Public Finance Practices Saw a Huge Boom at the End of 2017
One public finance practice leader said deal work was triple the normal amount in the fourth quarter.
March 21, 2018 at 07:31 PM
5 minute read
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
The end of 2017 came with a short-lived, but sweet surprise for law firms with public finance practices.
Those practice groups saw business explode in the fourth quarter, particularly in the last two months of the year, as legislators in Washington, D.C., debated a tax bill that had big implications for the tax-exempt market. The last such boom was more than 30 years ago, public finance lawyers said.
“It all was in a very compact period of time,” said Emilie Ninan, who chairs Ballard Spahr's public finance department. “There was this concern that as of the first of the year, we're not going to be able to do these deals anymore.”
The tax bill put an end to advance refunds for tax-exempt bonds, which was a way for public finance clients to take advantage of lower interest rates and save money. Marc Feller, chair of Dilworth Paxson's public finance group, said clients were “finding every conceivable bond that could generate savings” at the end of 2017, in anticipation of the tax bill prohibiting that activity in 2018.
Clients were also concerned that the new tax legislation would eliminate private activity bonds—a major source of financing for higher education, hospitals and other public institutions, Ninan said. That change was ultimately taken out of the final bill, but without knowing that would happen, nonprofit entities rushed to the market at the end of last year.
Mark Stewart, chair of Ballard Spahr, said the effect of last year's fourth-quarter public finance boom on the firm's revenue was “in the millions.”
Feller said his practice at Dilworth Paxson handled about $700 million in transactions in the last couple months of 2017, about double what it would normally do. As for the number of transactions completed in that time period, that was about three times the normal amount.
George Magnatta, Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr's public finance chair, said his practice group was about 60 percent busier at the end of last year than in a typical fourth quarter.
Magnatta and Feller said the last time they saw such a rush to market was in the mid-1980s, and that was also due to expected changes from the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
“People were working to the last minute of 1985 to get those deals done,” Feller said.
|Burst of Activity
Of course tax lawyers were also burning the midnight oil at the end of 2017, and their practices haven't quieted as businesses (including law firms) search for ways to take advantage of the new law.
But the public finance boom of 2017 stopped as quickly as it started for many lawyers. Once the 2018 laws were in effect, there was no longer any reason to accelerate the financing schedule.
“That was extraordinary,” Ninan said. “I'm not expecting that to happen again.”
The lawyers said their practices experienced a slower than normal start in 2018, but things are picking back up a few months into the year.
“Of course we stole some volume from the first quarter of this year, so it was a little quieter in January, but things certainly picked back up thereafter,” Magnatta said. “Things are back to the regular pace for the first quarter.”
Deal volume will steady out, Ninan said. And that may not have been the case if private activity bonds had actually been eliminated.
“Given what was proposed to be on the chopping block and what ended up being chopped, we made it through pretty much unscathed,” Magnatta said.
The elimination of advance refunding will have some lasting effects. Feller said his firm saw a major uptick in advance refundings after the recession, and that activity will go away.
“That was a major part of our practice really probably over the last eight to nine years,” Feller said. “There's going to be a significant reduction in the volume of work that many of us see.”
Advance refundings have accounted for about 20 percent of all tax-exempt refunding activity, Ninan and Magnatta said. But they don't expect their practices to shrink by that amount.
“I think we'll make up that loss of 20 percent in some other ways of restructuring,” Ninan said. “There's always people thinking of new ways of structuring deals that are workable under the Tax Code.”
Feller said there are still a lot of construction and infrastructure projects that need to be completed, so there will still be transactions to do. And there has been an increase in municipalities looking to monetize their municipal assets, he said.
“We have other work that will fill the gap that is going to exist as a result of the decrease in bond transactions,” Feller said.
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 AllPa. Firms Set to Finish Year Strong, Thanks to Demand Uptick, Shorter Collections Cycle
4 minute readGOP Trifecta in Washington Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Pa. Firms Carve Out Niche in Guiding Lawyers, Funders on Litigation Finance
5 minute readBig Law Expected To Follow Milbank's Lead With Associate Year-End Bonuses
Trending Stories
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