Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation

Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation

Change of Procedure to Appointing Administratorsby:Devinder SinghandJohn Alderton

EC JRC Announces Publication of Article on Measuring Nanoparticles in…by:Lynn L. BergesonandCarla N. Hutton

Can Directors File an Out of Hours Administration Appointment?by:Susan Kelly

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Finds That Commissioned…by:Lorenzo R. Cabantog

Strength in Numbers: Why Forming a TSCA Consortium Is Importantby:Lynn L. Bergeson

2019 Mexican Federal Labor Law Amendmentby:Jos Carlos M. de Uriarte

What Game Companies Need to Know About FinCENs Updated Guidance on…by:James G. Gatto

CFTC Publishes Inaugural Enforcement Manualby:Daniel P. FilorandJeffry M. Henderson

New DOJ Corporate Compliance Guidance Gives Corporations Insight into…by:D. Michael CritesandMichael J. Ferrara

EPA Issues Memorandum Formally Initiating TSCA Inventory …by:TSCA at Keller and Heckman

Beltway Buzz, May 10, 2019by:James J. Plunkett

Mexico Overhauls Federal Labor Law in Workers Favorby:Erika C. CollinsandDaniel Ornstein

EPA Issues Notice to Manufacturers and Processors on the TSCA…by:Lynn L. BergesonandMargaret R. Graham

Second Bite at the Apple: Pro Se Plaintiff Cures Pleadings in His…by:Alexander J. Toney

Coral Gables Zoning Law: New Electric Vehicle Charging Station Lawsby:Anthony De YurreandJennifer E. Fine

DOJ Issues Cooperation Guidance for False Claims Act Mattersby:David G. BargerandNathan J. Muyskens

New York City Adopts Law Prohibiting Pre-Employment Testing for…by:Louis L. ChodoffandTara L. Humma

DOJ Issues Guidance on Cooperation Credit in FCA Settlementsby:Jane HavilandandLaurence J. Freedman

H-2B Visa Allotment Increased in Advance of Summer Seasonby:Enrique Alberto Maciel-Matos

The Roller Coaster Ride Continuesby:Susan Kohn Ross

SEC-Proposed Amendments to Financial Disclosures for Acquisitions and…by:Farzad F. DamaniaandMark D. Wood

CMS Issues Two Alternative Payment Program Models Focused on Primary…by:Alexis Finkelberg BortnikerandC. Frederick Geilfuss II

Changes Coming for Travel to Europeby:Nicola Ai Ling Prall

North Dakota Data Misuse Law Amendedby:Liisa M. Thomas

U.S.-China Trade Talks Fail; Customs and Border Protection Clarifies…by:Customs & International Trade Group

FinCEN Updates Guidance on Crytpoby:James G. Gatto

2018 Farm Bill and Federal Trademark Protection for Hempby:Erica B. E. Rogers

FCA Updates National Private Placement Regime Notification Process…by:John AhernandCarolyn H. Jackson

New DOJ Guidance on Cooperation in False Claims Act Casesby:Thomas F. CarlucciandMichael J. Tuteur

SEC Proposes Changes to the Financial Statement Requirements Relating…by:Jason K. Zachary

Rick Perry Announces DOE Funding Opportunity For Innovative…by:Lynn L. Bergeson

Retail Salespeople Paid on Commission Are Entitled to Overtime and…by:Mark W. BattenandThomas B. Fiascone

Entrants Continue to Heat Up Europes Electric Vehicle Marketby:Lauren M. Loew

CFTC Division of Enforcement Issues Public Enforcement Manualby:Christian B. HennionandGregory A. Uffner

U.S. Senators Submit Letter To Wheeler On RFS Reset Requirementsby:Lynn L. Bergeson

Commission-Only Inside Salespersons are Entitled to Overtime and…by:Brian E. Lewis

DOJ Updates Criminal Divisions 2017 Guidance Emphasizing Proactive…by:George B. BreenandRichard Westling

McDermottPlus Check-Up: May 10, 2019by:Mara McDermottandRachel Stauffer

APHIS Announces Launch Of eFile This Juneby:Lynn L. Bergeson

ESMA Publishes Final Reports on Technical Advice on Integrating…by:John AhernandCarolyn H. Jackson

Five Fast Facts about Washingtons New Noncompetition Lawby:Cary Burke

U.S. Increases Tariffs On Chinese Importsby:David M. SpoonerandLinda M. Weinberg

DOE Funding and BETO Projectsby:Lynn L. Bergeson

FDA Issues Guidance on FCNs for Substances Intended to Contact Infant…by:Packaging Law at Keller and Heckman

Wisconsins Pleading Standard: Sea Change or Same Old/Same Old?by:Kathy L. Nusslock

DOE Announces Funding For Bioenergy R&Dby:Lynn L. Bergeson

EEOC Back In Business with New Quorumby:Laura A. MitchellandF. Christopher Chrisbens

Product Recalls Decline Across All Industries in Q1 2019by:Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman

Puerto Rico Department of Labor Issues First Comprehensive Guidelines…by:Tatiana Leal-GonzlezandJuan Felipe Santos

Seventh Circuit Finds That Autodialing Platform Providers Can Be Held…by:Susan Nikdel

Obligations of Good Faith in JOAs – The Impact of Recent Decisions on…by:John GilbertandAlastair Young

Washington State Enacts Sweeping Law to Regulate PFAS and Other…by:Ryan J. CarraandNessa Horewitch Coppinger

Tenth Circuit Finds No Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal of District Court…by:Alex B. Silverman

High-end Job Recruitment Site Exposes at least 13.7 million Users…by:Catherine R. Tucciarello

US District Court Blocks Trump Administration Effort to Revoke Obama-…by:Alex M. Arensberg

Professor Bainbridge Asks If Corporations Are Not People, What…by:Keith Paul Bishop

OFCCP Provides Resources for Compliance Checksby:Laura A. Mitchell

NIA Webinar on Nanosafety Available on YouTubeby:Lynn L. BergesonandCarla N. Hutton

Financial Core A Dissident Writers Recourseby:Richard W. KopenheferandMichelle M. Juen

Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Now an Offence…by:Cameron Abbott

Major Reform to the Thailand Labor Protect Actby:Erika C. CollinsandDaniel Ornstein

Update: Government Enforcement in the Cryptocurrency Spaceby:Terence M. Grugan

Californias Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Motor Vehicle…by:Corinne K. HaysandPaul S. Cowie

Co-Pay Kickbacks at Center of $122M in Settlement Fees for Alleged…by:Jonathan Tycko

The Energizer – Volume 44by:Buck B. EndemannandBenjamin L. Tejblum

EEOC Sues OReilly Automotive Stores for Sexual Harassment and…by:U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

L-1 Applications for Canadians at Ports of Entryby:Mi-Rang Yoon

OCR Corrects Past Misinterpretation Of HIPAA Annual Penalty Limits,…by:Edward G. ZachariasandDavid Quinn Gacioch

A Reluctant TCPA Ruling- Court Finds ATDS Allegations Survive…by:Eric J. Troutman

CMS Finalizes Rule Requiring Disclosure of Drug Prices in TV Adsby:Tara E. Swenson Dwyer

Hotel Chain Hit with Class Action Alleging Misuse of Biometric Databy:Linn F. Freedman

OFCCP Publishes New Compliance Assistance Materials for Compliance…by:Christopher J. Near

Marketplace Lending Update 6: Is the Fintech Charter the Solution?…by:Scott A. CammarnandVivian Maese

Opportunity Zone Funds: Key Considerations for Private Fund ManagersPart 1

In December 2017, Congress enacted The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the Tax Cuts Act). Included in that tax legislation is what has come to be called the opportunity zone incentive (OZ Incentive): a host of dramatic new tax incentives designed to promote the infusion of capital into low-income areas in all fifty states and U.S. territories. In a breathtakingly short time by funds-world standards, the OZ Incentive has spurred the creation of a new private funds asset class that is focused on taking advantage of these tax benefits. The OZ Incentive has generated excitement across a range of industry participants: traditional private fund sponsors, real estate and merchant banking firms, family offices, and impact and sustainability investors, to name just a few.

The implementing legislation regarding the OZ Incentive under the Tax Cuts Act contains significant uncertainty regarding implementation of the program. Proposed regulations were issued in October 2018 providing sufficient guidance to enable industry participants to engage in transactions under the OZ Incentive, and additional proposed regulations are expected in the near future. Based on the current guidance, jumping into this space requires an appreciation that accessing the OZ Incentives benefits requires a number of modifications to the structuring and running of private funds that invest in this asset class. This article is the first installment of a multi-part series that highlights some of these key considerations for opportunity zone fund (OZ Fund) sponsors seeking to launch funds. In this article, we address some of the key general considerations for structuring OZ Funds.

The Tax Cuts Act added several new incentives for taxpayers to invest in low-income communities designated as qualified opportunity zones (QOZs). First, an investor that makes an investment in a qualified opportunity fund (OZ Fund) within 180 days of realizing capital gains may defer recognition of capital gains on those invested amounts until 2026 for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Second, the investor may have up to 15% of those capital gains permanently excluded from being taxed. Third, the investor has the ability to exclude any post-investment appreciation in the value of an investment in an OZ Fund from U.S. federal and potentially state income tax if it is held for at least ten years.

With these significant new advantages comes a new set of statutory and proposed regulatory rules that will govern fund investments in opportunity zones (OZs). It should come as no surprise that these new rules are complex in nature and hold some uncertainty as to how they will apply to the structuring and operations of OZ Funds. Traditional private equity and real estate structuring and operations may need to be adapted in order to securely achieve the full benefits of the OZ Incentive. Nevertheless, with thoughtful guidance, OZ Fund sponsors can navigate through the OZ Incentive to a successful fund launch.

There are different considerations at work with OZ Funds, based on OZ-specific rules, that distinguish these funds from traditional private equity funds. Private funds, depending on the types of investors and assets targeted, may be structured as a single fund, a master-feeder arrangement, a parallel fund structure, or in the case of a fund-of-funds strategy, employing these structures to invest in underlying private funds. In the case of the OZ Incentive, the tax incentives are attractive to U.S. taxable investors in part because of the ability to take recognized capital gains and invest them directly into an OZ Fund, thereby deferring capital gains taxes that would otherwise be due. Because U.S. tax-exempt investors or non-U.S. investors are generally not subject to capital gains tax, the OZ Incentive may not hold the same benefits for them, and accordingly these types of investors may not find OZ Funds attractive. This means that OZ Fund sponsors may avoid master-feeder arrangements and other tax structuring required by tax-exempt and non-U.S. investors (unless the fund sponsor seeks to target such investors because the merits of the investment is attractive independently of the OZ tax advantages). Further, the OZ Incentive generally does not permit fund-of-fund investing.

Exit events for OZ Funds also require special consideration. A private equity or real estate fund seeking to dispose of an investment will typically structure this as a sale by a fund of the underlying portfolio company or a sale by the underlying portfolio company of its business or assets. However, as currently contemplated, the OZ Incentive requires that the investor itself dispose of its interest in an OZ Fund to receive tax-free treatment, rather than the OZ Fund disposing the underlying investment and distributing the proceeds up to the investor.

This requirement has a number of practical implications for OZ Fund sponsors. Based on current guidance, the OZ Fund sponsor may need to structure the OZ Fund as a quasi-fund of funds, so that when the underlying investment is sold, the OZ Fund sponsor can effectuate it as a sale of an OZ Fund interest. Structuring becomes even more complex in cases where the OZ Fund sponsor wants to launch an OZ Fund that will invest in multiple assets, as opposed to a single-asset OZ Fund. OZ Fund sponsors may need to structure multiple-asset funds so as to have each separate OZ investment held in separate parallel or mirrored funds, thereby allowing for exits based on sales of underlying OZ Funds rather than sales of the underlying investments themselves. The Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department are aware of this issue and hopefully further guidance will correct this anomaly so that OZ Funds can be structured in way that comports with market standards insofar as exit event planning goes.

The OZ Incentive also drives a departure from traditional notions of how long a private fund term should last before wind-down begins. Most private equity fund terms range from eight to ten years, depending on the investment strategy of the fund, investor preferences, and other factors. By contrast, the term of an OZ Fund will typically be at least twelve to fourteen years from either the final closing date of the OZ Fund or the final date in which capital contributions are made to the OZ Fund to allow investors to obtain the maximum OZ benefits available. This longer term is due to the requirement that, in order for an investor to receive a basis step-up (and therefore exclude all post-investment capital gains from U.S. federal income) upon disposing of its OZ Fund interest, the OZ Fund interest must be held for at least ten years. This requirement for a longer term may present challenges in a variety of situations, for example when, for nontax business reasons, the OZ Fund sponsor believes that the OZ Fund would maximize the non-OZ returns by disposing of the investment sooner than ten years.

The investment period of a private equity fund typically ranges from four to six years, depending on the investment strategy of the fund. Over the life of the investment period, the manager may draw down capital from investors as needed, in its discretion, typically upon ten to twelve business days prior written notice to the limited partners.

One of the most significant differences between OZ Funds and traditional private equity funds is that cash attributable to capital gains must be contributed to an OZ Fund within 180 days of when the investor recognizes such capital gains. OZ Fund sponsors need to carefully evaluate and plan for this timing issue when developing and implementing the capital call procedures. Investors must be provided with adequate notice of when to schedule capital gain events in order to make a timely contribution to an OZ Fund or the OZ Fund should systematically call capital (e.g., quarterly or all at once commensurate with the final closing). In certain circumstances where the timing of an investors capital gains cannot be made to match the OZ Funds capital call schedule, the OZ Fund sponsor may wish to consider allowing investors to contribute to the fund before capital would otherwise called, or borrowing to fund an investment and allowing the investor to fund its portion of the investment at a later date.

If an OZ Fund sponsor allows an investor to prefund its capital contributions to comply with the 180-day rule, there are a number of additional issues that the sponsor needs to consider. For instance, allowing prefunding will impact the calculation of the preferred return. The OZ Fund sponsor also needs to determine whether such capital will be invested in temporary investments pending deployment, and if so, what those investments will be. The OZ Fund sponsor must also consider how such capital may be allocated to particular projects without jeopardizing the tax status of the OZ Fund.

The general partner commitment to an OZ Fund also raises special issues. Investors typically expect that a fund manager will make a significant capital commitment to the fund to align its interest with the limited partners and show that the fund manager has skin in the game. Often, the general partner commitment will come from several sources among the sponsor owners and senior management. For the OZ Fund sponsor, this requires planning in order to obtain the tax benefits for the sponsor under the OZ Incentive. As with any other investor, individual members of an OZ Fund sponsor will only be eligible for OZ benefits if they contribute cash within 180 days of recognizing a capital gain, and this investment must be made directly into the OZ Fund in order to qualify for OZ benefits. Accordingly, the OZ Fund sponsor may need to require its members to make investments directly rather than aggregating capital on behalf of its members and making a corresponding capital commitment. An OZ Fund may also segregate qualifying and nonqualifying investments for tax reporting purposes, and so an OZ Fund sponsor which invests nonqualifying cash in an OZ Fund may be required to invest through a separate vehicle.

A fund typically has an offering period of one to two years from its first closing so that it can raise its desired capital over time. Throughout the offering period, an equalization process occurs so that investors that subscribe for fund interests in each subsequent closing are, in effect, treated as if they were investors from the first closing. In such a case, a rebalancing of capital among early and later investors often occurs and the newly admitted investors pay an admission interest, which is distributed to previously admitted investors. Rebalancing among OZ Funds and payment of catch-up interest by later investors may cause early investors to receive distributions from the OZ Fund, which may disqualify a portion of the investors OZ benefits (unless the OZ Fund engages in fund-level borrowing or takes other corrective action). Therefore, an OZ Fund must carefully consider how, if at all, investor rebalancing will be structured.

These are just a few of the structuring considerations that an OZ Fund sponsor needs to address in the course of setting up an OZ Fund to take advantage of this new legislation. Please stay tuned for Part 2 in our OZ Fund series.

John L. Buchman and Amanda K. Strickler, Associates in the New York office, assisted with the preparation of this article.

In the Zone: GT Qualified Opportunity Zone News April 2019

Opportunity Zones Create Funding Alternative for Social Infrastructure Projects

Change of Procedure to Appointing Administrators

EC JRC Announces Publication of Article on Measuring Nanoparticles in Medicinal Products

Can Directors File an Out of Hours Administration Appointment?

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Finds That Commissioned Salespeople Must Be Paid Overtime

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Strength in Numbers: Why Forming a TSCA Consortium Is Important

What Game Companies Need to Know About FinCENs Updated Guidance on Virtual Currency

New DOJ Corporate Compliance Guidance Gives Corporations Insight into Evaluating Their Programs

EPA Issues Memorandum Formally Initiating TSCA Inventory Inactive Chemical Designation Period

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Mexico Overhauls Federal Labor Law in Workers Favor

EPA Issues Notice to Manufacturers and Processors on the TSCA Inactive Inventory

Second Bite at the Apple: Pro Se Plaintiff Cures Pleadings in His Response to Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Coral Gables Zoning Law: New Electric Vehicle Charging Station Laws

DOJ Issues Cooperation Guidance for False Claims Act Matters

New York City Adopts Law Prohibiting Pre-Employment Testing for Marijuana

DOJ Issues Guidance on Cooperation Credit in FCA Settlements

H-2B Visa Allotment Increased in Advance of Summer Season

Ed Dartley is a partner in the firms New York office where he is a member of the Investment Management, Hedge Funds and Alternative Investments practice group. Mr. Dartley concentrates his practice on all facets of the asset management industry, with particular focuses on the alternative investment asset classes, private equity, and venture capital funds, and managed accounts, as well as regulatory, compliance and operational matters, compliance audits, and internal governance. He advises numerous emerging and middle market private equity clients and other alternative…

Mr. Tejeda counsels clients on a wide range of tax matters associated with domestic and international business transactions. He focuses his practice primarily on tax planning in connection with inbound and outbound investments; cross-border financings; domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions; multinational IP planning; advising US based clients with regards to Subpart F; corporate and tax aspects of joint ventures and other partnership issues; hedge fund and private equity fund structures; tax planning with respect to the tax consequences of overseas operations of U.S. multi-nationals; and internal reorganizations. In addition, Mr. Tejeda has represented clients on contested matters with the Internal Revenue Service and similar state taxing authorities.

Mary Burke Baker is a government affairs advisor in the Washington, D.C. office. Mary focuses on federal tax matters affecting businessesincluding domestic and multi-national corporations and all types of pass-through entitiesand individuals. Her practice covers tax policy, tax reform, regulatory and other guidance, tax administration and technical tax issues, with particular emphasis on the OECD and the European Union, accounting methods, energy and medical device issues, and FBAR compliance matters for individuals.

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Reviews (NLRs) and the National Law Forum LLCsTerms of UseandPrivacy Policybefore using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log indatabaseof legal and business articles. The content and links on intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email pleaseclick here.