Ireland: Bricks and mortar
Dublin is seeing much greater interest in regulated property funds
October 25, 2006 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
Following the recent upsurge in interest in property funds, the Republic of Ireland's financial regulator is currently undertaking a re-write of its property fund rules. In advance of a formal change of the rules, the financial regulator has been allowing greater flexibility on a case-by-case basis for new funds. It is our view that this flexibility will lead to new opportunities for property investors.
Three types of fund may be authorised by the financial regulator: funds sold to retail investors, professional investors (PIFs) and qualifying investors (QIFs). The minimum investment in a professional fund is 125,000 (£84,000) and 250,000 (£168,000) in a qualifying investor fund. For the QIF, the investor must also pass a net worth test. Greater flexibility is permitted by the financial regulator in the structuring of QIFs. For example, there are no regulatory limits to the amount of borrowing that a QIF may undertake, while a professional investor fund is currently limited to maximum borrowings of 50% of gross assets. It is expected that under the anticipated new rules, this cap on borrowings by professional funds will be extended.
The regulated property fund structure has a number of advantages. For example:
. Tax: an Irish regulated fund can be advantageous from a tax perspective for both non-Irish residents and Irish residents. The key advantage of the regulated fund is that profits within the fund roll up on a tax-free basis. When profits are distributed or capital returned to investors, there is no Irish tax levied if the investor is a non-Irish resident or is otherwise exempt from Irish tax (for example, pension funds). For Irish resident investors, there is an exit tax of 20% where annual or more frequent distributions of profits are made to investors and a tax of 23% on the profits arising from other chargeable events such as a redemption or other disposal of shares by an investor.
. Stamp duty: the transfer of properties into a special purpose company or fund, where held by an investor in his personal capacity or another corporate, will normally attract stamp duty, calculated at 9% of the open market value of the property being transferred. If a portfolio is already held in a corporate, it may be possible to avail of relief on the transfer of the portfolio by virtue of section 80 of the Stamp Duty Consolidation Act 1997, "share for undertaking relief". This requires careful planning. The transferee must be an European Union-registered company and it is important to be able to demonstrate that the property constitutes an 'undertaking', for example, it may need to be the transfer of a managed property portfolio rather than the transfer of a purely passive investment.
. Use of special purpose vehicles: it can be advantageous to own properties through special purpose companies and, while this has always been recognised by the financial regulator, the regulator has recently clarified that for QIFs, the previously imposed limit of one layer of subsidiaries below the fund has now been removed. This will allow greater scope for the advantageous structuring of international property investments through the use of subsidiary companies. It is expected that this new flexibility will soon also be extended to PIFs.
. Registration of title: the financial regulator's rules state that the investments of a regulated fund must be registered in the name of an independent custodian. This is a sensible rule to ensure investor protection but can lead to complexities when dealing with real estate assets where properties are often registered in the name of a special purpose vehicle. In addition, custodians have been unwilling to become the registered owners of real estate assets due to potential liability risks. The financial regulator has now agreed that, subject to certain conditions, property assets may remain regis-tered in the name of the special purpose company or the fund. This significant change has greatly facilitated the operation of the property funds of our clients.
While many investors may still prefer to invest via the unregulated property fund structures that are available, we are seeing significant interest from investment managers in the Irish regulated product and, in particular, QIFs, which afford the greatest flexibility to investors. Some investors are already benefiting from use of these structures and, with the forthcoming changes to the property fund rules, we expect to see many more regulated property fund structures being created either for the holding of newly-acquired properties or as a vehicle to hold an existing substantial property portfolio.
The main regulatory rules
. An independent custodian must be appointed by the fund to be responsible for the safe keeping of the investments.
. The fund may invest directly in property or in property-related assets, such as the shares of property companies or property derivatives such as property index certificates.
. The fund must appoint an independent valuer and the fund must be valued at open market value at least twice yearly.
. The fund may be open ended (indefinite life and allowing redemption of investment at specified dates), closed ended (a fixed-life fund with no redemptions permitted until fund liquidation) or limited liquidity (hybrid between the two, being effectively a closed-ended fund that may allow limited redemptions).
David Williams and Jim Gollogley are partners at LK Shields in Dublin.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250