In order to become a Notary Public in the State of New York, one must pass an exam. However, if you are an attorney admitted to the bar of the State of New York, you can become Notary Public without taking the test. That being said, just because you are an attorney in the state, doesn't mean that you are automatically a Notary Public. In order to become a notary and be able to notarize document, attorneys must still fill out an application and pay a fee.
The process of applying to become a Notary Public as a New York attorney is very simple, but for some reason it is very difficult to find information about how to complete the application online. Below are the very simple steps for how New York attorneys can become Notary Publics without taking the examination.
How to Apply
The first step is to call the Division of Licensing and request a Notary Public application. Unfortunately, at this time there is no way to obtain the application online and you can only get the application by requesting that a paper copy be mailed to you.
The main number for the main office of the New York Division of Licensing is (518) 474-4429. Their offices are open 9:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. through 4:45 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays. (They are obviously closed for the typical State and Federal holidays.)
If you want to receive your application as soon as possible, you can also request an application from one of the Division of Licensing's local offices. (The closer the office, the quicker you will likely receive the application in the mail. The local offices' phone numbers are as follows:
New York City (212) 417-5747
Albany (518) 474-4429
Binghamton (607) 721-8757
Buffalo (716) 847-7110
Syracuse (315) 428-4258
Utica (315) 793-2533
Hauppauge (631) 952-6579
After you have received the application in the mail, simply complete it and mail it back to the Division of Licensing with a check or money order for the $60 fee.
Acting as a Notary
Once the application has been processed, you will receive a copy of your Notary Public card in the mail. The card will have your ID number, which is necessary for notarizing documents.
Once you have your notary ID number, you can buy a notary stamp. The state does not provide or sell stamps, but you can order a stamp from most office supply stores.
However, if you do not want to spend money purchasing a stamp, please note that a notary stamp is not required to notarize documents in New York.
In order to notarize a document without a stamp, you must simply write your notary ID number, the county you are licensed in (typically your county of residence), and the date your commission expires. All of this information will be contained in your notary card.
The New York Notary Public term of commission is four years and must be renewed with payment of a renewal fee after your four year commission expires.
In the event that you move during the course of your commission, be sure to notify the Division of Licensing of your change of address so that they can provide you will the necessary documentation and reminder when your commission expires and so that they can contact you if any of the documents you notarize ever come into question.
Philadelphia Car Accident Lawyer
Philadelphia Car Accident Lawyer
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Philadelphia's tax lien sale and securitization.
City council's approval of the tax lien sale depended on
balancing the city's financial needs with safeguards for low-income
homeowners.
On June 30, 1997, the City and School District of Philadelphia closed
their first securitization of tax liens. More than $106 million of real
estate tax liens were sold to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial
Development (PAID). PAID used the liens to collateralize the issuance of
seven-year bonds totaling $75,485,000. This sale marked the seventh
securitization to take place since Jersey City's first effort in
1993. It also marked the first time the bonds were sold in a public
offering and the first time a major rating agency insured the issue.
Finally, there are many features in the transaction, such as the power
to substitute liens during the life of the collection process, that make
the Philadelphia tax lien sale and securitization a model for other
cities interested in turning uncollectible liens into cash.
The tax lien sale and securitization process is possible because the
rating agencies recognize that certain private-sector collection firms,
known as servicers, can collect on real estate liens that governments
with limited technical, financial, and personnel resources cannot. In
fact, the rating agencies rate both the quality of the portfolio of
liens and the tax lien servicer.
Because of the age of the liens, their high lien-to-value ratios, and
other features of the lien portfolio, Philadelphia's independently
elected city controller concluded that the revenue and law departments
would collect only 40 percent of the proposed lien portfolio over the
next five years. It should be noted that this is not the same as the
city's real estate tax collection rate. It predicts only what the
city would be able to do with a specific portfolio of old liens with
high lien-to-value ratios. The difference between what the city would
collect on its own and what the servicer is expected to achieve is new
or found money for the taxing bodies. Securitizing the portfolio to
collateralize bonds allows this found money to be available immediately.
Because of the complexity of the transactions, the securitizations that
have taken place have required cost of issuances that are greater than 3
percent of the bonds issued. In Philadelphia's case, costs of
issuance were approximately $3 million or 3.8 percent of the bonds
issued. This cost is justified since the sale and securitization
provided $27 million in new money that would not have been available to
the City and School District of Philadelphia otherwise.
Since 40 percent of the entire portfolio, or $42.5 million, would
have been collected by the city with existing resources, this amount was
removed from the proceeds of the sale and placed in a senior note that
will be paid to the city and school district over the next five years.
This so-called "hold harmless" money is separate from the new
or found money achieved by the securitization.
Because the city will use the proceeds for economic development, the
interest on the bonds is taxable. Typically, such taxable issues are
priced at 50 to 75 basis points above the two-year Treasury bond.
The Portfolio and Servicers
Philadelphia's portfolio consisted of real estate tax liens on
33,591 properties of which 21,896 are residential. The city does not
know how many of these residential properties are owner occupied and how
many are rentals. More than 6,000 other properties are commercial or
industrial and 5,908 are vacant lots. One third of the properties in the
portfolio have liens that are at least 10 years old.
The rating agencies examined the portfolio from the time of its
initial creation until four days before the bonds were sold. Because the
portfolio was constantly changing, due to liens being deleted because
payments had been arranged or errors in the liens had been identified,
the rating agencies were asked to examine a moving target. However, once
the portfolio was frozen and the agencies were asked to make a final
rating, they had sufficient experience with the portfolio to give it a
rating. In the end, the rating agency gave Philadelphia a 29 percent
discount, which translated into a lien portfolio of $106 million
supporting $75,485,000 in bonds. After establishing a $2.6 million
interest reserve and paying issuance costs, available funds for the city
and school district totaled $69,843,000. As stated, $42,527,000 of this
amount was held in reserve to protect future years' budgets. The
remaining $27.5 million (the new money) was divided between the city and
school district in accordance with their tax authority.
The difference between the portfolio value, $106 million, and the
amount of bonds issued, $75.5 million, was paid to the city and school
district as a subordinated note. The $30.8 million subordinated note
becomes the source of payment for both the bond holders and the
servicers. The bond holders are paid quarterly from the collections on
the liens. The servicers also are paid from the collections. Only after
all the bonds are paid off, does the city and school district derive
some revenue from the over-collateralized portion of the portfolio, the
subordinated note of $30.8 million. While it is assumed that some
revenue will come from the subordinated note, the city and school
district have not projected any revenue from this portion of the deal.
Exhibit 1 displays the details of the sale and securitization.
In choosing the servicers, the city through its financial advisor,
Public Financial Management, sent a request for qualifications (RFQ) to
23 companies known to have interest in this line of collections work.
The RFQs sought information regarding the servicers' experience in
real estate tax lien collection and their approval or rating from any of
the three rating agencies. Five servicing companies qualified after the
RFQs were evaluated. The subsequent request for proposals basically
sought the servicers' proposed fee structure. The most competitive
aspects of the fees proposed by the servicers were blended into a single
fee structure. Because of the relatively large number of parcels in the
Philadelphia portfolio, it was decided to obtain three servicers. The
contract between the PAID and the servicers allows for the shifting of
liens from those servicers who are underperforming specific benchmarks
to those who are achieving or exceeding the contracted benchmarks.
Exhibit 1
CALCULATION OF PHILADELPHIA TAX LIE SALE AND SECURITIZATION
Total Value of Liens $106,319,079 (A)
School's Portion $58,475,493 (B)
City's Portion $47,843,586 (C)
$106,319,079
Bonds/Issuable = (A) x 71% $75,485,000
Less Issuance Cost & Reserve $5,353,146
Total Amount Bonds $70,131,855 (D)
Total Amt. Subordinated Note = (A) x 29% $30,832,533 (E)
Proceeds to School Dist. = (D) x 55% $38,572,520 (F)
Proceeds to City = (D) x 45% $31,559,335 (G)
City's Senior Note = (C) x 40% $19,137,434 (H)
City's "New" Money = (G) - (H) $12,421,900 (I)
City's Subordinated Note = (E) x 45% $13,874,640 (J)
Sch. Dist. Senior Note = (B) x 40% $23,390,197 (K)
Sch. Dist. "New" Money = (F) - (K) $15,182,323 (L)
Sch. Dist. Subordinated Note = (E) x 55% $16,957,893 (M)
(Because of different millage rates, the city's interest in the
real estate
tax lien portfolio is 45 percent while the school district's is 55
percent.)
Termination Fee. The fee structure is in three parts. First, there is
a termination fee. In the event that a servicer is terminated without
cause, it is entitled to a fee based on 2 percent of the principal value
of its portfolio, if termination takes place in the first year. This fee
declines until the third year when a 1/2 percent termination fee would
be paid by the issuer.
Administrative Fee. Second, there is an .8 percent administrative fee
based on the size of the principal amount of the portfolio held by each
servicer. As the portfolio is worked and liens converted into cash, the
value of the administrative fee will decline.
Incentive Fee. Of greatest importance is the incentive fee, which is
designed to encourage servicers to collect on even the most difficult
liens. Accordingly, the first 10 percent of the portfolio each servicer
collects will earn the servicer .25 percent of the funds brought in. The
incentive fee increases with each 10 percent of the portfolio collected
until the final 10 percent of the portfolio allows the servicer to earn
6 percent on the monies brought in.
The Rush to Pay
Publicity about the sale of the liens and the fear that the servicers
would somehow be more draconian in their collection methods moved many
long-standing delinquents to either pay their delinquencies or enter
into 12- to 24-month payment plans.
The City of Philadelphia increased the pressure on delinquents by
securing authority from the state legislature and city council to charge
up to 18 percent in attorneys fees for the collection of delinquent real
estate taxes. This 18 percent goes to the city and school district, not
the servicer, but it increases the value of portions of the portfolio
with liens filed after December 1990. Prior to the engagement of the
servicers, Philadelphia's delinquents flocked to make restitution on their back taxes. This rush to pay before the terms of settlement got
tougher was also reported by other cities that used securitizations,
sold their liens directly to servicers, or simply hired private
servicers.
The initial legislation for the sale and securitization was submitted
to city council in November 1996, and final passage took place in June
1997. During the month of April, a series of public hearings was held by
City Council that generated significant publicity. The misinformation that is the stock in trade of radio talk shows had a positive effect and
motivated people to pay their back taxes. Between May 1 and June 16, the
city and school district collected a combined $36,550,519 in cash. In
addition, 30,230 payment plans worth $68,816,768 were obtained.
Balancing Financial Interests
The biggest obstacle in selling the liens, hiring servicers, and
going forward with the securitization was obtaining city council
approval. Philadelphia, like many cities, has large concentrations of
lower-income people. City council members, particularly those who
represent low-income districts, were concerned about protecting
delinquent taxpayers from unfair collection methods. Even though
servicers are required to use the same methods, payment plans, and
techniques employed by the city revenue and law departments, many
council members feared that low-income people would be forced to make
payments they could not afford and also were concerned about adverse
voter reaction from a large segment of the population. More than 30
percent of Philadelphia's 600,000 households live on an income of
less than $15,000 a year. Almost 20 percent, one out of every five
properties, had a real estate delinquency and at least one lien.
In the end, getting this tax lien sale to market required balancing
the financial interests, as represented by the rating agencies, with the
safeguards for citizens required by city council. Every measure to
protect the interests of the delinquent citizen could result to one
degree or another in a greater discount and less money in the deal.
Without the provisions for protecting individuals, however, city council
approval would not have been provided. Because the school district
needed the money by the end of its fiscal year (June 30), finance staff
were able to provide a solid reason to do the securitization and a real
deadline for city council action.
The most significant protection provided to lower-income people was
to structure the servicing agreement to allow unlimited lien
substitution for either economic development purposes or because of the
economic hardship of the property owner. If a property whose lien is
being worked by a servicer is thought to be important for an economic
development project where the tax delinquency might assist a public
agency or a community development corporation in obtaining the parcel,
or if the property owner is clearly destitute, the lien can be
substituted with a lien of equal value and quality. Since the portfolio
did not include all the tax liens held by the City of Philadelphia and
because the city files up to $50 million of delinquent tax liens a year,
there is no difficulty in finding suitable substitutes. This feature
gave council members comfort that they could remove the truly destitute
from the servicers' embrace.
The experience of other cities that have utilized servicers is that
there has not been any increase in foreclosures, and the principal
servicers themselves report that while owner-occupied properties may be
threatened with tax sales, it is not in the servicers' financial
interests to foreclose on these properties.
The portfolio Philadelphia provided to the servicers was constructed
so that senior citizens and other taxpayers on special payment plans
were not included. People who entered into payment agreements with the
city before June 17, 1997, were assured that their liens would not be
placed in the portfolio nor would their liens be used for substitution
and put in the portfolio at some later date - even if they broke the
payment agreement. City council members were assured that people who
enter into payment agreements with the servicer and then break the
agreement will have at least 60 days before the property goes to tax
sale. District council members are to be notified two weeks before any
tax sale of properties within their district.
At the last minute, three recalcitrant council members agreed to
support the tax lien sale and securitization if the city would designate a million dollars of the new money gained from the sale to set up a loan
program so that working people faced with tax foreclosure can get the
necessary down payment to enter into a payment agreement. Since the
city's housing funds come from community development block grants,
current loan programs are income restricted. Use of the tax lien
proceeds removes the income barrier. Under the new Homeowner Protection
Program, loans will be repaid with the tax delinquency as part of the
monthly payment plan. In addition, participants will be required to
undergo household finance and budget counseling to insure that taxes are
paid appropriately in the future.
As municipalities seek to turn uncollected taxes, fines, and fees
into cash, the sale and securitization of these receivables may be an
increasingly important tool. The Government Finance Officers Association
adopted a recommended practice, "Sale and Securitization of
Property Tax Liens," in June 1997, which is displayed in the
accompanying sidebar.
RELATED ARTICLE: GFOA RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Sale and Securitization
of Property Tax Liens (1997)
Background. Governments sell or securitize property tax liens to
eliminate backlogs of accumulated delinquent tax receivables and convert
those receivables into cash. Tax liens, which are attached to properties
for nonpayment of property taxes or those assessments, may be bundled
and sold directly to investors through a bulk-sale process. They also
may be sold to a trust, where the payment stream is securitized. Bonds
backed by the delinquent taxes are then sold to investors and the
proceeds of the issue are paid to the government that sold the tax
liens.
Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
recommends that governments contemplating the sale or securitization of
property tax liens undertake a careful analysis of benefits and risks
both in the current fiscal year and over the long-term. When evaluating
the sale or securitization of tax liens, governments should:
1. Ensure they have legal authorization to enter into these types of
transactions and understand any conditions or limitations imposed by
state or local law.
2. Be clear about the public policy objectives to be achieved, such
as improving collections or avoiding costs associated with the ownership
of the property on which taxes are owed.
3. Evaluate whether changes in the collection process could reduce
the occurrence of delinquencies.
4. Use sale proceeds for non-recurring purposes, particularly if the
amount of the sale or securitization is large. Governments using a tax
lien sale or securitization as a one-time mechanism to address a current
year budget gap should assess the short- and long-term implications for
the government's credit quality. They also should consider how gaps
will be closed in later years and whether structural budgetary balance
is able to be achieved without future tax lien sales or securitizations.
5. Determine that the net return after taking account of transaction
costs is acceptable in terms of alternative approaches, including
retaining ownership of uncollected receivables.
Once a decision has ben made to sell or securitize tax liens,
governments should:
1. Examine the lien pool carefully to ensure properties will be
acceptable to investors. Lien-to-value ratios of various classes of
property, the age of the liens, historical redemption rates in the
community, property types, and the number of environmentally impacted
properties are among the factors that should be considered.
2. Review statutory cure periods established to permit owners to pay
delinquent revenues to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck
between government policy objectives and acceptability to investors.
3. Select legal and financial advisors and other service providers
with demonstrated experience with these transactions.
4. Select a servicer with a proven track record if such a firm is
being used to collect delinquent taxes. Rating agency approval of the
servicer is typically required, and will be based, in part, on the
record of the servicer. Among the qualifications that should be
evaluated are:
* knowledge of state and local law;
* due diligence capabilities in the lien selection process;
* adequacy of the servicing system, including recording, auditing,
and financial reporting procedures; and
* historical performance in serving liens, including procedures for
workouts and foreclosures.
5. Recognize the community relations impact of establishing a private
collection mechanism. Governments should take steps to maintain good
relations among all affected parties, such as designating an ombudsman or instituting a formal complaint process through which problems that
may arise are addressed.
References
* "Tax Lien Securitization: Putting Non-Performing Assets to
Work," Government Finance Review, GFOA, June 1996.
* "Municipalities Turn to Property Tax Lien Sales,"
Standard & Poor's CreditWeek Municipal, March 25, 1996.
Approved by the GFOA Executive Board October 17, 1997
BEN HAYLLAR, Ph.D., is the City of Philadelphia Director of Finance
and a member of the GFOA's Committee on Debt and Fiscal Policy. He
joined the administration of Ed Rendell in 1993 after serving as
Pittsburgh's director of finance.
balancing the city's financial needs with safeguards for low-income
homeowners.
On June 30, 1997, the City and School District of Philadelphia closed
their first securitization of tax liens. More than $106 million of real
estate tax liens were sold to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial
Development (PAID). PAID used the liens to collateralize the issuance of
seven-year bonds totaling $75,485,000. This sale marked the seventh
securitization to take place since Jersey City's first effort in
1993. It also marked the first time the bonds were sold in a public
offering and the first time a major rating agency insured the issue.
Finally, there are many features in the transaction, such as the power
to substitute liens during the life of the collection process, that make
the Philadelphia tax lien sale and securitization a model for other
cities interested in turning uncollectible liens into cash.
The tax lien sale and securitization process is possible because the
rating agencies recognize that certain private-sector collection firms,
known as servicers, can collect on real estate liens that governments
with limited technical, financial, and personnel resources cannot. In
fact, the rating agencies rate both the quality of the portfolio of
liens and the tax lien servicer.
Because of the age of the liens, their high lien-to-value ratios, and
other features of the lien portfolio, Philadelphia's independently
elected city controller concluded that the revenue and law departments
would collect only 40 percent of the proposed lien portfolio over the
next five years. It should be noted that this is not the same as the
city's real estate tax collection rate. It predicts only what the
city would be able to do with a specific portfolio of old liens with
high lien-to-value ratios. The difference between what the city would
collect on its own and what the servicer is expected to achieve is new
or found money for the taxing bodies. Securitizing the portfolio to
collateralize bonds allows this found money to be available immediately.
Because of the complexity of the transactions, the securitizations that
have taken place have required cost of issuances that are greater than 3
percent of the bonds issued. In Philadelphia's case, costs of
issuance were approximately $3 million or 3.8 percent of the bonds
issued. This cost is justified since the sale and securitization
provided $27 million in new money that would not have been available to
the City and School District of Philadelphia otherwise.
Since 40 percent of the entire portfolio, or $42.5 million, would
have been collected by the city with existing resources, this amount was
removed from the proceeds of the sale and placed in a senior note that
will be paid to the city and school district over the next five years.
This so-called "hold harmless" money is separate from the new
or found money achieved by the securitization.
Because the city will use the proceeds for economic development, the
interest on the bonds is taxable. Typically, such taxable issues are
priced at 50 to 75 basis points above the two-year Treasury bond.
The Portfolio and Servicers
Philadelphia's portfolio consisted of real estate tax liens on
33,591 properties of which 21,896 are residential. The city does not
know how many of these residential properties are owner occupied and how
many are rentals. More than 6,000 other properties are commercial or
industrial and 5,908 are vacant lots. One third of the properties in the
portfolio have liens that are at least 10 years old.
The rating agencies examined the portfolio from the time of its
initial creation until four days before the bonds were sold. Because the
portfolio was constantly changing, due to liens being deleted because
payments had been arranged or errors in the liens had been identified,
the rating agencies were asked to examine a moving target. However, once
the portfolio was frozen and the agencies were asked to make a final
rating, they had sufficient experience with the portfolio to give it a
rating. In the end, the rating agency gave Philadelphia a 29 percent
discount, which translated into a lien portfolio of $106 million
supporting $75,485,000 in bonds. After establishing a $2.6 million
interest reserve and paying issuance costs, available funds for the city
and school district totaled $69,843,000. As stated, $42,527,000 of this
amount was held in reserve to protect future years' budgets. The
remaining $27.5 million (the new money) was divided between the city and
school district in accordance with their tax authority.
The difference between the portfolio value, $106 million, and the
amount of bonds issued, $75.5 million, was paid to the city and school
district as a subordinated note. The $30.8 million subordinated note
becomes the source of payment for both the bond holders and the
servicers. The bond holders are paid quarterly from the collections on
the liens. The servicers also are paid from the collections. Only after
all the bonds are paid off, does the city and school district derive
some revenue from the over-collateralized portion of the portfolio, the
subordinated note of $30.8 million. While it is assumed that some
revenue will come from the subordinated note, the city and school
district have not projected any revenue from this portion of the deal.
Exhibit 1 displays the details of the sale and securitization.
In choosing the servicers, the city through its financial advisor,
Public Financial Management, sent a request for qualifications (RFQ) to
23 companies known to have interest in this line of collections work.
The RFQs sought information regarding the servicers' experience in
real estate tax lien collection and their approval or rating from any of
the three rating agencies. Five servicing companies qualified after the
RFQs were evaluated. The subsequent request for proposals basically
sought the servicers' proposed fee structure. The most competitive
aspects of the fees proposed by the servicers were blended into a single
fee structure. Because of the relatively large number of parcels in the
Philadelphia portfolio, it was decided to obtain three servicers. The
contract between the PAID and the servicers allows for the shifting of
liens from those servicers who are underperforming specific benchmarks
to those who are achieving or exceeding the contracted benchmarks.
Exhibit 1
CALCULATION OF PHILADELPHIA TAX LIE SALE AND SECURITIZATION
Total Value of Liens $106,319,079 (A)
School's Portion $58,475,493 (B)
City's Portion $47,843,586 (C)
$106,319,079
Bonds/Issuable = (A) x 71% $75,485,000
Less Issuance Cost & Reserve $5,353,146
Total Amount Bonds $70,131,855 (D)
Total Amt. Subordinated Note = (A) x 29% $30,832,533 (E)
Proceeds to School Dist. = (D) x 55% $38,572,520 (F)
Proceeds to City = (D) x 45% $31,559,335 (G)
City's Senior Note = (C) x 40% $19,137,434 (H)
City's "New" Money = (G) - (H) $12,421,900 (I)
City's Subordinated Note = (E) x 45% $13,874,640 (J)
Sch. Dist. Senior Note = (B) x 40% $23,390,197 (K)
Sch. Dist. "New" Money = (F) - (K) $15,182,323 (L)
Sch. Dist. Subordinated Note = (E) x 55% $16,957,893 (M)
(Because of different millage rates, the city's interest in the
real estate
tax lien portfolio is 45 percent while the school district's is 55
percent.)
Termination Fee. The fee structure is in three parts. First, there is
a termination fee. In the event that a servicer is terminated without
cause, it is entitled to a fee based on 2 percent of the principal value
of its portfolio, if termination takes place in the first year. This fee
declines until the third year when a 1/2 percent termination fee would
be paid by the issuer.
Administrative Fee. Second, there is an .8 percent administrative fee
based on the size of the principal amount of the portfolio held by each
servicer. As the portfolio is worked and liens converted into cash, the
value of the administrative fee will decline.
Incentive Fee. Of greatest importance is the incentive fee, which is
designed to encourage servicers to collect on even the most difficult
liens. Accordingly, the first 10 percent of the portfolio each servicer
collects will earn the servicer .25 percent of the funds brought in. The
incentive fee increases with each 10 percent of the portfolio collected
until the final 10 percent of the portfolio allows the servicer to earn
6 percent on the monies brought in.
The Rush to Pay
Publicity about the sale of the liens and the fear that the servicers
would somehow be more draconian in their collection methods moved many
long-standing delinquents to either pay their delinquencies or enter
into 12- to 24-month payment plans.
The City of Philadelphia increased the pressure on delinquents by
securing authority from the state legislature and city council to charge
up to 18 percent in attorneys fees for the collection of delinquent real
estate taxes. This 18 percent goes to the city and school district, not
the servicer, but it increases the value of portions of the portfolio
with liens filed after December 1990. Prior to the engagement of the
servicers, Philadelphia's delinquents flocked to make restitution on their back taxes. This rush to pay before the terms of settlement got
tougher was also reported by other cities that used securitizations,
sold their liens directly to servicers, or simply hired private
servicers.
The initial legislation for the sale and securitization was submitted
to city council in November 1996, and final passage took place in June
1997. During the month of April, a series of public hearings was held by
City Council that generated significant publicity. The misinformation that is the stock in trade of radio talk shows had a positive effect and
motivated people to pay their back taxes. Between May 1 and June 16, the
city and school district collected a combined $36,550,519 in cash. In
addition, 30,230 payment plans worth $68,816,768 were obtained.
Balancing Financial Interests
The biggest obstacle in selling the liens, hiring servicers, and
going forward with the securitization was obtaining city council
approval. Philadelphia, like many cities, has large concentrations of
lower-income people. City council members, particularly those who
represent low-income districts, were concerned about protecting
delinquent taxpayers from unfair collection methods. Even though
servicers are required to use the same methods, payment plans, and
techniques employed by the city revenue and law departments, many
council members feared that low-income people would be forced to make
payments they could not afford and also were concerned about adverse
voter reaction from a large segment of the population. More than 30
percent of Philadelphia's 600,000 households live on an income of
less than $15,000 a year. Almost 20 percent, one out of every five
properties, had a real estate delinquency and at least one lien.
In the end, getting this tax lien sale to market required balancing
the financial interests, as represented by the rating agencies, with the
safeguards for citizens required by city council. Every measure to
protect the interests of the delinquent citizen could result to one
degree or another in a greater discount and less money in the deal.
Without the provisions for protecting individuals, however, city council
approval would not have been provided. Because the school district
needed the money by the end of its fiscal year (June 30), finance staff
were able to provide a solid reason to do the securitization and a real
deadline for city council action.
The most significant protection provided to lower-income people was
to structure the servicing agreement to allow unlimited lien
substitution for either economic development purposes or because of the
economic hardship of the property owner. If a property whose lien is
being worked by a servicer is thought to be important for an economic
development project where the tax delinquency might assist a public
agency or a community development corporation in obtaining the parcel,
or if the property owner is clearly destitute, the lien can be
substituted with a lien of equal value and quality. Since the portfolio
did not include all the tax liens held by the City of Philadelphia and
because the city files up to $50 million of delinquent tax liens a year,
there is no difficulty in finding suitable substitutes. This feature
gave council members comfort that they could remove the truly destitute
from the servicers' embrace.
The experience of other cities that have utilized servicers is that
there has not been any increase in foreclosures, and the principal
servicers themselves report that while owner-occupied properties may be
threatened with tax sales, it is not in the servicers' financial
interests to foreclose on these properties.
The portfolio Philadelphia provided to the servicers was constructed
so that senior citizens and other taxpayers on special payment plans
were not included. People who entered into payment agreements with the
city before June 17, 1997, were assured that their liens would not be
placed in the portfolio nor would their liens be used for substitution
and put in the portfolio at some later date - even if they broke the
payment agreement. City council members were assured that people who
enter into payment agreements with the servicer and then break the
agreement will have at least 60 days before the property goes to tax
sale. District council members are to be notified two weeks before any
tax sale of properties within their district.
At the last minute, three recalcitrant council members agreed to
support the tax lien sale and securitization if the city would designate a million dollars of the new money gained from the sale to set up a loan
program so that working people faced with tax foreclosure can get the
necessary down payment to enter into a payment agreement. Since the
city's housing funds come from community development block grants,
current loan programs are income restricted. Use of the tax lien
proceeds removes the income barrier. Under the new Homeowner Protection
Program, loans will be repaid with the tax delinquency as part of the
monthly payment plan. In addition, participants will be required to
undergo household finance and budget counseling to insure that taxes are
paid appropriately in the future.
As municipalities seek to turn uncollected taxes, fines, and fees
into cash, the sale and securitization of these receivables may be an
increasingly important tool. The Government Finance Officers Association
adopted a recommended practice, "Sale and Securitization of
Property Tax Liens," in June 1997, which is displayed in the
accompanying sidebar.
RELATED ARTICLE: GFOA RECOMMENDED PRACTICE Sale and Securitization
of Property Tax Liens (1997)
Background. Governments sell or securitize property tax liens to
eliminate backlogs of accumulated delinquent tax receivables and convert
those receivables into cash. Tax liens, which are attached to properties
for nonpayment of property taxes or those assessments, may be bundled
and sold directly to investors through a bulk-sale process. They also
may be sold to a trust, where the payment stream is securitized. Bonds
backed by the delinquent taxes are then sold to investors and the
proceeds of the issue are paid to the government that sold the tax
liens.
Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
recommends that governments contemplating the sale or securitization of
property tax liens undertake a careful analysis of benefits and risks
both in the current fiscal year and over the long-term. When evaluating
the sale or securitization of tax liens, governments should:
1. Ensure they have legal authorization to enter into these types of
transactions and understand any conditions or limitations imposed by
state or local law.
2. Be clear about the public policy objectives to be achieved, such
as improving collections or avoiding costs associated with the ownership
of the property on which taxes are owed.
3. Evaluate whether changes in the collection process could reduce
the occurrence of delinquencies.
4. Use sale proceeds for non-recurring purposes, particularly if the
amount of the sale or securitization is large. Governments using a tax
lien sale or securitization as a one-time mechanism to address a current
year budget gap should assess the short- and long-term implications for
the government's credit quality. They also should consider how gaps
will be closed in later years and whether structural budgetary balance
is able to be achieved without future tax lien sales or securitizations.
5. Determine that the net return after taking account of transaction
costs is acceptable in terms of alternative approaches, including
retaining ownership of uncollected receivables.
Once a decision has ben made to sell or securitize tax liens,
governments should:
1. Examine the lien pool carefully to ensure properties will be
acceptable to investors. Lien-to-value ratios of various classes of
property, the age of the liens, historical redemption rates in the
community, property types, and the number of environmentally impacted
properties are among the factors that should be considered.
2. Review statutory cure periods established to permit owners to pay
delinquent revenues to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck
between government policy objectives and acceptability to investors.
3. Select legal and financial advisors and other service providers
with demonstrated experience with these transactions.
4. Select a servicer with a proven track record if such a firm is
being used to collect delinquent taxes. Rating agency approval of the
servicer is typically required, and will be based, in part, on the
record of the servicer. Among the qualifications that should be
evaluated are:
* knowledge of state and local law;
* due diligence capabilities in the lien selection process;
* adequacy of the servicing system, including recording, auditing,
and financial reporting procedures; and
* historical performance in serving liens, including procedures for
workouts and foreclosures.
5. Recognize the community relations impact of establishing a private
collection mechanism. Governments should take steps to maintain good
relations among all affected parties, such as designating an ombudsman or instituting a formal complaint process through which problems that
may arise are addressed.
References
* "Tax Lien Securitization: Putting Non-Performing Assets to
Work," Government Finance Review, GFOA, June 1996.
* "Municipalities Turn to Property Tax Lien Sales,"
Standard & Poor's CreditWeek Municipal, March 25, 1996.
Approved by the GFOA Executive Board October 17, 1997
BEN HAYLLAR, Ph.D., is the City of Philadelphia Director of Finance
and a member of the GFOA's Committee on Debt and Fiscal Policy. He
joined the administration of Ed Rendell in 1993 after serving as
Pittsburgh's director of finance.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Justice Dept. mandates 'implicit bias' training for agents, lawyers | Reuters
By Julia Edwards
| WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON The U.S. Justice Department announced on Monday that more than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors will receive training aimed at preventing unconscious bias from influencing their law enforcement decisions.
The training will bring Justice Department employees in line with many local police departments across the country that have implemented bias prevention plans following a spate of shootings of unarmed black men by white police officers.
Nationwide protests following those shootings blamed police bias for unnecessary use of force against minorities.
The department had been criticized for not developing its own policies to combat bias after recommending local police do so at the direction of a task force created by President Barack Obama after riots in 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.
In a memo to Justice Department employees, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said the program targets "implicit biases" - subtle, unconscious stereotypes or characterizations nearly everyone makes about certain groups of people.
"But implicit bias also presents unique challenges to effective law enforcement, because it can alter where investigators and prosecutors look for evidence and how they analyze it without their awareness or ability to compensate," Yates said in the memo.
The training will be mandatory for all Justice Department agents and prosecutors and will be rolled out over the next year, Yates said.
Arrest data compiled by some police departments have shown that black and Hispanic men are more likely to be stopped by police than others, suggesting officers may be exerting implicit bias in deciding whom to question or apprehend.
The Justice Department will use a model developed by the former director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit organization that provides expertise on policing issues. It is designed to make people aware of attitudes they may hold about certain races, genders, nationalities and other characteristics.
Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the training is an "imperative step forward" but "training alone will not eradicate discrimination in prosecutions and policing."
The Justice Department employs more than 5,800 attorneys and 28,000 law enforcement agents across four agencies: The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
Police departments such as those in Baltimore, New York City, Seattle, New Orleans and Los Angeles have training programs in place that help officers recognize biases they may have but not be aware of following a national outcry against police bias in minority communities.
Asked why the Justice Department only now has begun such training for its employees, Yates said success in local jurisdictions caused the federal government to consider it as well.
"This program has been so well-received by our state and local counterparts, we thought it was something we should be offering to our federal agents, frankly, to get our own house in order," Yates said in an interview with Reuters.
Yates and the heads of other Justice Department components will begin their own implicit bias training course on Tuesday. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will promote the initiative in Phoenix on Tuesday when she travels there as part of her community policing tour, said a Justice Department official.
Department of Homeland Security employees, which include 60,000 border patrol officers and agents, will not be subject to the training.
Yates said the Justice Department hopes to serve as a model for other federal agencies that have not yet addressed implicit bias.
(Reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by Dan Grebler)
| WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON The U.S. Justice Department announced on Monday that more than 33,000 federal agents and prosecutors will receive training aimed at preventing unconscious bias from influencing their law enforcement decisions.
The training will bring Justice Department employees in line with many local police departments across the country that have implemented bias prevention plans following a spate of shootings of unarmed black men by white police officers.
Nationwide protests following those shootings blamed police bias for unnecessary use of force against minorities.
The department had been criticized for not developing its own policies to combat bias after recommending local police do so at the direction of a task force created by President Barack Obama after riots in 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri.
In a memo to Justice Department employees, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said the program targets "implicit biases" - subtle, unconscious stereotypes or characterizations nearly everyone makes about certain groups of people.
"But implicit bias also presents unique challenges to effective law enforcement, because it can alter where investigators and prosecutors look for evidence and how they analyze it without their awareness or ability to compensate," Yates said in the memo.
The training will be mandatory for all Justice Department agents and prosecutors and will be rolled out over the next year, Yates said.
Arrest data compiled by some police departments have shown that black and Hispanic men are more likely to be stopped by police than others, suggesting officers may be exerting implicit bias in deciding whom to question or apprehend.
The Justice Department will use a model developed by the former director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit organization that provides expertise on policing issues. It is designed to make people aware of attitudes they may hold about certain races, genders, nationalities and other characteristics.
Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the training is an "imperative step forward" but "training alone will not eradicate discrimination in prosecutions and policing."
The Justice Department employs more than 5,800 attorneys and 28,000 law enforcement agents across four agencies: The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the U.S. Marshals Service.
Police departments such as those in Baltimore, New York City, Seattle, New Orleans and Los Angeles have training programs in place that help officers recognize biases they may have but not be aware of following a national outcry against police bias in minority communities.
Asked why the Justice Department only now has begun such training for its employees, Yates said success in local jurisdictions caused the federal government to consider it as well.
"This program has been so well-received by our state and local counterparts, we thought it was something we should be offering to our federal agents, frankly, to get our own house in order," Yates said in an interview with Reuters.
Yates and the heads of other Justice Department components will begin their own implicit bias training course on Tuesday. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will promote the initiative in Phoenix on Tuesday when she travels there as part of her community policing tour, said a Justice Department official.
Department of Homeland Security employees, which include 60,000 border patrol officers and agents, will not be subject to the training.
Yates said the Justice Department hopes to serve as a model for other federal agencies that have not yet addressed implicit bias.
(Reporting by Julia Edwards; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Sunday, October 2, 2016
Philadelphia | Yahoo Answers
What to expect of Pennsylvania near Philadelphia?
So I'm moving from Arizona to Pennsylvania to study at Bryn Mawr College, and I was wondering what I should expect of Pennsylvania.
Any tips on the weather changes, the people, any fun facts? Idk give me something, anything that will help!
Thanks!
So I'm moving from Arizona to Pennsylvania to study at Bryn Mawr College, and I was wondering what I should expect of Pennsylvania.
Any tips on the weather changes, the people, any fun facts? Idk give me something, anything that will help!
Thanks!
8 answers
·
2 months ago
So I'm moving from Arizona to Pennsylvania to study at Bryn Mawr College, and I was wondering what I should expect of Pennsylvania.
Any tips on the weather changes, the people, any fun facts? Idk give me something, anything that will help!
Thanks!
So I'm moving from Arizona to Pennsylvania to study at Bryn Mawr College, and I was wondering what I should expect of Pennsylvania.
Any tips on the weather changes, the people, any fun facts? Idk give me something, anything that will help!
Thanks!
8 answers
·
2 months ago
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
'Affluenza' Teen Ethan Couch's Lawyers File Motion Seeking His Release From Jail
Lawyers for "affluenza" teen Ethan Couch filed a motion today asking for Couch's release from jail, claiming that Tarrant County Criminal Court Judge Wayne Salvant never had jurisdiction to incarcerate him or rule on his case.
Couch was 16 years old when he killed four people and injured 11 more in a drunk driving accident. Nearly six month later, on December 10, 2013, he was sentenced by a Texas juvenile court judge to ten years probation and ordered to spend time in a rehabilitation center.
His case became infamous after a defense psychologist claimed he suffered from "affluenza" because of his privileged upbringing.
Couch, now 19 years old, landed back in court in May of this year after he missed a check-in with his probation officer and fled to Mexico with his mother.
But this time, Couch appeared before an adult criminal court judge who ordered him to serve two years in jail, where he currently spends 23 hours a day in isolation.
In today's filing, Couch's lawyers argued that he was improperly sent to adult criminal court, even though he is now of legal age.
Juvenile proceedings are "civil actions, not criminal cases," according to the motion. The defense lawyers claim that Couch's case should be handled in civil court because it originated in juvenile court, according to their reading of Texas laws and the state's Constitution. They argue that the narrow exceptions that allow a transfer from juvenile court to criminal court do not apply.
Couch asks that all orders by Judge Salvant, including his jail term, be thrown out, explaining in the motion, "Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, this Court has no authority to act whatsoever, and any orders -- including the imposition of any and all conditions of probation - previously entered by this Court in this matter are null and void."
Meanwhile, Couch's mother Tonya -- who was charged with hindering apprehension of a felon and money laundering -- was released from home confinement earlier this month. A judge said she no longer needed to be under house arrest, but must wear an electronic monitor and not consume alcohol or drugs while awaiting trial. She currently tends bar in suburban Fort Worth, Texas.
Couch was 16 years old when he killed four people and injured 11 more in a drunk driving accident. Nearly six month later, on December 10, 2013, he was sentenced by a Texas juvenile court judge to ten years probation and ordered to spend time in a rehabilitation center.
His case became infamous after a defense psychologist claimed he suffered from "affluenza" because of his privileged upbringing.
Couch, now 19 years old, landed back in court in May of this year after he missed a check-in with his probation officer and fled to Mexico with his mother.
But this time, Couch appeared before an adult criminal court judge who ordered him to serve two years in jail, where he currently spends 23 hours a day in isolation.
In today's filing, Couch's lawyers argued that he was improperly sent to adult criminal court, even though he is now of legal age.
Juvenile proceedings are "civil actions, not criminal cases," according to the motion. The defense lawyers claim that Couch's case should be handled in civil court because it originated in juvenile court, according to their reading of Texas laws and the state's Constitution. They argue that the narrow exceptions that allow a transfer from juvenile court to criminal court do not apply.
Couch asks that all orders by Judge Salvant, including his jail term, be thrown out, explaining in the motion, "Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, this Court has no authority to act whatsoever, and any orders -- including the imposition of any and all conditions of probation - previously entered by this Court in this matter are null and void."
Meanwhile, Couch's mother Tonya -- who was charged with hindering apprehension of a felon and money laundering -- was released from home confinement earlier this month. A judge said she no longer needed to be under house arrest, but must wear an electronic monitor and not consume alcohol or drugs while awaiting trial. She currently tends bar in suburban Fort Worth, Texas.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Recent $21.7 Million Discrimination Jury Verdict Win by Carney Shegerian for Former Valley Vista Employee Sets Record
LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Last week it was announced that Carney Shegerian of Shegerian &
Associates, Inc., a Santa Monica-based litigation law firm specializing
in employee rights, obtained a wrongful termination jury verdict for his
client, April Rodriguez. Rodriguez was awarded $16.5 million in punitive
damages on Friday by a Los Angeles jury that found her former employer
discriminated against her because of a mental disability and wrongfully
fired her, bringing her total award to $21.7 million. (Case #: BC473793)
This is the largest employment related award of its kind in Los Angeles
legal history.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury reached an 11-1 decision in the
punitive damages portion of Rodriguez's lawsuit against City of
Industry-based Valley Vista Services Inc. and its parent company, Zerep
Management Corp. Earlier in the week last week, the same jury had
awarded the 34-year-old Rancho Cucamonga woman $5.2 million in
compensatory damages. The jury also found that the companies, owned by
former Industry Mayor David Perez and his brother, Manuel Perez, acted
with malice.
The mother of four credited the work of the jury and her attorneys for
helping her win the case: "Most of all," she said, "I would love to
thank my lawyers Carney Shegerian and Bruce Kokozian. If it wasn't for
the hard work that they put into my case, I would have never gotten
justice. Because of them, my story was heard."
Shegerian and Kokozian maintained the waste disposal company, where
Rodriguez worked as a customer service representative, failed to help
her with her condition -- by not granting her leave time and other
accommodations. The mother of four testified she suffered from panic
attacks - met with skepticism by her supervisor - and was fired as a
result, causing her extreme financial hardship.
She said she hopes her case brings public attention to the fact that
panic attacks are a genuine mental disability and employers should treat
workers fairly and without discrimination.
"It's been an honor to have had the opportunity to represent Ms.
Rodriguez," said Shegerian. "Hopefully this verdict and the justice
served in Ms. Rodriguez's case will put employers on notice that they
cannot discriminate against employees who suffer from health or mental
health conditions."
An experienced trial attorney, Shegerian has tried many jury trials to
verdict in both state and federal court, representing individuals that
have suffered financial or emotional losses and have been wronged by
employers, including major corporations. Shegerian has built a
remarkable career on helping those who have been wronged in the
workplace. He remains undefeated in federal jury trials and has won over
62 jury trials, including 24 seven figure verdicts representing
employees.
Located Santa Monica, Shegerian & Associates is a law firm
specializing in protecting the rights of employees who have been wronged
by their employers. Richly experienced in labor and employment
law and possessing an unparalleled success record as litigators (Carney
Shegerian himself has won over 62 jury trials in his career, including
24 seven figure verdicts, and he remains undefeated in federal jury
trials), Shegerian & Associates is passionately dedicated to serving the
needs of its clients. For more information, visit www.ShegerianLaw.com.
Associates, Inc., a Santa Monica-based litigation law firm specializing
in employee rights, obtained a wrongful termination jury verdict for his
client, April Rodriguez. Rodriguez was awarded $16.5 million in punitive
damages on Friday by a Los Angeles jury that found her former employer
discriminated against her because of a mental disability and wrongfully
fired her, bringing her total award to $21.7 million. (Case #: BC473793)
This is the largest employment related award of its kind in Los Angeles
legal history.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury reached an 11-1 decision in the
punitive damages portion of Rodriguez's lawsuit against City of
Industry-based Valley Vista Services Inc. and its parent company, Zerep
Management Corp. Earlier in the week last week, the same jury had
awarded the 34-year-old Rancho Cucamonga woman $5.2 million in
compensatory damages. The jury also found that the companies, owned by
former Industry Mayor David Perez and his brother, Manuel Perez, acted
with malice.
The mother of four credited the work of the jury and her attorneys for
helping her win the case: "Most of all," she said, "I would love to
thank my lawyers Carney Shegerian and Bruce Kokozian. If it wasn't for
the hard work that they put into my case, I would have never gotten
justice. Because of them, my story was heard."
Shegerian and Kokozian maintained the waste disposal company, where
Rodriguez worked as a customer service representative, failed to help
her with her condition -- by not granting her leave time and other
accommodations. The mother of four testified she suffered from panic
attacks - met with skepticism by her supervisor - and was fired as a
result, causing her extreme financial hardship.
She said she hopes her case brings public attention to the fact that
panic attacks are a genuine mental disability and employers should treat
workers fairly and without discrimination.
"It's been an honor to have had the opportunity to represent Ms.
Rodriguez," said Shegerian. "Hopefully this verdict and the justice
served in Ms. Rodriguez's case will put employers on notice that they
cannot discriminate against employees who suffer from health or mental
health conditions."
An experienced trial attorney, Shegerian has tried many jury trials to
verdict in both state and federal court, representing individuals that
have suffered financial or emotional losses and have been wronged by
employers, including major corporations. Shegerian has built a
remarkable career on helping those who have been wronged in the
workplace. He remains undefeated in federal jury trials and has won over
62 jury trials, including 24 seven figure verdicts representing
employees.
Located Santa Monica, Shegerian & Associates is a law firm
specializing in protecting the rights of employees who have been wronged
by their employers. Richly experienced in labor and employment
law and possessing an unparalleled success record as litigators (Carney
Shegerian himself has won over 62 jury trials in his career, including
24 seven figure verdicts, and he remains undefeated in federal jury
trials), Shegerian & Associates is passionately dedicated to serving the
needs of its clients. For more information, visit www.ShegerianLaw.com.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Axiom to Acquire the General Counsel Business of Cognition LLP
NEW YORK & TORONTO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Axiom,
a recognized leader in the business of law and leading provider of
technology-enabled legal and contracting services, today announced an
agreement to acquire the General Counsel business of Toronto-based
innovative law firm Cognition
LLP. With operational synergies, a cultural alignment and a shared
mission to modernize the legal market, this deal, expected to close in
the first quarter, will unite the leading Canadian and American
alternative legal providers and extend Axiom's reach across the border.
For Axiom, Cognition's corporate business represents an economically and
culturally attractive gateway into the Canadian legal industry.
Toronto's corporate base skews heavily toward Axiom's strengths in the
financial services and technology industries, making it an ideal
location for Axiom's continued global expansion.
"Boasting a portfolio of almost 50 lawyers and a client roster that
includes 60 leading global corporations, Cognition has been the
undisputed 'new law' leader in Canada since its inception ten years
ago," said Will McKinnon, SVP of New Market Development at Axiom. "The
ability to build on Cognition's reputation and standing in the market
validated our means of entry into the region. Indeed, the acquisition
will give Axiom not only an immediate team of highly skilled and
credentialed lawyers, but introduction to Canada's most progressive and
influential General Counsel, with whom Cognition already has trusted and
long-standing relationships."
Equally important, both Cognition and Axiom have long recognized the
inefficiencies that plague the legal market and have leveraged
technology to reengineer and modernize the delivery of legal services.
"As law firm associates, Mark Harris and I both had separate, but
similar, 'a-ha' moments in realizing the extreme inefficiencies at work
in a traditional law firm environment," said Joe Milstone, Co-Founder of
Cognition. "Since then, we've both made it our mission to rid the legal
world of those inefficiencies. For years now, Axiom and Cognition have
been collaborating on cross-border work. That collaboration led us both
to another - this time, shared - 'a-ha' moment about formalizing our
partnership. We're thrilled to now officially be a part of Axiom's
mission to modernize the legal industry, both here in Canada and
globally."
As part of the deal, Cognition LLP will separate into two distinct
entities: Axiom Cognition, an Axiom corporation serving corporate
clients with in-house legal departments; and Caravel Law, a law firm
serving small and medium sized enterprises without internal legal
departments.
The Toronto office will be Axiom's 6th international office,
and 16th overall. Axiom's global presence will introduce
Cognition clients and lawyers to a broader respective lawyer and client
base, allowing the firm to extend its mission on a more global scale.
Indeed, the acquisition of Cognition's General Counsel business, and
Axiom's resulting expansion into Toronto, represents a continued
enlargement of the firm's global footprint. Upon acquisition completion,
Axiom will comprise more than 1,500 lawyers, professionals, process
engineers and technologists, serving over half the Fortune 100.
About Axiom
Axiom, a recognized leader in the business of law, provides tech-enabled
legal, contracts, and compliance solutions for large enterprises.
Axiom's solutions combine legal experience, technology, and data
analytics to deliver work in a way that dramatically reduces risk, cost
and cycle-time. The firm comprises 1,500 lawyers, professionals, process
engineers and technologists who serve over half the Fortune 100 across
16 offices and 5 centers of excellence globally. www.axiomlaw.com
Follow us on Twitter: @Axiom_Law
About Caravel Law
Building on 10 years of solid success as part of Cognition LLP, Caravel
Law is an innovative legal solutions provider structured to deliver
legal services exclusively to Enterprise Clients. At Caravel Law, we
connect experienced, business savvy lawyers with organizations looking
for dedicated, tech enabled and cost-efficient legal solutions. While
the name may be new, the premise is the same: we focus on happy clients
and happy lawyers. The kind of legal innovation that makes doing
business so much more sensible.
Visit Caravel Law online at www.caravellaw.com and
follow us on Twitter @caravellaw.
a recognized leader in the business of law and leading provider of
technology-enabled legal and contracting services, today announced an
agreement to acquire the General Counsel business of Toronto-based
innovative law firm Cognition
LLP. With operational synergies, a cultural alignment and a shared
mission to modernize the legal market, this deal, expected to close in
the first quarter, will unite the leading Canadian and American
alternative legal providers and extend Axiom's reach across the border.
For Axiom, Cognition's corporate business represents an economically and
culturally attractive gateway into the Canadian legal industry.
Toronto's corporate base skews heavily toward Axiom's strengths in the
financial services and technology industries, making it an ideal
location for Axiom's continued global expansion.
"Boasting a portfolio of almost 50 lawyers and a client roster that
includes 60 leading global corporations, Cognition has been the
undisputed 'new law' leader in Canada since its inception ten years
ago," said Will McKinnon, SVP of New Market Development at Axiom. "The
ability to build on Cognition's reputation and standing in the market
validated our means of entry into the region. Indeed, the acquisition
will give Axiom not only an immediate team of highly skilled and
credentialed lawyers, but introduction to Canada's most progressive and
influential General Counsel, with whom Cognition already has trusted and
long-standing relationships."
Equally important, both Cognition and Axiom have long recognized the
inefficiencies that plague the legal market and have leveraged
technology to reengineer and modernize the delivery of legal services.
"As law firm associates, Mark Harris and I both had separate, but
similar, 'a-ha' moments in realizing the extreme inefficiencies at work
in a traditional law firm environment," said Joe Milstone, Co-Founder of
Cognition. "Since then, we've both made it our mission to rid the legal
world of those inefficiencies. For years now, Axiom and Cognition have
been collaborating on cross-border work. That collaboration led us both
to another - this time, shared - 'a-ha' moment about formalizing our
partnership. We're thrilled to now officially be a part of Axiom's
mission to modernize the legal industry, both here in Canada and
globally."
As part of the deal, Cognition LLP will separate into two distinct
entities: Axiom Cognition, an Axiom corporation serving corporate
clients with in-house legal departments; and Caravel Law, a law firm
serving small and medium sized enterprises without internal legal
departments.
The Toronto office will be Axiom's 6th international office,
and 16th overall. Axiom's global presence will introduce
Cognition clients and lawyers to a broader respective lawyer and client
base, allowing the firm to extend its mission on a more global scale.
Indeed, the acquisition of Cognition's General Counsel business, and
Axiom's resulting expansion into Toronto, represents a continued
enlargement of the firm's global footprint. Upon acquisition completion,
Axiom will comprise more than 1,500 lawyers, professionals, process
engineers and technologists, serving over half the Fortune 100.
About Axiom
Axiom, a recognized leader in the business of law, provides tech-enabled
legal, contracts, and compliance solutions for large enterprises.
Axiom's solutions combine legal experience, technology, and data
analytics to deliver work in a way that dramatically reduces risk, cost
and cycle-time. The firm comprises 1,500 lawyers, professionals, process
engineers and technologists who serve over half the Fortune 100 across
16 offices and 5 centers of excellence globally. www.axiomlaw.com
Follow us on Twitter: @Axiom_Law
About Caravel Law
Building on 10 years of solid success as part of Cognition LLP, Caravel
Law is an innovative legal solutions provider structured to deliver
legal services exclusively to Enterprise Clients. At Caravel Law, we
connect experienced, business savvy lawyers with organizations looking
for dedicated, tech enabled and cost-efficient legal solutions. While
the name may be new, the premise is the same: we focus on happy clients
and happy lawyers. The kind of legal innovation that makes doing
business so much more sensible.
Visit Caravel Law online at www.caravellaw.com and
follow us on Twitter @caravellaw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)