The Very Good Gets Much Better

One of the first items I discussed on this blog was the advantage of the Louisiana treatment of receivables transactions. The so-called “true sale” provision of the LA version of UCC Section 9 largely removes the potential that a purchase of receivables might be subsequently deemed a financing rather than an asset sale.

That’s a big deal and one of the reasons that TRE chose New Orleans as its headquarters.

Now that benefit has been significantly expanded and essentially “tailored” to specifically include transactions on the Exchange.

Governor Bobby Jindal took time out from his work on the BP oil spill to sign into law Louisiana Senate Bill No. 256 (Act 958) entitled the “Louisiana Exchange Sale of Receivables Act”.

The title of the law itself signals one of its principal benefits to TRE.

It does not apply to ALL transactions involving receivables sold in Louisiana. Rather, it deals only with those receivables transactions that take place “over electronic and other types of exchanges located in” Louisiana.

In other words: transactions that occur on TRE.

To make its aims quite clear, the stated legislative intent is specific i.e. “to encourage and promote businesses to offer sellers the ability to sell their receivables to qualified buyers over electronic and other types of exchanges in this state, thereby availing themselves of Louisiana civil law principles not found in common law jurisdictions…”

A few of the new advantages accorded exchange-based transactions are:

1. Clear and specific language affirming that exchange-based transactions are included under the very strong “true sale” protections already in the Louisiana law.

2. Clear and specific language affirming that exchange-based transactions will not be re-characterized as financing transactions even when seller-guarantees of repayment are provided and even when the seller might be entitled to subsequent additional payments for the receivables sold.

3. Clear and specific rejection of common law theories under which sale of receivables have been considered financing transactions in other jurisdictions.

4. Expansion of the definition of “receivable” to include other third-party domestic and international payment obligations that are not subject to the Uniform Commercial Code.

5. Provisions requiring anyone who attempts to re-characterize receivables transactions as financing transactions to pay the exchange-buyer’s costs to defend itself.

6. Clear, strong and specific language regarding the application of Louisiana law, and of these provisions particularly, regardless of the legal domicile of the seller, the buyer or the account debtor.

7. Provisions making clear the right of a buyer of exchange-traded receivables to resell the receivables purchased and to pledge or grant a security interest in the receivables purchased: in other words, facilitating a buyer’s securing financing to purchase exchange-traded receivables.

I again remind everyone that I’m not a lawyer, but as I see it there are some really big things in this bill, which should probably be titled the “Let’s Help TRE As Much As We Can ” Act.

Clarifying the “true sale” status of exchange-traded transactions is a very good thing. And this is the principal benefit discussed in the press release from TRE on this new legislation.

Specifically prohibiting re-characterization of exchange-based transactions is a good thing.

Providing for buyers’ entitlement to recover costs is a good thing.

But, from my point of view, the really BIG things in the bill are:

a) The expansion of the definition of “receivables”. This is not discussed in the TRE release but opens the door to new markets that could be of major benefit to the Exchange and its participants.

b) The specific provisions allowing exchange-traded receivables to be pledged as security. This will certainly aid those buyers looking to obtain leverage without pledging other assets as security.

c) The provisions that basically say “our law is THE law and the rest of you can go to hell”. The language of the Louisiana legislature is very strong on this point and while there has not been, to my knowledge, a test of the choice-of-law provisions in the TRE participant agreements, this language looks to have been crafted by a lawyer wanting to pre-empt any challenge of those provisions.

The “true sale” issue is obviously important but I think these three provisions might actually provide the more important springboard for TRE’s growth.

My guess is that we’ll see some creative use made of these new provisions sooner rather than later.

Congratulations, TRE! And congratulations Louisiana!

Well done.

An Inconvenient Essential--Part Two

In our last post we identified the invoice verification process as a potential source of “friction” in TRE operations; potentially a threat to both its speed of growth and even to its scale.

We discussed the steps taken by TRE to mitigate the friction and concluded that there appears to be a reasonable balance between: a) the risks posed by forgoing certain typical verification requirements, and b) the risk-mitigation elements in the TRE process.

But the issue cannot be left there. The fact that there are procedural protections that mitigate the apparent risk does not address the question raised by the fact that TRE, itself, verifies the receivables proposed for sale.

Given TRE’s rapid growth goal and the potential for the verification process to impede that growth, there is a potential conflict of interest that has to be acknowledged.

According to the materials available on the TRE website, it was initially expected that the verification process would be outsourced. The idea that a reputable third-party would be handling the verification process was expected, I assume, to give Buyers comfort that there was no potential conflict.

In fact, however, the process in place does not include an independent verification agent.

I do not know what caused the change in direction so my comments here have to be understood as no more than my own speculation.

If I were going to identify a list of candidates for the job of verification agent I would probably start with the big accounting firms: well-known, respected and knowledgeable; the names you find on public companies’ audit reports. They also employ hordes of relatively inexpensive, entry-level professionals.

The second group that I’d reach out to would be the credit rating firms with high name recognition i.e. D&B, Experian, Equifax, etc. These firms also employ large numbers of relatively inexpensive information gatherers.

From the perspective of an accounts payable person in a Debtor’s office it would probably not seem unusual to get a request to verify information from either a well known accounting firm or from a credit reporting agency.

From there, though, I begin to scratch my head. I’m not sure what other type of firm would have the capacity, the name-recognition, the staff resources and a willingness to consider the job, at a pricing level that would make sense.

If a well-established accounting firm or credit reporting agency were to consider the assignment, what would be the likely outcome? My guess is that they would quickly get tied-up in problems of definition, procedure, authority, work product and potential liability.

What level of authority must the individual providing verification possess? How is that authority ascertained? What reason can the verification agent give for wanting the information? After all, the Debtor isn’t told the invoice has been sold. What is the minimum evidence of acceptable confirmation? What specific assertions are required? How does the verification agent assure TRE that it has actually obtained the information if it is obtained only orally? Would it be feasible to obtain any written verification and, if so, at what cost in terms of transaction speed? What level of liability, if any, would the verification agent assume for the accuracy of its information? If no liability is assumed, what is the quality-control leverage?

You get the point!

The IDEA of an independent verification agent is unquestionably an appropriate one. The difficulties in implementing the idea are just as obvious.

The question now becomes: given that there IS an apparent potential for conflict, how real is the likely risk to a buyer?

In order for TRE to grow as it wants to grow, it needs more than anything else to establish credibility early. Better to lose potential business through excessive caution than to subject Buyers to losses through lax underwriting.

There is also meaningful value to TRE, I suspect, in doing the job itself (at least for a time), since the experience it gains will help it better fashion an effective relationship with a third-party should it attempt that in the future.

My own view is that, while the potential for conflict is obvious, the current risk is minimal. The stakes for TRE are too high at this point to jeopardize its long term goal by taking shortcuts this early in its development.

However, as the exchange ages a bit and the time approaches to actually meet the growth goals on which its establishment and financing were based, the level of risk could well rise.

As one who wishes success to the TRE enterprise, I hope that its management plans to ultimately establish the independent verification process that was apparently contemplated in its initial conception of the exchange.

TheTRE Value Proposition #3: The "True Sale" Issue

Trivia Question: What is the only State in the US whose civil law code is NOT based on English Common Law?

Answer: Louisiana.

One of the incorrect bits of trivia often attributed to Louisiana is that its civil law system is based on the Napoleonic Code. That, I’m told, is not actually true. It is true, though, (for you trivia lovers) that the first version of the Louisiana code was written in French.

I am not a lawyer but if you have spent any time in the financing business, especially working on problem situations, you do tend to become quite sensitive to legal “technicalities”.

Consider the following scenario: A business is owed money by a customer. It sells the right to receive that payment to a 3rd party. The seller unconditionally agrees to re-purchase the receivable from the buyer if the buyer is not paid by a stated date.

Question: Is this transaction truly a sale of the receivable or is it really a financing? Does the absolute commitment to repurchase give the transaction the character of a loan more than a purchase?

Answer: It depends on the law that governs the transaction.

Question: Where does the governing law hold that such a transaction is unquestionably a sale of the receivable and not a financing transaction?

Answer: Louisiana.

The Receivables Exchange is based in Louisiana and Buyers and Sellers of receivables traded on TRE agree to accept Louisiana law as the controlling law for disputes.

Louisiana has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, which attempts to standardize business law across the country. But Louisiana modified a critical section of the UCC that deals with buying and selling of receivables. The modification is critical.

In Louisiana the scenario outlined above, of a sale with an unconditional re-purchase agreement, is by law a “True Sale”. That is: it will not be considered a financing regardless of the re-purchase commitment.

Why is that of critical importance? Because it takes disputes out of the realm of the laws related to loans or financings; including questions of usury, for example; and contains those disputes within the realm of laws relating to the purchase and sale of assets.

There is tremendous advantage to the clarity of position that this brings to those, especially the Buyers, who trade on TRE.

Knowing that a broad range of potentially difficult and costly legal disputes can be avoided because of the Louisiana “True Sale” language, removes an element of risk from the process of trading on TRE.

And reduction of risk has value!