Our first post in this series examined the regulatory and contractual considerations for municipal securities issuers and conduit borrowers using shelf registration. Now we examine the equally important considerations for implementation.
Extended Offering Period Underwriting Agreement or Arrangements with a Financial Advisor
The parties to the transaction (including hospitals and health care systems) should consider establishing the terms of the program at its onset pursuant to an “extended offering period underwriting, purchase and placement agreement.” Under this agreement, the investment banker would agree to underwrite various series of bonds during the extended offering period pursuant to a separate bond purchase agreement for each series (or for various series to be issued simultaneously), with customary conditions, indemnities, representations and warranties and document delivery requirements to be included in each bond purchase agreement. The agreement may provide that the obligation of the investment banker to underwrite (or place) bonds during the extended offering period is subject to certain conditions.
As an alternative to structuring a relationship with an investment banker for the duration of an extended offering period, the issuer and borrower may consider an arrangement with a financial advisory firm for the duration of the extended offering period, on many of the same terms described above (eliminating those that are obviously geared toward the underwriting process). Each series of revenue bonds offered and sold during the extended offering period can be purchased on a negotiated basis with the same investment banker or bankers, or perhaps sold through competitive bidding that is supervised and managed by the financial advisor. Investment banks will need to consider whether this arrangement triggers any additional net capital requirements.
At the beginning of the program a “base due diligence review” should be planned and implemented, along with procedures to update that review periodically during the extended offering period. The review of facility use contracts by bond counsel will be completed during the base review for each facility or project that is described in the TEFRA notice. Due diligence updates should occur prior to the date each subsequent offering document will be distributed to investors. Each due diligence update will entail, at a minimum, interviews with senior management, and reviews of corporate minutes of meetings conducted since the immediately preceding due diligence review, amendments to organizational documents, amendments to existing material contracts (including facility use contracts), new material contracts (including those relevant to facilities described in the TEFRA notice), internal financial statements and information, such as budgets, and other material facts that the parties can identify.
Role of the Accountants
The process for independent accountant review, consent and delivery of agreed-upon procedures letters to the underwriter should be efficient, yet recognize the necessity of the accounting firm’s internal review processes. Consents should be broad enough to include consent to using the audit opinion in not only the preliminary offering document, but in each supplement to it, or each offering document that is a component of the plan of finance to be entered into during the portion of the extended offering period before new audited financials are issued. To provide clarity and certainty, the consent letters should be drafted to include that broader consent. Consideration should be given to the use of a “bifurcated” procedures letter concept, in which the external auditors perform the “first part” of a traditional procedures letter with the borrower’s CFO certifying the “tie” between financial data in “Appendix A” to internal financial statements and schedules. Additionally, consideration should be given to producing and filing with EMMA comprehensive unaudited quarterly financial statements, including footnotes appropriate to the quarterly nature of the financial information, consistent with pertinent and current accounting industry rules and standards.
New opinions or “date downs” will be required for each issuance during the extended offering period. The challenge to the financing team will be to streamline the opinion issuance process. Consideration should be given to the use of an “evergreen” corporate (borrower counsel) opinion, with the delivery of confirming opinions on corporate and regulatory matters when each series of bonds is issued during the extended offering period. Corporate counsel will be required to identify the scope of its review to support the 10b-5 opinion. A new unqualified bond counsel opinion would be required for each issuance.
“Stub Period” Financial Information; “Black-Out” Period
As a general proposition, financial information is considered current under federal securities laws provided the securities are purchased within 135 days of the last day of the financial reporting period (quarterly stub period or annual). All other information must be current and comply with 10b-5 standards. Consideration should be given to precluding issuance during the “black-out period,” that would commence on the 135th day following the end of the third fiscal quarter and the date on which the annual audited financial statements become available.
For More Information
Visit Foley’s Health Care Finance practice page on Foley.com.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.