO)---to the extent that such compensation exceeds $1 million. The deduction limit does not apply, however, to qualified performance-based compensation. Publicly traded companies often structure their stock options and SARs in a manner to qualify as performance-based compensation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Enforcement of a relatively new rule of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has resulted in significant fees in 2011 for small issuers with securities traded over-the-counter (OTC), such as some community banks. FINRA Rule 6490 requires issuers to provide notice to FINRA of certain company-related actions, such as dividends and stock splits, or face a $5,000 fee, which some might characterize as a fine.

FINRA’s ability to charge issuers is new as of 2010, and is a significant departure from FINRA’s historically ministerial role with respect to issuers. FINRA primarily oversees broker-dealer member firms, but it also performs certain functions for issuers of OTC securities. For example, it reviews and processes requests to announce or publish certain actions by issuers of OTC securities and maintains the symbols database for OTC securities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Breaking with the Third Circuit and the Fifth Circuit, on June 28, 2011, the Seventh Circuit held that a debtor's plan of reorganization that provides for the sale of the debtor's assets free and clear of an existing security interest may only be confirmed over the objection of its secured creditor if the plan's sale procedure permits the secured creditor to credit bid its secured debt for the assets being sold. River Road Hotel Partners, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, -- F.3d --, Nos. 10-3597 & 10-3598 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011).

The circuit split centers on the Bankruptcy Code's provisions that only permit the confirmation of a plan of reorganization over the objection of a creditor class (a so called "cram down") where the plan's treatment of such class is "fair and equitable." When the objecting class consists of secured creditors, the Bankruptcy Code requires that such fair and equitable treatment include provisions whereby either: (A) the secured creditor retains its liens in its collateral whether such collateral is retained by the debtor or transferred to another party and the secured creditor receives a specified level of cash payments under the plan, 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(i); (B) the secured creditor "realiz[es] … the indubitable equivalent" of its claim, id. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii); or (C) the secured creditor's collateral is sold subject to the secured creditor's right to credit bid for such property, the secured creditor retains a lien in the proceeds of the sale and the treatment of this new lien is in accordance with (A) or (B) above. Id. § 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii). Because the Bankruptcy Code does not define "indubitable equivalent" the courts, in providing their own definition have struggled over whether these three alternative "fair and equitable" treatments are mutually exclusive such that the only method for selling property free and clear is in an auction that permits credit bidding, or whether indubitable equivalent alternative is broad enough to encompass a free and clear sale that would not otherwise be "fair and equitable" because it did not honor credit bidding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Banking and Finance Law Report is pleased to share with you the launching of Porter Wright's latest blog – Employee Benefits Law Report– which we have created as a resource to help guide employers of all sizes through the complex administrative and legal challenges facing their employee benefit plans.

This blog – edited by my partners Ann Caresani and Rich Helmreich – will provide the latest information in a wide range of areas related to Employee Benefits including:

• ERISA and employee benefits litigation
• Health care reform
• Retirement plans
• Audits and correction
• Benefits issues related to mergers and acquisitions
• Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)
• ERISA fiduciary compliance
• Health and Welfare Plans
• Nonqualified Deferred Compensation/Executive Compensation
• Tax-exempt/government employers

If you would like to subscribe to Employee Benefits Law Report and receive e-mails regarding blog updates, please visit the blog and enter your e-mail address. Alternatively, you may add www.employeebenefitslawreport.com to your RSS/XML feedreader.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 30, 2011, the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County, Ohio decided the case of JNT Properties, LLC v. KeyBank, Nat'l Assoc., which dealt with the calculation of interest on a commercial loan by what is known as the "365/360 method." The court held that KeyBank's interest calculation method for the loan was unintelligible because although a provision toward the top of the note contained a stated annual interest rate of a certain percentage, that provision was contradicted by another term in the note relating to calculation of interest.  Accordingly, lenders using the common "365/360 method" should ensure that their loan documents clearly and intelligibly describe the calculation of interest.

The case originated when JNT Properties filed a class action against KeyBank, alleging breach of contract based on KeyBank's use of the "365/360 method" for the calculation of interest. The promissory note in question stated that the "Initial Interest Rate" was 8.93%, but then elsewhere in the document stated as follows:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link