Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: I-526 Insurance; Proper Disclosure is Critical. By Doug Hauer, Mark Freitas and Kurt Reuss (Moderator)

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: I-526 Insurance; Proper Disclosure is Critical. By Doug Hauer, Mark Freitas and Kurt Reuss (Moderator)

    I-526 Insurance; Proper Disclosure is Critical

    by


    Kurt Reuss: Proper disclosure is an important issue with this I-526 product, considering it is a new product with no claims paid to date. Doug, how do you approach a product like this, when developing disclosures in the PPM?

    Doug Hauer: I think you have to be very careful to, in plain language, describe the mechanics of how this policy is actually working.

    An investor who is reviewing the PPM should be able to review the section on the insurance and walk away with an understanding of how mechanically a policy would work and what kinds of claims would result in there being coverage and what kinds of claims would result in a denial of coverage.

    I think the trap for an issuer or a regional center issuing a deal is that the term 'insurance' conveys a safety net, or a risk-free proposition. You have to be careful here if you're an attorney drafting a PPM for a client; you need to spell out in clear terms what the limitations are and what the parameters of the product are.

    I think it would be important to alert investors, in a PPM, of the risks with this product.

    One area that we see in these policies that leads to some confusion is how 'fraud' is defined. Fraud, in a securities law context, when you're talking about an issuer, can mean many different things.

    It's going to be important to calibrate those disclosures, make them clear, put those disclosures in plain language, and ensure that all parties in a deal get protection through understanding what the limitations of the product are.

    Marc Difanti: I think we all agree with Doug in that regard. We've worked closely with a number of different people to put together some template language that we provide to our approved projects to help them, at least in the beginning stages.

    Certainly we agree that it should be reviewed from an immigration standpoint and from a securities council standpoint. It also needs to be tailored to each individual project to fit correctly with that project, but we've helped them at least in the beginning stages in providing template offering document language that starts that process off. It outlines the covered exposures and the excluded events and what the policy really provides.

    I wholeheartedly agree and believe it's important from a marketing standpoint.

    Bruce Rosetto: Folks need to understand that the offering documents are documents regarding risk disclosures. It's not a sales document. We would never say that the insurance protects against any I-526 denial. We would focus on the risks of the insurance and the interpretation of the exclusions so it's clear to someone buying this insurance that there truly are risks here and that there's no guarantee that they're going to get paid just because they have an insurance policy.

    You must focus on the Exclusion section of the policy and make sure you understand them. In addition, in the PPM itself the Risk Factors should delineate this risk as well.

    Doug Hauer: I would add that while the SEC obviously knows about EB5, they generally look to the gatekeepers to ensure that investors are given fair disclosures.

    That means that if you have one of these insurance products in your offering documents, you're going to be really scrutinized later on if you mischaracterized how the coverage works.

    Every lawyer operating in this space who's advising a client on a PPM needs to actually understand the mechanics of the policy. That's critical. You can't have robust disclosures if you don't understand how the policy works.

    The second thing is that if you are an issuer and you put out a PPM that mischaracterizes this coverage and, as a result investors subscribe, you could find yourself in trouble with the SEC.

    I think in the current climate, the EB5 industry is going to be under more and more scrutiny to do things right. It really means that the disclosures have to be fair to the investors and have to let the investors know about the gaps and limitations.

    I think the term insurance itself connotes, again, a sense of security and that's where you have to be especially careful. If you run afoul of your obligations as an issuer to disclose and you don't properly disclose this policy, I think you could potentially end up with a 10-b(5) claim by the SEC if investors complain.

    I'm sure state regulators would have a field day with a PPM that doesn’t properly explain the risks.

    This post originally appeared on EB5 Diligence. Reprinted with permission


    About The Author

    Mark Freitas Mark Freitas's career in the insurance industry has spanned over 30 years. As President and Chief Executive Officer of Mark Edward Partners, a national insurance brokerage firm headquartered in New York City, Mr. Freitas leads the firm’s business strategy and development. Along with the company’s traditional property and casualty practice, Mark Edward Partners creates and develops cutting-edge products and programs not readily available in the insurance marketplace.




    Doug Hauer Doug Hauer is a Member in Mintz Levin's Corporate & Securities Practice and Immigration Practice. On the corporate side, he focuses on private offerings and related securities work. Doug serves as counsel to developers and businesses seeking capital through the EB-5 investor visa program. He also counsels lenders, private equity firms, and EB-5 Regional Centers on all aspects of EB-5 financing. In the immigration law space, Doug represents corporate, institutional, and individual clients in routine and complex immigration matters. He has in-depth experience advising companies on the immigration consequences of corporate restructuring. He also advises businesses on the legal aspects of establishing new offices and operations in the US.



    Kurt Reuss Kurt Reuss provides all his clients with free access to due diligence reports as a licensed broker dealer representative with Primary Capital. Mr. Reuss co-founded EB5 Diligence as a way to provide his clients with the most thorough due diligence reports possible and works closely with investors to assist them in selecting a suitable EB-5 investment.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko
      ImmigrationDaily

      If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

      08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    Working...
    X