Joint marketing arrangements between unrelated insurers can be an effective sales and financial tool for both companies. For example, Insurer A may have a stronger brand name, or broader jurisdictional authority to write business, than Insurer B. Insurer B may have a distribution force with excess capacity. Both companies can leverage their assets by having Insurer A direct write business, marketed by Insurer B, where both companies share the risk via reinsurance. Sometimes called “private labeling,” these arrangements are really just a type of joint venture, but with unique considerations relating to the insurance industry and its regulations. This advisory provides insurance company clients with a checklist of terms to consider in structuring such a joint venture.
May 22, 2012
Advisories
|
This client advisory summarizes two recent developments concerning the ever-changing picture of U.S. sanctions on Iran: a recent penalty case issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which appears to break new jurisdictional grounds and the status of significant new sanctions legislation currently pending in Congress.
May 22, 2012
Advisories
|
The outcome of the TOUSA appeal discussed in this advisory has been much anticipated and closely watched by the lending community, their counsel and advisors, and legal scholars. On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion (found here), reversing the District Court for the Southern District of Florida and affirming the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, at least insofar as to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, but not remedies. The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court got it right when (a) it avoided as fraudulent transfers the liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to TOUSA’s new lenders and (b) required disgorgement of the $403 million in loan proceeds paid to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”). “We hold that bankruptcy court did not clearly err when it found that the Conveying Subsidiaries did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the liens and that the bankruptcy court correctly ruled that the Transeastern Lenders were entities ‘for whose benefit’ the liens were transferred.”
May 18, 2012
Advisories
|
"SB 375 May Result in state Control of Land Use," Los Angeles Daily Journal, May 16, 2012.
May 16, 2012
Publications
|
The United States has maintained a longstanding policy of not taxing bank deposit interest of nonresident aliens as a way in which to encourage foreign investment in U.S. banks. Furthermore, except with respect to nonresident aliens from Canada, the United States has not required the reporting of such bank deposit interest income to the IRS. On April 19, 2012, however, the IRS reversed this policy of the non-reporting of bank deposit interest. Pursuant to new final regulations under Sec. 6049 (T.D. 9584) (the “final regulations”), deposit interest income will still not be taxed, but when paid to certain nonresident aliens, it must soon be reported to the IRS. This advisory discusses the final regulations under Treasury Regulations § 1.6049-4(b)(5)(i) and § 1.6049-8, which will require U.S. financial institutions to report certain deposit interest aggregating $10 or more paid to nonresident alien individuals commencing on or after January 1, 2013.
May 15, 2012
Advisories
|