Date: October 11, 2011
To: Mr. Philip Long
From: Mr. Kunal Patel
Subject: Recommendations
Introduction
Below are my recommendations to Mr. Philip Long, the CFO of DeviceCo, regarding tasks he has assigned me to do. The tasks entail answering the following questions in my analysis of whether LeaseMed is a Variable Interest Entity (VIE) and if DeviceCo should consolidate LeaseMed as a primary beneficiary: (1) Does DeviceCo qualify for the business scope exception, (2) Does LeaseMed have sufficient equity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support, and on the basis of that answer, is LeaseMed a VIE, and (3) Is DeviceCo still required to consolidate LeaseMed as its primary beneficiary?
…show more content…
I found DeviceCo met one of the requirements to be considered for the business scope exception. According to ACS 810-10-15-17 one of the requirements for Scope Exception states, that if the reporting entity and its related parties provide more than half of the total of the equity, subordinated debt, and other forms of subordinated financial support to the legal entity based on an analysis of the fair values of the interests in the legal entity, then it qualifies for the Business Scope Exception (ASC 810-10-15-17). Clearly, DeviceCo provides more than half of the total equity of LeaseMed, since DeviceCo invested $550,000 out of the $1 million dollar total equity. This accounts to 55 percent. Therefore since DeviceCo qualifies for the business scope exception, this exempts investors from the remaining provisions of the VIE subsections of ASC 810-10.
Rationale - Does LeaseMed have sufficient equity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support? It is stated that DeviceCo has put in $550,000 towards LeaseMed’s equity, while Pharmador put in $450,000. This totals $1 million dollars of equity. All $1 million dollars are considered “at-risk”, since these investments in the legal entity (LeaseMed) participate significantly in profits and losses even if those investments do not carry voting rights (ASC 810-10-15-14).
LeaseMed expects losses of more than $1 million dollars. Due to insufficient qualitative
If you want to export goods to a particular country, make sure they have a need for your particular services or product. Most international businesses find multiple countries or locations that have a need for these items in order to ensure a steady and profitable revenue stream.
Key Issue 2: Is $1b appropriate to enhance UST’s firm value and ultimately shareholder value?
Since, such an agreement will be regarded as an Operating Lease and not a Capital Lease; this lease will not be reported on the company’s balance sheet. Keeping the lease off the balance sheet would make our financial ratios appear more attractive (lower debt/asset ratio) than otherwise. Hence, such a setup provides the advantage of financing the deal as an off-Balance Sheet item.
As an educator and advisor, I am very interested in student interest inventories. Working in the classroom, it can be very difficult to assess interest of students when choosing thematic units or classroom project. As a college advisor, I am constantly searching for resources to help my students choose a future career path. I completed research and found three popular interest inventories- the Strong Interest Inventory, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Clifton Strengths Finder. Each of the three assessments analyze the same general theme of interest, personality and career choice. I have analyzed each to determine the best interest inventory to use with my students.
The ALPES S.A. case deals with Charles River Laboratories (CRL) and their consideration of a joint venture proposal with an animal vaccine company in Mexico. The senior V.P. is preparing to present the proposal of a $2 million investment for the firm. The CEO, Jim Foster, is concerned with the associated risks that CRL would be undertaking if they accept this venture. Key issues of concern are; the partnership with a relatively small, family run business; having operations in Mexico, which could pose difficulties; maintaining CRL’s focus on U.S. expansion; and the proposed partner’s lack of funds to invest, which will leave CRL to bear the entire cost of the venture.
individuals who understand finance, and then you have a Board of Directors who rejected it. Is this
Life insurance is meant to provide funds to replace a breadwinner's to protect and support dependents. Chad and Haley are dependents, not income providers. Therefore, the purchase of life insurance is unnecessary and not recommended. The Dumonts should use the money they would spend on policies for the children to increase their own coverage.
Apex must remove antidilution protection from employee shares, as this removes a significant incentive for employees and management to reduce Accessline’s burn rate. However, as Series A investors retain a veto over the deal, their shares must be allowed to retain anti-dilution protection. Additionally, we may propose a point at which additional investment rounds (above and beyond $32m of fresh capital) would cause dilution of ESOP shares at an accelerated rate.
Hearts ‘R Us (the company) is a private, medical device research and development company. The company is in the final stages of going to market with their Heart Valve System. In an effort to obtain additional financing, the company has decided to partner with Bionic Body, a publicly held SEC registrant. As part of the arrangement, the company has sold Bionic $3.5 million shares of $1
9. Assuming that Santa Corporation was required to capitalize its operating lease how would the company’s
Dracca is able to seek recover from Silva Gray individually on the judgment for BB partnership because the partnership has not been incorporated. In a general partnership each individual can be sued for the full amount of the business debt. The partners cannot have personal interest within the partnership (Bagley & Savage, 2009 p. 729). If one partner incurs all of the debt, they can then sue the other partners for their parts of the debt. Within a Limited Liability Partnership these three items would differ from the general partnership.
AMG Inc, a Fortune 500 financial services company, is implementing 7,542 new PCs in the time frame of twelve months in multiple locations covering eight states. This is a $7.5 million technology financing decision which needs to be investigated. The current decision that Adam Stolz, controller for the CFO, faces is whether AMG should lease or buy the new PCs. Also, he is under pressure from the CEO to keep the transaction off of the balance sheet, in which case the equipment/software would have to be defined as an operating lease, according to the standards defined in FAS 13. The lease options consist of a 24-month lease or a 36-month lease, and AMG could also choose to purchase the computers for the same
Crumple Car Rentals management is planning on expanding their business to the western part of the United States. In order for Crumple to do so, they would need to acquire 400 more automobiles. Crumple however, cannot perform this growth with their cash since they depleted their reserves due to some needed car upgrades to their current rentals. Management narrowed down two possible options that they could do in order to proceed with the expansion. They decided that they can either issue additional debt or create a wholly owned leasing subsidiary that would borrow the money with a guarantee for payment from Crumple. The subsidiary would then lease the cars to their parents. Crumple contacted our consulting firm to help them decide what option
Founders’ termination term is very important for Laracey because it increases the possibility that the unvested equity of the founders could be accelerated when the incoming CEO terminates them. It directly protects the benefits of the founders.
This way they could tell if shareholder wealth would be created. There is a risk due to the cost of equity since it is more complex and is assumed to be the amount that an investor could earn. My advice to Elaine would not change due to the fact that the patent is needed and could create something good for the pharmaceutical industry. She should explain that there was a difference in the ROI but costs are necessary in creating the patent.