ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Conglomerate

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Conglomerate

Special Vehicle-ing Your Way Around the TARP?

By Gordon Smith, Christine, Hurt, Vic Fleischer, Fred Tung, Lisa Fairfax, David Zaring

ADVERTISEMENTS

The Post runs word - or perhaps it might best be called a trial balloon - of an administration plan to, inter alia, get the PPIPs and TALFs and so on out of the executive compensation standards, et al, required by the TARP by funneling the money through SPVs:

it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

Pretty, or, in my view, highly sketchy.  We will have to see the details, but simply passing TARP dollars through special entities and thereby removing those dollars of all TARP requirements is hardly the sort of thing, say, our tax code tolerates, if you're looking at private businesses.  It would be a thumbing of the nose at Congress.  It doesn't seem very consistent with the state action doctrine, at least the Wilmington Parking Authority line of cases.  I talked to the Post about this at some length, and I couldn't figure out how the government thought it would work.

Don't get me wrong.  At some point, TARP requirements stop following the money.  If Treasury gives billions to PNC, and PNC loans some of it out to USX, it's not as if the steel company has to do exec comp, etc, the TARP way.  And it's an interesting question as to whether new entities 10% funded by TARP, 50% by the FDIC, and 40% by private equity should be subject to all of the statutory reqts.  But Treasury appear to want to cleanse its money of TARP requirements simply by creating a lending facility (which it probably would do as a matter of course anyway - the Fed does so).  If so, Treasury wouldn't need to use the money to get banks lending, it could use the money for any and every purpose it wanted - bonuses for the C schedule employees, say.  And that would be sneaky indeed.

Full post as published by Conglomerate on April 05, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0071 secs (from cache 11/06/26 04:09:10)