Maryland Legislature Effectively Kills the IDOT

The Maryland Senate’s passage of the widely debated and publicized Budget and Taxation bill effectively eliminates a long-used approach to avoid the current payment of mortgage recordation taxes on a commercial real estate loan. Rather than providing a direct deed of trust on the real estate to secure the loan, the property owner would create a related entity to act as borrower (usually a wholly owned subsidiary) and the property owner would guaranty the loan, securing the guaranty with an indemnity deed of trust (an “IDOT”). Under existing law, there is no current recordation tax on the IDOT.  Effective July 1, 2012, Maryland’s recordation tax law will apply to IDOTs (except in the case of an IDOT securing a loan of less than $1,000,000 or to the extent recordation tax is paid on another instrument securing such loan).  We expect this amendment to the recordation tax law to end the general use of IDOTs in Maryland, thereby increasing the cost of financing for most commercial real estate borrowers.

Maryland House and Senate Approve Recordation Tax on Indemnity Deeds of Trust (IDOTs).

The Maryland State Senate and House of Delegates have approved the 2012 budget bill that included provisions that require the application of the state recordation tax at the time of recording on all indemnity deeds of trust (and indemnity mortgages) (IDOTs) securing the guaranty to repay loans of $1 million or more. The budget is now with a conference committee that will propose revisions to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions, which may allow for additional changes to the bill. Assuming that the current language is included in the final budget bill, the new tax on IDOTs shall apply starting on July 1, 2012. We will keep you posted on further developments.

Largest Maryland Trade Mission to India Coincides with Liberalization of Indian Securities Laws

Maryland is working hard to actively develop new business and investments in India. Late last year, more than 100 state officials and business leaders, accompanied by Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, traveled to India for six days to foster new commercial relationships. This, the largest Maryland trade mission to India and the only one headed by a sitting Maryland governor, was primarily self-funded by the participants. O’Malley cites upwards of ten Maryland businesses that signed term sheets or actually entered into joint ventures with India business partners during the trade mission for a touted $60 million in investments to date. The business deals signed ranged from consulting and engineering transactions to biotech and pharmaceuticals and should aid in continuing to fuel increased trade to and from India evident in the Port of Baltimore trade statistics, registering a 49% increase in India trade from 2010. This Maryland initiative comes at an opportune moment in India’s business development as India’s Securities and Exchange Board recently liberalized the Indian securities market regulations to permit certain investors meeting specified requirements (“Qualified Foreign Investors” or “QFIs”) to directly invest in India public companies. While there are still protocols to follow, an individual QFI can now hold up to 5% of the share equity in an Indian company and can sell such shares and receive bonus shares and dividends. For further details on this developing opportunity, see a Client Advisory Note from our affliate Mumbai office, "Qualified Foreign Investors Can Now Invest Directly in Public Companies." Maryland has opened a trade office in India to support its states’ entrepreneurs in utilizing the momentum instigated by the recent trade mission and expects the positive outcome from the mission to continue to develop, aided by the facilitating changes in the Indian equity markets. Kelley Drye & Warren welcomes the opportunity to partner with Maryland business owners to expand their reach into India, take advantage of the more permissive Indian securities regulations and offer our firm’s already well-established ties to India and our colleagues resident there.

D.C. Council Approves Income Tax Increase; Eliminates Retroactive Tax on Interest Earned from Out of State Municipal Bonds

On September 20, 2011, the District of Columbia Council agreed to raise the income tax rate on all households in the District earning $350,000 or more per year to 8.95% from 8.5%.  The rate increase shall be effective as of October 1, 2011, the beginning of the District’s 2012 fiscal year.  According to the District’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer, the tax increase affects about 6,000 residents of the District and is projected to increase the District’s tax revenue by $106 million over the next four years.  The Council also approved a measure to eliminate the retroactive application of income tax on interest earned from out of state municipal bonds; opting, instead, to tax the interest earned on out of state municipal bonds beginning with bonds purchased on or after January 1, 2012.

To Waiver or Not to Waiver, that is the Question?

In Hovnanian Land Investment Group, LLC, et. Al. v. Annapolis Town Centre at Parole, LLC the Maryland Court of Appeals held that a party’s conduct (whether express or implied) may waive a condition precedent set out in a written purchase agreement despite a specific clause in the agreement requiring that all waivers must be in writing.  Relying on its own past opinions and the opinions of renown jurists, Benjamin Cardozo and Oliver Wendell Holmes, the court, quoting Cardozo, determined that “[t]he clause [in a contract] which forbids a change may be changed like any other.  The prohibition of oral waiver may itself be waived.”  Citing the common law rule, the court reaffirmed its past holding that the freedom to contract does not guarantee the validity of a non-waiver clause, and that “even when a contract specifically states that no non-written modification will be recognized, the parties may yet alter their agreement by [oral] negotiation.”  This decision is an important reminder that actions can speak louder than words.  Thus, a contracting party’s actions may result in the waiver of a contract’s express terms even with the most careful and artful drafting.

Server Seizer Leads To Unwanted Consequences

It has been reported that yesterday Law Enforcement officials seized servers from a hosting facility in Reston, Virginia. That is bad news if you are Law Enforcement’s target, but it is also bad news if your website shared the servers seized by Law Enforcement. That seizure means (i) your website is down, and (ii) your business information (the information on the server) is in the hands of folks that you do not have a confidentiality agreement with. As businesses begin to invest in Cloud Computing, which uses a shared resources model to hold down costs, the quality Cloud Computing providers will provide a “Plan B” for when something crazy happens and you lose access to the shared equipment, the application or your information. The best time to think about Plan B is when you are contracting for the services.

Maryland Bar Business Law Section Proposes Revisions to MD LLC Act

On January 6, 2011 a business law committee of the Maryland State Bar Association released a report  detailing its proposed revisions to the Maryland Limited Liability Company Act (the “LLC Act”).  The proposed revisions are intended to strengthen the LLC Act to ensure that "the maximum effect [is given] to the principle of freedom to contract and to the enforceability of operating agreements."  (See § 4A-102 of the Maryland Limited Liability Company Revision Act of 2011).  Additionally, the proposed revisions provide clarification of certain default rules governing the operation of a limited liability company when the members have not adopted an operating agreement.

The committee has not yet set a timeframe to submit a bill covering the proposed revisions for consideration by the Maryland General Assembly.  Moreover, before adoption of any revisions to the LLC Act, we expect additional modifications and refinements to address input from other interested parties.