Download The American Home Mortgage Case and Repurchase Agreements

m a rc h 21, 2 0 0 8
AkerAlert
Finance
Law
The American Home Mortgage
Case and Repurchase Agreements
By Jules Cohen, Esq. and Milton Vescovacci, Esq.
the automatic stay of the bankruptcy.3 The
doing so. After the seller defaulted under the
n the field of mortgage
warehouse lending, repurchase
agreements are being used more
frequently rather than traditional
mortgage warehouse loan and
security agreements because of
buyer may also exercise its contractual right
repurchase agreement, the buyer proceeded
to setoff any amounts due it by the seller
to sell the mortgage loans and wanted to
against any cash or other assets held by the
transfer the servicing rights in connection
buyer.4 The money received by the buyer may
with the sale to maximize its selling price.
not be recovered as a preferential payment
The buyer requested the seller to transfer
nor as a fraudulent transfer. So long as the
the servicing rights to the new owner of
safe harbor provisions are applicable and
the mortgage loans, along with the related
complied with, the Bankruptcy Courts will
loan records and escrow amounts. The seller
not inquire as to whether the transfer of the
refused to do so and took the position that
mortgage loans under the repurchase agree-
it could sell the servicing rights to another
ment are a purchase and sale transaction or
servicer and keep the proceeds from the sale
a secured financing, and they will apply the
of servicing the rights. The buyer filed suit
plain meaning of the applicable statutes.
in Bankruptcy Court seeking injunctive relief
I
the favorable treatment of repurchase
agreements under the 2005 revisions to
the United States Bankruptcy Code (the
“Bankruptcy Code”) if the seller files
bankruptcy.1 Rather than a mortgage loan
originator pledging the loan as security for
its obligations under a mortgage warehouse
loan and security agreement, in the context
of a repurchase agreement, the originator
sells and assigns its entire interest in a
mortgage loan to the warehouse lender
(or, as more appropriately defined, the
“buyer”), who pays a purchase price for such
mortgage loan to such seller and agrees to
sell such mortgage loan back to the Seller or
its designee on a specified future date not to
exceed one year in exchange for repayment
of the purchase price plus accrued price
differential and applicable fees.
In a bankruptcy of the seller of mortgage
loans, if a repurchase agreement falls within
the ambit of and satisfies the elements of the
definition of a repurchase agreement and/
or a securities contract under the Bankruptcy
Code,2 the buyer may exercise certain contractual rights to liquidate, terminate and
accelerate a repurchase agreement and sell
the collateral without obtaining relief from
The Bankruptcy Code gives this favorable
and specific performance, and requested the
treatment to repurchase agreements,
court to order and cause the seller to transfer
securities contracts and certain other
the servicing rights as designated by the
financial arrangements in order to preserve
buyer.
the liquidity of the market.5 If a buyer
The Bankruptcy Court decided that the
needs to liquidate the mortgage loans by
contract for sale and repurchase and the
selling them, the buyer would also need to
transactions entered into thereunder was
have the power to sell the servicing rights,
a repurchase agreement and a securities
since owning such servicing rights and
contract entitled to favorable safe harbor
having the right to sell same will produce
treatment under Sections 555 and 559 of the
additional value for the buyer. Recently, a
Bankruptcy Code. However, the Bankruptcy
warehouse lender had difficulty doing that in
Court held that the part of the repurchase
a bankruptcy case adjudicated in Delaware
agreement concerning the servicing rights
entitled In re American Home Mortg., Inc.,
was (i) severable from the part concerning
379 B.R. 503 (Bkrtcy.D.Del. 2008).
the sale of the mortgage loans because the
In that case, the repurchase agreement
mortgage loans were sold on a servicing
provided that the seller was selling the
retained basis and (ii) not a repurchase
mortgage loans on a servicing retained
agreement or a securities contract under the
basis and that the seller who was acting as
Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the servicing rights
the servicer of the mortgage loans would
could not be protected under the safe harbor
charge a 50 basis point servicing fee for
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. As such,
ADVERTISEMENT
© Copyright 2008 Akerman Senterfitt. All Rights Reserved
Akerman Senterfitt Finance Law Update
March 21, 2008
the Bankruptcy Court held that the buyer did
the ability to sell the related servicing rights,
under the repurchase agreement and under
not establish a basis for requiring the seller
free from any claims or encumbrances. Such
applicable law, without being subject to the
to transfer the servicing to the buyer, and
provisions may result in the buyer of the
automatic stay (if the seller is in bankruptcy).
since the part of the repurchase agreement
mortgage loans being able to terminate the
Any proceeds realized from the disposition
concerning servicing rights could be severed,
seller as servicer before or after bankruptcy,
of such servicing rights will be applied by
the seller was entitled to sell the servicing
and sell the servicing rights without being
the buyer to repay the seller’s obligations
rights to another party and retain the sale
hindered by the automatic stay imposed as a
under the repurchase agreement, with the
proceeds in the bankruptcy estate for the
result of the seller’s bankruptcy or the seller’s
remaining proceeds, if any, required to be
benefit of the unsecured creditors.
attempts to sell the servicing rights.
returned to the seller. If a deficiency occurs
This case presents an interesting set of
in respect of the amounts due under the
As a precautionary measure, the
issues for warehouse lenders that use a
repurchase agreement should also provide
repurchase agreement – at least in respect
repurchase agreement as the document of
that, in the event a court of competent
of the portion of the repurchase agreement
choice. The first issue that such warehouse
jurisdiction determines the servicing rights
that constitutes a security agreement –such
lenders (or buyers) should be concerned with
were not sold by seller to the buyer or that
amount could be the subject of a deficiency
is whether they are purchasing the servicing
such rights are not an interest in a mortgage
claim that may be brought, to the extent
rights along with the mortgage loans. Not
loan and are severable from the mortgage
permitted by applicable law, by the buyer
doing so could lead to the conclusions held
loan, despite the parties’ intent to treat
as a secured party against the seller and
in the American Home Mortgage case,
them as a purchase and sale transaction
any guarantor (if applicable) or obligor (as
an outcome that was not favorable to the
under the repurchase agreement, the
such term is defined under the UCC) of the
warehouse lender. Clearly, the value of the
seller grants to the buyer a first priority,
seller’s liabilities and obligations under the
mortgage loans purchased without the
perfected security interest in and lien on the
repurchase agreement.
servicing rights is diminished, especially if the
servicing rights, with that provision of the
mortgage loans have to be sold subject to
repurchase agreement constituting a security
American Home Mortgage case, an
the servicing rights of a bankrupt servicer. A
agreement under the applicable Uniform
important element of transferring the
possible solution to this issue is to provide in
Commercial Code in effect (“UCC”). By
servicing rights is the ability to ensure that
the repurchase agreement that the mortgage
doing so, a buyer should, at the very least,
the buyer or its designee gets immediate,
loans being purchased by the buyer include
have a security interest in and lien on the
ready access to the servicing records so that
the servicing rights and are being sold on a
servicing rights that it could enforce in the
the servicing and collection of mortgagor
servicing released basis, that the buyer of the
event of a default by the seller under the
payments is not interrupted. To address that,
mortgage loans is the owner of the servicing
repurchase agreement. Arguably, and it’s not
the repurchase agreement should provide
rights and designates the seller as an interim
a point that the American Home Mortgage
that the seller will furnish a copy of the
servicer of the mortgage loans and agent
court addressed or focused on, a security
servicing records and any other reports and
of the buyer until further notice from the
agreement or arrangement or other credit
data as may be required by the buyer, in such
buyer that it is terminating the servicer and
enhancement related to a mortgage loan or
format acceptable to Buyer, on a regular,
transferring the servicing rights to a successor
an interest in a mortgage loan is considered
current basis (i.e., weekly or monthly).
servicer, and that the purchase price is being
a repurchase agreement pursuant to 11
Moreover, the repurchase agreement should
determined in part to compensate the seller
U.S.C. 101 (47)(v), which if presented before
provide that the seller will cooperate fully
for the value of the mortgage loans and for
a court in a similar case, may be entitled
with the buyer and its designee, in the
servicing such mortgage loans on an interim
to the same safe harbor treatment as are
event the buyer terminates the Seller as a
basis. It may also be helpful to provide in the
mortgage loans and interests in mortgage
servicer, to ensure an orderly and prompt
repurchase agreement that the intent of the
loans in a repurchase agreement. If a court
transfer of servicing and the servicing
parties is that the provisions concerning the
of competent jurisdiction were to agree with
records and collections (received to date and
servicing rights are an integral, non-severable
such an argument, then the buyer should
subsequently) to the buyer or a successor
part of such agreement which the buyer has
be allowed to terminate the servicer and
servicer appointed by the buyer. This should
relied on in part in setting the purchase price
sell the mortgage loans and the related
reduce the time to effect such servicing
of the mortgage loans, and which will enable
servicing rights (not as an owner of such
transfer and the potential interruptions in the
the buyer to obtain the maximum value from
rights but as a secured party disposing of
collection of any mortgage loan payments
the sale of the mortgage loans by having
collateral) and/or enforce its other remedies
from mortgagors.
6
In addition, as demonstrated by the
2
© Copyright 2008 Akerman Senterfitt. All Rights Reserved
Akerman Senterfitt Finance Law Update
The second issue that the American
March 21, 2008
paid to the servicer. The court does not
or stay silent as to this issue, as is more the
Home Mortgage case presents to warehouse
address whether a servicing fee is required or
custom in the industry to date.
lenders, as repurchase agreement buyers,
what would happen if none were provided
is whether a premium for the purchase of
for in the repurchase agreement or paid to
repurchase agreements by warehouse
the servicing rights is required to be paid
the servicer. In long-term financings, such
lenders in lieu of mortgage warehouse loan
by the buyer. The court suggests that a
as securitizations and other transactions
and security agreements appears to have
premium is required because it is customary
structured as true sales, it is common
been a positive move in as far as avoidance
to pay an additional purchase price for such
industry practice to provide the specific
of the automatic stay and exercise of
rights in the industry, and that the value of
amount of the servicing fee and pay such
contractual rights of such lenders to cause
servicing rights is calculated differently from
a fee monthly to a servicer, especially to a
the liquidation, termination or acceleration
the value of mortgage loans. Moreover,
party servicing mortgage loans as an agent
of their repurchase agreement. However, it is
the court suggests that any failure to pay
(and not as a principal) of the owner of such
now more critical than ever to ensure that a
such premium to the seller would constitute
loans. However, in short-term or interim
warehouse lender’s repurchase agreements
evidence that the servicing rights were not
financings, such as mortgage warehouse
contain the latest features to ensure that
purchased. A possible solution for this is
financings, payment of such a fee is not as
such lenders are adequately protected from
to provide in the repurchase agreement
customary. Since the court in the American
outcomes such as that found in the American
the specific amount of such premium paid
Home Mortgage case did not conclude as to
Home Mortgage case.
by the buyer. Alternatively, the repurchase
this issue, it is impossible to know whether
agreement may provide that such premium
not paying a servicing fee would adversely
the subject matter of this client alert,
is a portion of and included in the overall
affect the outcome as to the ownership of
please contact either Jules Cohen
purchase price paid by the buyer for the
the serving rights. Warehouse lenders may
directly at 407-419-8512 or by email
mortgage loans.
either provide in their repurchase agreements
at [email protected] or
In conclusion, the adoption of mortgage
If you have any questions concerning
for the payment of a specific amount (or
Milton Vescovacci directly at
Mortgage case presents to warehouse
a formula for calculating such amount)
305-982-5671 or by email at
lenders, as repurchase agreement buyers,
representing the servicing fee payable to the
[email protected].
is whether a servicing fee is required to be
seller and the frequency of such payment
The third issue that the American Home
1
See the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, modifying 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a “repurchase agreement” (which definition also applies to a reverse repurchase agreement) (A)
means—
(i) an agreement, including related terms, which provides for the transfer of one or more certificates of deposit, mortgage related securities (as defined in
section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), mortgage loans, interests in mortgage related securities or mortgage loans, eligible bankers’ acceptances,
qualified foreign government securities (defined as a security that is a direct obligation of, or that is fully guaranteed by, the central government of a member
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), or securities that are direct obligations of, or that are fully guaranteed by, the United States
or any agency of the United States against the transfer of funds by the transferee of such certificates of deposit, eligible bankers’ acceptances, securities,
mortgage loans, or interests, with a simultaneous agreement by such transferee to transfer to the transferor thereof certificates of deposit, eligible bankers’
acceptance, securities, mortgage loans, or interests of the kind described in this clause, at a date certain not later than 1 year after such transfer or on
demand, against the transfer of funds;
(ii) any combination of agreements or transactions referred to in clauses (i) and (iii);
(iii) an option to enter into an agreement or transaction referred to in clause (i) or (ii);
(iv) a master agreement that provides for an agreement or transaction referred to in clause (i), (ii), or (iii), together with all supplements to any such master
agreement, without regard to whether such master agreement provides for an agreement or transaction that is not a repurchase agreement under this
paragraph, except that such master agreement shall be considered to be a repurchase agreement under this paragraph only with respect to each agreement
or transaction under the master agreement that is referred to in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or
(v) any security agreement or arrangement or other credit enhancement related to any agreement or transaction referred to in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv),
including any guarantee or reimbursement obligation by or to a repo participant or financial participant in connection with any agreement or transaction
referred to in any such clause, but not to exceed the damages in connection with any such agreement or transaction, measured in accordance with 11 U.S.C.
Section § 562; and
(B) does not include a repurchase obligation under a participation in a commercial mortgage loan.
2
3
© Copyright 2008 Akerman Senterfitt. All Rights Reserved
Akerman Senterfitt Finance Law Update
March 21, 2008
Section 101(46) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a “repo participant” is an entity that, at any time before the filing of the petition, has an outstanding
repurchase agreement with the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(46).
Section 741(7) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a “securities contract” (A) means—
(i) a contract for the purchase, sale, or loan of a security, a certificate of deposit, a mortgage loan or any interest in a mortgage loan, a group or index of
securities, certificates of deposit, or mortgage loans or interests therein (including an interest therein or based on the value thereof), or option on any of the
foregoing, including an option to purchase or sell any such security, certificate of deposit, mortgage loan, interest, group or index, or option, and including
any repurchase or reverse repurchase transaction on any such security, certificate of deposit, mortgage loan, interest, group or index, or option;
(ii) any option entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currencies;
(iii) the guarantee by or to any securities clearing agency of a settlement of cash, securities, certificates of deposit, mortgage loans or interests therein, group
or index of securities, or mortgage loans or interests therein (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or option on any of the foregoing,
including an option to purchase or sell any such security, certificate of deposit, mortgage loan, interest, group or index, or option;
(iv) any margin loan;
(v) any other agreement or transaction that is similar to an agreement or transaction referred to in this subparagraph;
(vi) any combination of the agreements or transactions referred to in this subparagraph;
(vii) any option to enter into any agreement or transaction referred to in this subparagraph;
(viii) a master agreement that provides for an agreement or transaction referred to in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii), together with all supplements
to any such master agreement, without regard to whether the master agreement provides for an agreement or transaction that is not a securities contract
under this subparagraph, except that such master agreement shall be considered to be a securities contract under this subparagraph only with respect to each
agreement or transaction under such master agreement that is referred to in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii); or
(ix) any security agreement or arrangement or other credit enhancement related to any agreement or transaction referred to in this subparagraph, including
any guarantee or reimbursement obligation by or to a stockbroker, securities clearing agency, financial institution, or financial participant in connection
with any agreement or transaction referred to in this subparagraph, but not to exceed the damages in connection with any such agreement or transaction,
measured in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 562; and
(B) does not include any purchase, sale, or repurchase obligation under a participation in a commercial mortgage loan. See 11 U.S.C. § 741(7).
Section 101(22A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a “financial participant” means—
(A) an entity that, at the time it enters into a securities contract, commodity contract, swap agreement, repurchase agreement, or forward contract, or at
the time of the date of the filing of the petition, has one or more agreements or transactions described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of 11 U.S.C. §
561(a) with the debtor or any other entity (other than an affiliate) of a total gross dollar value of not less than $1,000,000,000 in notional or actual principal
amount outstanding on any day during the previous 15-month period, or has gross mark-to-market positions of not less than $100,000,000 (aggregated
across counterparties) in one or more such agreements or transactions with the debtor or any other entity (other than an affiliate) on any day during the
previous 15-month period; or
(B) a clearing organization (as defined in section 402 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991). See 11 U.S.C. § 101(22A).
See 11 U.S.C. § 555 and 559. Section 555 provides that “The exercise of a contractual right of a stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or
securities clearing agency to cause the liquidation, termination, or acceleration of a securities contract, as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 741, because of a condition
of the kind specified in 11 U.S.C. § 365(e)(1) shall not be stayed, avoided, or otherwise limited by operation of any provision of this title or by order of a court
or administrative agency in any proceeding under this title unless such order is authorized under the provisions of the Securities Investor Protection Act of
1970 or any statute administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. As used in this section, the term “contractual right” includes a right set forth
in a rule or bylaw of a derivatives clearing organization (as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act), a multilateral clearing organization (as defined in the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991), a national securities exchange, a national securities association, a securities clearing agency,
a contract market designated under the Commodity Exchange Act, a derivatives transaction execution facility registered under the Commodity Exchange Act,
or a board of trade (as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act), or in a resolution of the governing board thereof, and a right, whether or not in writing,
arising under common law, under law merchant, or by reason of normal business practice.” Section 559 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “The exercise
of a contractual right of a repo participant or financial participant to cause the liquidation, termination, or acceleration of a repurchase agreement because
of a condition of the kind specified in 11 U.S.C. § 365 (e)(1) shall not be stayed, avoided, or otherwise limited by operation of any provision of this title or by
order of a court or administrative agency in any proceeding under this title, unless, where the debtor is a stockbroker or securities clearing agency, such order
is authorized under the provisions of the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 or any statute administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In the event that a repo participant or financial participant liquidates one or more repurchase agreements with a debtor and under the terms of one or more
such agreements has agreed to deliver assets subject to repurchase agreements to the debtor, any excess of the market prices received on liquidation of such
assets (or if any such assets are not disposed of on the date of liquidation of such repurchase agreements, at the prices available at the time of liquidation
of such repurchase agreements from a generally recognized source or the most recent closing bid quotation from such a source) over the sum of the stated
repurchase prices and all expenses in connection with the liquidation of such repurchase agreements shall be deemed property of the estate, subject to the
available rights of setoff. As used in this section, the term “contractual right” includes a right set forth in a rule or bylaw of a derivatives clearing organization
(as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act), a multilateral clearing organization (as defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act
of 1991), a national securities exchange, a national securities association, a securities clearing agency, a contract market designated under the Commodity
Exchange Act, a derivatives transaction execution facility registered under the Commodity Exchange Act, or a board of trade (as defined in the Commodity
Exchange Act) or in a resolution of the governing board thereof and a right, whether or not evidenced in writing, arising under common law, under law
merchant or by reason of normal business practice.” See 11 U.S.C. § 559.
3
4
© Copyright 2008 Akerman Senterfitt. All Rights Reserved
Akerman Senterfitt Finance Law Update
March 21, 2008
Section 362(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a financial participant to effect a set off, without violating or seeking relief from the automatic stay,
of any mutual debt and claim under or in connection with commodity contracts (as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 761), forward contracts, or securities contracts
(as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 741), and clarifies that the setoff may be exercised against cash, securities or other property pledged to or under control of the
persons referred to thereunder that constitutes the setoff of a claim against the debtor for a margin payment (as defined in 11 U.S.C. §§ 101, 741, or 761),
or settlement payment (as defined in 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 or 741), arising out of commodity, forward, or securities contracts against cash, securities, or other
property pledged to or under the control of such person to margin, guarantee, secure, or settle such contracts.
4
Similarly, Section 362(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a “financial participant” to effect a setoff of any mutual debt and claim under or in connection
with repurchase agreements that constitutes the setoff of a claim against the debtor for a margin payment, as defined in Sections 741 or 761 of the
Bankruptcy Code, or settlement payment as defined in Section 741 of the Bankruptcy Code, arising out of repurchase agreements against cash, securities,
or other property held by, pledged to, under the control of, or due from such repo participant or financial participant to margin, guarantee, secure or settle
repurchase agreements.
Although not discussed by the court in the American Home Mortgage case, it is important to also treat a repurchase agreement as a master netting
agreement, as defined under 11 U.S.C. 101(38A), because in addition to having the contractual right to liquidate, terminate or accelerate under Sections 555
and 559 of the Bankruptcy Code, the buyer under such agreement may be entitled to exercise its contractual right to offset and/or net against any payment
amounts or other transfer obligations arising under one or more repurchase agreements, securities contracts, master netting agreements and other types of
financial contracts. See 11 U.S.C. § 561. Other provisions may apply if any one of the parties to the repurchase agreement is a financial institution subject
to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. §§1821 et seq.) or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. §§4402 et
seq.).
5
As a precautionary measure, the provision could also be broadened to grant a security interest in and lien on any assets related to the mortgage loans, such
as (purely for illustrative purposes only) any rights to insurance proceeds, take-out commitments and the applicable take-out proceeds associated with such
take-out commitments, hedging arrangements and the applicable proceeds associated with such hedging arrangements, that are intended to be sold by the
Seller and purchased by the buyer in connection with the purchase and sale of such mortgage loans in case a court of competent jurisdiction determines that
none of such assets fall within the ambit of the “repurchase agreement” definition provided under 11 U.S.C. § 101(47) or a “securities contract” definition
provided under 11 U.S.C. § 741(7).
6
Akerman Senterfitt, one of Florida’s leading law firms, has more than 500 attorneys and consultants servicing
the needs of domestic and international clients. The firm represents private and public companies, governmental
entities, educational institutions and high net-worth individuals in a wide range of practice areas. The firm’s
longstanding commitment to diversity has been recognized most recently by the Minority Corporate Counsel
Association, which presented the firm with the 2006 Thomas L. Sager Award for diversity leadership.
Founded in 1920, the firm now has offices in Florida’s major business centers: Miami, Orlando, Fort
Lauderdale, Tampa, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, and West Palm Beach, as well as in Washington, D.C., Northern
Virginia, New York and Los Angeles.
For more information about our practice groups and attorneys, visit www.akerman.com.
FT. LAUDERDALE
Las Olas Centre II
350 East Las Olas Boulevard
Suite 1600
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-2229
Main: 954.463.2700
Fax: 954.463.2224
JACKSONVILLE
50 North Laura Street
Suite 2500
Jacksonville, FL 32202-3646
Main: 904.798.3700
Fax: 904.798.3730
Los Angeles
725 South Figueroa Street
38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5438
Main: 213.688.9500
Fax: 213.627.6342
MIAMI
One Southeast Third Avenue
25th Floor
Miami, FL 33131-1714
Main: 305.374.5600
Fax: 305.374.5095
MADISON
222 West Washington Avenue
Suite 380
Madison, WI 53703
Main: 608.257.5335
Fax: 608.257.2029
NEW YORK
335 Madison Avenue
Suite 2600
New York, NY 10017
Main: 212.880.3800
Fax: 212.880.8965
ORLANDO
CNL Center II at City Commons
420 South Orange Avenue
Suite 1200
Orlando, FL 32801-4904
Main: 407.423.4000
Fax: 407.843.6610
TAMPA
SunTrust Financial Centre
401 East Jackson Street
Suite 1700
Tampa, FL 33602-5803
Main: 813.223.7333
Fax: 813.223.2837
TALLAHASSEE
Highpoint Center
106 East College Avenue
12th Floor
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Main: 850.224.9634
Fax: 850.222.0103
Tysons Corner
8100 Boone Boulevard
Suite 700
Vienna, VA 22182-2683
Main: 703.790.8750
Fax: 703.448.1801/1767
WASHINGTON, D.C.
801 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20004
Main: 202.393.6222
Fax: 202.393.5959
WEST PALM BEACH
Esperante Building
222 Lakeview Avenue
Suite 400
West Palm Beach, FL
33401-6183
Main: 561.653.5000
Fax: 561.659.6313
The summary set forth herein is intended to be general in nature and does not constitute legal advice with respect to any particular situation.
No legal or business decision should be based solely on its contents.
5
© Copyright 2008 Akerman Senterfitt. All Rights Reserved