Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
slow and steady looks good to me
look at the .25's lining up
so that I understand. If gsii is lets say on the top 5 of most active boards it should give an indication of a successful OTC stock in the Ihub community. Furthermore, Most Ihubers at this time should own shares. I am relatively new to Ihub only came here because of GSII, But if I understand I should start looking at the stocks in the top 5 most active boards because it should give me a good indication of what the IHUB community is interested in.
whats the correlation between being on the most active boards with GSII?
Ultra in fairness to poster snow it is a ligit question. Why can other posters post projected earnings day after day but then another who actually has a valid point can say it once only to be lost in the accumulated posts growing today.
It would be wise if the company kept key man insurance coverage granted good health my guess a 1 mil policy per yr at standard rates is 50k a yr for a 10 yr term. My guess Gunny will not be here working ten yrs from now. Can the company pay 50k a yr? Is there a contingency...Sally is up there in age as well...Most board members are these ages as well. It's a very well diversified group of intelligently aged individuals whom should all have plenty to retire on..My question is how much time are they willing to put into this in their retirement yrs?
Currently sally's office in Evanston is her home. Gunther's office is in a nice professional building in a shared office. do a google earth to verify as well as your dd.
I have been a shareholder longer than most here and have seen plenty of news of contracts that have never materialized. But i stay because i have a good feeling about what they are doing and who they are working with.
.07's starting to build as well as the .25's
penny my account is in good standing can do as i please
please change the investor relation section on the gsi securitization.com website. It might be a good idea to have the new symbol link changed. Plus add a news section. If you want to be cutting edge this is elementary. Also on pinksheet.com why is the updated market cap estimation only 340,000?
why is gsii not on the bulletin board? how long will we be here in the pinks?
GSII previous corporation was purchased by tyco. Maybe this symbol can bring the same good fortunes to the new corporation using the symbol of GSII.
http://www.mediatechnique.com/comps1/gsi/
any update with the transfer agent?
could be insider selling...anyone call the transfer agent lately
if technical charts apply to pennies I sure do like the accumulation distribution line..it's the greatest positive divergence i have ever seen.
http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:technical_indicators:accumulation_distrib
i found this to be a great read!!
http://www.securitization.net/pdf/nomura_abs_101802.pdf
eventually hippa rules will have to be follwed from gsi when they get into the collection aspect of there business. In regards to other deals by gsi i have been with this stock for some time well before most posters and nothing has ever came to fruition. Buying this hospital and selling that one yada, yada, yada...contracts are imenant yada..yada..yada.. i have come use to these pr's but have never seen the company make a dollar. spoke with the company and it always sounds good and looks good on pr's but zero has ever happened. It is now time for them to "...." or get of the pot.
"it prints", printing is getting old...I agree more recognition to the pubilc where time and sales are important it may bring greater liquidity to an investor. This stock is market driven by buyers and sellers no matter what exchanged it's on and whether it's printing or not printing the only thing that hurts the investor now is the current spread between bid and ask. Gsi needs to show REV's..they need to become compliant in filings...If you go back in the past press releases they used this news before in regard to stating there US domicile and furthermore remember they have already have been through a reverse merger with Klinair and it didn't take them long to be come non-compliant....It's time they opened up this curtain to let all see whats going on. If not it just more delays, and more of the same... no notices of insider transactions..no records of insider holdings.
hippa..is mainly for portability of health insurance and for privacy of the patient... I do not see why the use of Hippa in a press release has anything to do with Gsi. By naming the hospitals they are assumed to be doing due dillegence with it does not interfere with privacy of the patient nor does it have anything to do with portability. I can see that they do not want to disclose the names of hospitals due to competition or if it is a county hospital in which it must go through a bidding process and those bids have not been made public. But the use of Hippa in pr's i feel doesn't fit other than to spice up a press release. Just my opinion.
yes but what is the hippa rules in this case?
Is Hippa reg a reason why they can't release names of Hospitals or is it competition? where is the Hippa reg that says you can't release the names of hospitals your are negatiating with?
http://complywithme.blogspot.com/
could there be a forward split? meaning exactly what gunther is saying. It is uncommon in pinky land to get a forward split. Could this be possible? Is this what is meant by float will be the same and ownership will be the same. Any thoughts
the smell of pr's are in the air
any comment on short intrest of gsief stock aug 27 of 20k shares?
next week we see .10 to .20 range
next week will change some lives
still confused rto? ... need a few examples of this situation. gsi is public chms is public...who is the larger company and who needs to come up with the money and why?
Reverse Takeover - RTO
What does it Mean? A type of merger used by private companies to become publicly traded without resorting to an initial public offering. Initially, the private company buys enough shares to control a publicly traded company. At this point, the private company's shareholder uses their shares in the private company to exchange for shares in the public company. At this point, the private company has effectively become a publicly traded one.
A reverse takeover can also refer to situation where a smaller company acquires a larger company.
Investopedia Says... With this type of merger, the private company does not need to pay the expensive fees associated with arranging an initial public offering. The problem, however, is the company does not acquired any additional funds through the merger and it must have enough funds to complete the transaction on its own.
excellent find and a great example of Gsi as the originator.
is there any examples out there where a public company reversed merged into another public company. My understanding of a reverse merger is when a privatley held company goes public by means of a publicly traded company. I guess in the gsief case they are calling it a reverse merger aquisition...but i am a bit confused because Gsi is already public .I am wondering if it would be more benificial if they could even become compliant by filling some sort of Super K from there last filing. They have been through this process before with klinair but at this time they were a private company then quickly became non-compliant..of which i hope that this does not happen should they pull off what they are calling a reverse merger.
can anybody find an example what Gsi is trying to do where a public is reverse merging into a public compnay?
gsi main differences is in the niche of securitization...Factoring is comon in this market place. Once a person or an entity can understand the diffeence between securtizing recievables vs. factoring recivibles the true recognition of this concept will explode with Gsi at the forefront. for more information google healthcare securitization or recievable securitization.
there is only a few employess here.. i feel this is good most of the work is farmed out. a few concerns i have is the age of the these few employees gil is pushing 70 if he isnt already this age. Sally is in her mid 60's.... do these folks plan on retiring and enjoying life or is there enjoyment working and making this a go. Furthermore, if you do google earth you will see the evanston office is actually a home maybe it's salley engle's home. The princton office is more in a professional building i am assuming a small office there if not shared office space.
gsi has given the heads up a year ago read april 2006 pr....
GSI Securitization Inc. Announced Today That They Are in the Process of Securing Four Major Healthcare Industry Contracts with a Potential Net Value of over USD 273 Million Dollars!
From: Business Wire | Date: 4/11/2006
Business Wire
* Print
* Digg
* del.icio.us
PRINCETON, N.J. -- GSI Securitization Ltd. (Pink Sheets:GSIEF) announced today that their subsidiary, GSI Securitization, Inc., are in the process of securing four major healthcare industry contracts with a total potential net purchase of receivables of approximately USD 273 million dollars which should occur over the next six months.
Securitization has grown in prominence as a financing tool in many industries, but is not widely used in the medial services healthcare market. This of course is changing today because of GSI's unique receivables purchasing (securitization) product to provide a market starved for cash flow immediate payment for medical services, security of the receivable handling adjudication processes and expertise in upgrading reimbursement levels.
In addition, GSI provides a variety of additional asset-backed debt and equity/debt options covering the healthcare spectrum of for-profit, not-for-profit, cash-rich and cash-poor large individual, group or acute care (hospital) providers not readily available to this niche market.
GSI's management expects to exceed the current market growth curve in healthcare, which has been increasing at a rate of 8.6% annually. This expectation is based on the fact that the need for financing healthcare providers continues to grow at a faster rate than the current rate of inflation with no end in sight for years to come. Particularly as industry forces create demand because of less pay for services, mandatory reinvestment to remain competitive, malpractice increases and overhead continues to rise.
GSI's management sees that its unique capital partnering and revenue management group design products to client specific requirements, income expectations and debt capacity at costs not available or offered by the bulk of the financial community as in banks, investment portfolios, bonds, mutual funds, etal.). Products are sold based solely upon provider assets to funding ratio, payback timing and profit picture.
The U.S. spends more than any other country on healthcare, about 16% of its GDP, or roughly USD 2 trillion, according to government reports. In this environment, Gunther Slaton, President of GSI, states "We believe the current market potential for our Company, accompanied by the growth in the industry, and the need of institutions for current up-to-date management in receivables collection and for cash flow, give use the opportunity for a growth curve that, over the next two years, will be exponential, rather than linear. Our market niche, and our position in that niche, may very well make us the market leader in medical accounts receivables purchasing (securitization)."
About GSI Securitization Inc: GSI Securitization Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of GSI Securitization Ltd (Pink Sheets:GSIEF) and was founded in 1997. The company meets the growing demand for financing and related services in healthcare. The company attributes its success to its growing number of synergistic healthcare alliances providing expertise across all sectors of healthcare financial management, supported by extensive finance, reimbursement, clinical, operational, accounting and legal professionals.
For more information please visit the company's website at www.gsisecuritization.com.
Safe Harbor Statement: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides a safe harbor for forward-looking information made on the company's behalf. All statements, other than statements of historical facts which address the company's expectations of sources of capital or which express the company's expectation for the future with respect to financial performance or operating strategies, can be identified as forward-looking statements. Such statements made by the company are based on knowledge of the environment in which it operates, but because of the factors previously listed, as well as other factors beyond the control of the company, actual results may differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Business Wire
This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group.
For permission to reuse this article, contact Copyright Clearance Cente
amazing 9 up days in a row, have never seen this before..anybody else have a nine up in a row?
most longs break even is around the .05 to .10 range
my guess .10 by end of week
caution and investwise ... i feel this is very important to know becasue if it is the case restricted have already been issued they would become free trading before the shares we are holding..assuming ours become restricted. Scince investwise has been in contact with Gil can this be confirmed..Maybe a call to Salley Engell who is the investor relations person
stocrates you have a double eagle you just don't relize it yet! i have been long on this for 2 yrs. unfortunatly cost average is around .05 didn't take advantage of the recent price i guess i feel asleep at the wheel. I was turned on to gsief by a golf buddy. alot of what we are reading is what i think spot on.
a good read about healthcare securitization and the differences of factoring
Health Law Reporter
Print Document
Volume: 11 Number: 47
December 05, 2002
Issues in the Securitization of Health Care Receivables
By Mark Spradling
Spradling is the Chair of the Structured Finance Practice Group at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. He can be reached at (713) 758 2828 or at mspradling@velaw.com. The author would like to thank his colleagues David R. Keyes and Michael-Bryant Hicks (Structured Finance) and Stacey A. Tovino (Health Law) at Vinson & Elkins for their help with this article.
This article is not intended to be legal advice or to reflect a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only. Application of the information reported herein to particular facts or circumstances should be analyzed by legal counsel.
The practice of securitizing receivables gives companies a tool to address the challenge of managing cashflows to reduce borrowing costs and to maximize enterprise value. Securitization converts a stream of future receivables into an immediate advance of cash. Using the technique, the receivables payee can access much-needed working capital without incurring debt, thus allowing it to invest in new technologies, undertake expansion projects, or transform its capital structure. Accepted structures for securitizing Medicare and Medicaid receivables, as well as specific provisions included in the 2001 revisions to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code addressing securitization of private healthcare insurance receivables, should facilitate healthcare providers' use of this valuable financing technique.
Health care providers face a multitude of challenges related to cash management, including changes in government regulations regarding the coverage of, and payment for, services under the federal health care programs, and participation in managed care programs and provider networks. In addition to these challenges, many providers face difficulties in obtaining traditional financing for new projects.
Securitization addresses such concerns in several ways. It allows health care providers to aggregate their accounts receivable into pools and to sell the pools to investors. The investors set a purchase price for the receivables based upon the credit characteristics--remaining payment term and expected default rate--the pool. By contrast, obtaining traditional bank financing, even if secured by the healthcare providers' assets, generally involves satisfying stringent standards related to the creditworthiness of the provider. Thus, securitization can lower a financially burdened health care provider's total cost of capital. In addition, if the total return (return of investment, plus yield on investment) payable to the receivable purchasers is lower than the total cash flow received, the differential is additional value that can accrue to the provider.1
II. FROM FACTORING TO SECURITIZATION
Factoring.
The commercial forebear of securitization is factoring, a practice whereby parties, often individuals or small partnerships, known as "factors" purchased accounts receivable at a discount and recouped their investment by collecting the accounts over time. Thousands of years ago, the Mesopotamians are believed to have employed factoring in establishing an efficient agricultural market.2 The practice may have reached the Americas via early settlers who accepted cash from English factors to finance voyages to the New World in exchange for steady supplies of furs, cotton and timber. Factoring later proved critical to the development of U.S. industry, allowing companies engaged in textiles and manufacturing to deliver goods to customers on extended terms.3
Securitization.
. A factor typically buys receivables at a discount from many sources. Frequently, a factor pays the receivables payee on a monthly basis for accounts receivable that will be due in the next month--extremely short-term financing.4 By contrast, securitization usually involves the creation of a special purpose securitization vehicle (the "Purchaser") that issues debt securities to investors, or borrows from lenders ("Lenders") in the capital markets to raise funds to purchase accounts receivable from the receivables payee (the "Originator"). The Originator or its affiliate typically retains the obligation to "service" the receivables--dealing with the account debtors, collecting payments, and remitting them to the Purchaser (see Part III. D below). In addition, the Originator might hold an ownership interest in the Purchaser. The Purchaser applies the cash flow collected from the purchased receivables to repay the Lenders over time.
Most health care providers seeking to transfer accounts receivable find that securitization of those accounts provides several benefits that are superior to factoring. The issuance of asset-backed securities in the public or quasi-public markets greatly expands the pool of investors that are capable of investing in accounts receivable. Individuals and small factoring companies may not be able to invest in such offerings because of legal impediments or because the transaction size is too large.5 However, the risk-sharing inherent in the issuance of a large amount of securities, backed by a diverse pool of assets, to the public addresses such concerns effectively.6 Another benefit of the increased size of the public investor pool is that large sums of cash can be gathered at one time and remitted by the Purchaser to the Originator. Finally, factors generally require deeper discounts on the purchase of receivables than do securitization vehicles to protect themselves from the risk associated with collecting on accounts receivable.7
III. SECURITIZATION OF HEALTH CARE RECEIVABLES
A. Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions
Subsequent to the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1972, health care providers avoided transferring their Medicare and Medicaid receivables to investors because federal laws restricted the assignment of health care payments made under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 42 U.S.C. §1395g(c), together with its implementing federal regulation, 42 C.F.R. §424.71, provides that no health care payments which may be made to a health care provider under Medicare "Part A" for service to an individual shall be made to any other person under an assignment or power of attorney, except (a) payments to a governmental agency, (b) payments by an assignment established by court order (including the order of a bankruptcy court), and (c) payments to an agent who furnishes billing and collection services to the health care provider so long as (i) the agent receives payment under an agency agreement with the health care provider, (ii) the agent's compensation is not related in any way to the dollar amounts billed or collected, (iii) the agent's compensation is not dependent upon actual collections, (iv) the agent acts under payment disposition instructions that the provider may modify or revoke at any time, and (v) the agent, in receiving the payments, acts only on behalf of the health care provider. 42 U.S.C. §1395u(b)(6), along with its implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. §424.80, likewise prohibits assignment of health care payments made under Medicare "Part B." Finally, 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(32) and 42 C.F.R. §447.10 apply similar limitations to assignments under state Medicaid programs.8
Interestingly, in upholding the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions, courts have noted Congress's intent to curb the abuses of the Medicare and Medicaid systems attributable to factoring.9 Under typical factoring schemes, factors purchasing receivables from health care providers would submit claims to the government for payment and receive reimbursements in their own names. The result was the proliferation of incorrect, inflated, or double, claims for services and unwieldy administrative challenges with respect to determining which charges were reasonable.10
In 1985, the Fifth Circuit in In re Missionary Baptist Foundation of America, Inc.,11 approved a strategy to monetize healthcare receivables without violating the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed an arrangement whereby an operator of a group of affiliated nursing homes granted a security interest in its Medicaid receivables to its lender as collateral for a line of credit. When the nursing-home operator filed for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee argued that the grant of the security interest had been invalid because of the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions. The Fifth Circuit rejected the trustee's argument, noting that to prohibit health care providers from granting security interests in Medicare and Medicaid receivables would undermine the federal and state programs' purpose of financing medical assistance for the needy.12 Courts following this decision have articulated a more liberal standard for reviewing assignments of health care receivables, reasoning that the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions were not intended to invalidate transfers of Medicare and Medicaid receivables, so long as the healthcare providers retain control over the initial receipt and disposition prerogatives regarding Medicare and Medicaid payments from the government.13 The stage was set to move from factoring to securitization.
B. The Double Lock Box
Since courts continue to require that health care providers retain control over receipt and disposition of Medicare and Medicaid payments, Originators have developed a specialized securitization technique, structured to satisfy the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions and the limited exceptions to such provisions. Specifically, the Originator directs the governmental payors to pay all Medicare and Medicaid payments into a new account (Lock Box #1) owned and controlled by the Originator. Private payors are directed to make payments into a second account (Lock Box #2 or the Collection Account) owned and controlled by the receivables Purchaser. The Originator executes instructions to the depositary bank to sweep all funds from Lock Box #1 into the Collection Account daily. Although the Originator must have the right to change such instructions, any such change will trigger an event of default under the Originator's contract with the Purchaser. The importance of the wording of the Originator's rights and the consequences of the exercise of those rights has recently been re-emphasized (see Part IV.B infra).
The Originator grants a security interest in the governmental receivables and the Lock Box #1 account to secure the Originator's obligations to the Purchaser. Finally, the Originator agrees with the Purchaser that upon a default, the Purchaser will have the right to seek an immediate court order directing that all future payments be made to the Collection Account or to another account owned and controlled by the Purchaser and to direct all governmental payors to remit payments to such account. The Originator's ownership and control of Lock Box #1 satisfies the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions; the security interest in the Lock Box #1 account is designed to meet the Missionary Baptist exception; and the pre-arranged consent to the court order is to meet the exception for "payments established by court order" in the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions themselves.
In policy statements and private decisions, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS"), formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"), has approved the double lock box technique, stating that the key issue is whether the health care provider has actual control over the funds and thus discretion about the funds' transfer to a private financing entity.14 Additionally, the legislative history of the United States House of Representatives' committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce contains statements that approve the technique.15
C. Private Insurance Receivables; Revised Article 9 of the UCC
Article 9 of the UCC was substantially revised, effective in most states July 1, 2001. Of particular importance to the health care industry, Revised Article 9 introduced a new type of "account" covered by Article 9, a "Health-care-insurance receivable."16 Revised Article 9 now makes an exception to its prior exclusion from coverage of "a transfer of an interest in or under any policy of insurance"17 for "an assignment by or to a health-care provider of a health-care-insurance receivable and any subsequent assignment of the right to payment."18 Although certain provisions of Revised Article 9 relating to health-care-insurance receivables apply only to assignments (typically by the insured) to the health care provider (U.C.C. §9-309(5) & cmt. 5), it is clear from the language of U.C.C. §9-109(d)(8) quoted above and from other provisions of Revised Article 9, that securitizations by health care providers of accounts arising from payment obligations under private health care insurance policies are now covered by the U.C.C. Assignments of health-care-insurance receivables are perfected by filing a financing statement,19 and significantly, both contractual and statutory restrictions on such assignments by health care providers are deemed ineffective, as between the assignor (Originator) and assignee (Purchaser).20 Revised Article 9 also resolves the vexing question of determining how and where financing statements should be filed in order to perfect assignments of health-care-insurance receivables from account debtors (the insurance companies) located in multiple jurisdictions. The combination of U.C.C. Sections 9-301 and 9-307 provides for one central filing of a financing statement, generally in the state under the laws of which the debtor (Originator) is organized.21 Revised Article 9 has removed the considerable uncertainty that attended health care providers securitizing their private insurance receivables; a clear, uniform statutory framework has now replaced "ancient principles of common law."22
D. Special Challenge for Non-Profits
In some securitizations, the Originator sells the receivables to the Purchaser for a combination of cash and an equity interest in the Purchaser. Such a structure is particularly useful if the Lenders and the Originator cannot agree on the appropriate discount to apply to the "face amount" of the receivables in determining the purchase price. Its retained equity interest entitles the Originator to recover any collections on the receivables in excess of the portion of the price funded by the Lenders. The combination of the loan proceeds passed on to the Originator by the Purchaser, plus the equity interest that the Purchaser issues to the Originator, often makes it easier to conclude that the Originator has received, and that the Purchaser has paid, fair value for the receivables. The equity interest makes up any difference.
Resolution of a disagreement over the appropriate discount may be more difficult for non-profit entities. Although some state statutes permit non-profit corporations to own interests in other non-profit and for-profit corporations,23 in some cases there may be other regulatory, tax, or other impediments to a non-profit health care provider's forming a for-profit subsidiary.24 The resulting dilemma is sometimes overcome by the formation of a stand-alone entity to which the parent or an affiliate of the non-profit Originator makes a deeply subordinated loan. The Purchaser uses the subordinated loan, together with the Lenders' funds, to purchase the health care receivables. The Lenders lend what they consider to be an appropriate discount to fair value, but through the subordinated debt, the Originator receives what it considers fair value for the sale.
E. Privacy Issues
In connection with the recent bankruptcy of National Century Financial Enterprises Inc. ("NCFE") (See Part IV.B infra), one commentator observed that new federal privacy rules might make securitization of health care receivables impossible, thus ending such practice, even if NCFE's troubles did not.25 In late 2000, the Department for Health and Human Services promulgated the federal Standards for Privacy for Individually Identifiable Health Information ("Privacy Standards")26 pursuant to the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPPA").27 Covered health care providers are required to comply with the Privacy Standards by April 14, 2003.28 In pertinent part, the standards prevent covered health care providers from using or disclosing certain health information of patients without their prior written authorization, unless an exception to obtaining such authorization is provided under the Privacy Standards.29 Since obtaining prior written authorization from each patient whose health care payments might be securitized would appear to be impractical, securitization structures will need to rely on an exception to remain viable. One exception to the Privacy Standards appears to allow a carefully crafted securitization program for health care receivables to proceed.
The Privacy Standards permit a covered health care provider to use and disclose protected health information for the provider's own payment operations without obtaining any patient authorization.30 Significantly, the regulatory preamble to the Privacy Standards appears to endorse sales of accounts receivable without patient authorization.31 Careful structuring of the sales and servicing agreements, audit and inspection rights, and reporting requirements in a securitization transaction to comply with the Privacy Standards' use and disclosure exceptions will be essential after April 14, 2003.
IV. CREATING A BANKRUPTCY-REMOTE SECURITIZATION VEHICLE
A. Legal Issues
In addition to establishing a method for the transfer of health care receivables that does not run afoul of Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions, parties seeking to set up a securitization structure must also concern themselves with shielding the value of the receivables to be transferred from the potential bankruptcies of the Originator and the Purchaser.
In order to reduce the likelihood of the Purchaser's being the subject of a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy petition, the Lenders generally impose constraints on the Purchaser's activities, including its ability to incur debt other than the Lenders' debt or to grant security interests in receivables to parties other than the Lenders.32 The Purchaser's organizational documents may also require that the consent of independent directors of the Purchaser, or independent holders of beneficial interests in the Purchaser (so-called "golden shares"), must be ogtained prior to its filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition.33
Additional bankruptcy-remoteness issues involve the effect of a bankruptcy of the Originator on the Purchaser. If the Originator's transfer of the receivables is determined under applicable law to be a secured financing provided by, rather than a sale to, the Purchaser, the health care receivables are still the property of the Originator. Upon a bankruptcy of the Originator, if the Lenders do not have a perfected security interest in the receivables, the receivables would be available to satisfy the Originator's general unsecured creditors. Alternatively, if the Purchaser can be shown to be the alter-ego of the Originator or to have its business and affairs so intertwined with those of the Originator so as to be one business, the Originator's bankruptcy trustee might use equitable principles to seek to substantively consolidate the assets and liabilities of the Purchaser with those of the Originator. The limited purpose nature of the Purchaser and the securitization structure are designed to protect against both such outcomes. However, the effectiveness of the structure depends upon two factors: the Purchaser's independence or "separateness" from the Originator, and whether the receivables have been transferred to the Purchaser by means of a transaction that will be treated as a sale under applicable law. In each case, counsel to the Originator is usually called on to provide an opinion that if the Originator were to become subject to a proceeding in bankruptcy, a bankruptcy court would conclude that (i) the assets and liabilities of the Purchaser would not be substantively consolidated with those of the Originator, and (ii) the Originator's transfer of the receivables to the Purchaser would be treated as a "true sale" or "true transfer" (in the case of capital contributions) and not as a financing.
Substantive Consolidation.
Bankruptcy courts have applied several tests under federal bankruptcy law to determine whether to substantively consolidate one entity into another. Failure strictly to adhere to organizational formalities by both parties or to maintain separate financial records and asset management procedures are strong factors that weigh in favor of substantive consolidation.34 In addition, since bankruptcy courts apply equitable principles in deciding whether to consolidate entities, where the harm to the Purchaser's small group of creditors (e.g., reducing their recovery from 100 to 20 cents on the dollar) outweighs the benefit to the Originator's large group of creditors (e.g., increasing their recovery from 19 to 20 cents on the dollar), courts are less likely to permit substantive consolidation.35
True Sale.
Many cases have analyzed the various criteria that guide courts in determining whether a transaction should be characterized as a true sale or as a secured financing. Some of the more important of these criteria are whether the sale price of the receivables approximates their fair market value, whether the Purchaser has recourse against the Originator for receivables that cannot be collected, and whether the Originator has the right to reacquire the receivables at some later date.36 Courts use these factors to determine whether the parties intended that the transfer of assets be a "true sale," meaning a shift in the risk of the performance of the asset from Originator to buyer.37 In addition, as part of the transaction, the Purchaser files a UCC financing statement covering the transferred receivables, since such a filing is the manner in which, under the Uniform Commercial Code, both pledges and sales of accounts receivable are perfected.38
Opinions.
Since bankruptcy proceedings are proceedings in equity, both non-consolidation and true sale opinions evaluate the particular facts of a transaction in an attempt to weigh whether the equities favor one outcome over the other. Substantive consolidation analysis centers first on the formal "separateness" that the Originator and the Purchaser have exhibited. Counsel applies the multi-factor tests that courts have developed to determine whether entities have maintained the requisite organizational separateness.39 Next counsel examines whether the Lenders extended credit: (i) on the basis of the Purchaser's financial status as a separate entity, or (ii) on the basis of the combined assets of the Originator and the Purchaser.40 If the parties have maintained both "organizational" and "financial" separateness, the Originator's counsel is usually able to conclude that substantive consolidation would not be granted.
To conclude that a particular transaction is a true sale, the Originator's counsel again examines several factors that courts have identified as significant indicia of sales or loans. Among those factors, in addition to those mentioned above, allowing a seller to maintain control over the collection of receivables that have been sold, even for a brief period of time (as is the case when the Originator continues to "service" the receivables and the governmental receivables are initially deposited into an account owned and controlled by the Originator), could call into question whether those receivables had been truly transferred to the buyer.41 However, in the context of a securitization of Medicare and Medicaid receivables, precisely such control is required to satisfy the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions. At present, courts have not resolved this fundamental tension between the requirements of the bankruptcy law and the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions.42 Consequently, legal opinions drafted by the Originator's counsel in the securitization of health care receivables typically note: (1) that the Originator maintains control of the account into which Medicare and Medicaid receivables are paid only to satisfy the Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions, and (2) that all receivables that enter Lock Box #1 are to be immediately and automatically transferred to a separate account beyond the control of the Originator. Even with such qualifications, some true sale opinions covering the transfer of governmental health care receivables further qualify the ultimate opinion that the transfer of the governmental receivables would be treated under applicable law as a true sale or transfer and not as a financing, by warning the recipient that "the matter is not free from doubt."
B. Recent Developments
NCFE, the nation's largest provider of funds to the health care industry, quickly collapsed when, on Oct. 25, Moody's Investor Service downgraded $3.35 billion of NCFE's asset-backed securities and on Oct. 28, Fitch Ratings withdrew its ratings on two of NCFE's receivables securitization programs.43 By Nov. 18, NCFE and at least two of NCFE's client health care providers had filed for bankruptcy,44 and the inevitable lawsuits had begun to be filed as well.45 Exact details of the cause of the financial collapse are not yet fully known, but it appears NCFE purchased receivables from client health care providers then repackaged the receivables from many clients into pools held by special purpose securitization vehicles that issued bonds to institutions in the capital markets. When Moody's and Fitch discovered that two of the NCFE-affiliated special purpose securitization vehicles had used debt service reserves, rather than collections on previously purchased receivables, to purchase new receivables from clients, Moody's downgraded the securitization programs' bonds and Fitch withdrew its ratings. NCFE and some of its clients filed petitions under the bankruptcy laws soon thereafter.
Upon initial review, NCFE's securitization structure appears to be very similar to the transaction described in Part II, above. News stories describing NCFE's business model explained that NCFE bought receivables at a discount from health care providers that were "cash-short" and did not want to incur the long delays inherent in collecting Medicare and Medicaid payments.46 Instead, the providers received cash up front, and NCFE collected the receivables over time. However, upon closer inspection, it appears that NCFE may have strayed from the securitization paradigm. First, NCFE appears to have grossly overestimated the expected collections on some receivables pools, thus wreaking havoc with the cash flow of the securitization vehicles.47 Second, NCFE and its clients appear to have executed "evergreen" receivables sales agreements without adequate provisions for the clients to terminate the arrangements, thus severely adversely affecting the clients' financial viability, as the receivables continued to be paid to NCFE. Although all the details are not yet known, it appears that NCFE set up receivables programs with clients, under which the clients committed to sell NCFE future receivables, and NCFE took over the servicing functions. Even after NCFE defaulted in making new purchases from its clients, and despite the federal Anti-Assignment Provisions, cash from unsold receivables was directed into accounts controlled by NCFE for the benefit of its special purpose securitization vehicles rather than the providers. NCFE's first departure from the securitization paradigm, the failure to calculate the purchase price for the receivables, resulting in the financial default by the securitization vehicle, is a credit underwriting issue that should not necessarily have led to the NCFE programs' second shortcoming.48 Theoretically, if the providers had received payment in advance for all receivables sold to NCFE and had retained control of all receivables not so purchased, and if the providers had retained the servicing function on all receivables (or had retained a clearer right to terminate the Lockbox and Collection Account arrangement when NCFE stopped purchasing receivables), then the providers' rights to collections on unsold receivables should have been clearer. Instead, it appears that some of NCFE's health care provider clients became, in effect, lenders to NCFE.
Properly structured, a health care securitization should leave the Originator indifferent to the solvency of the Purchaser--the Originator has already received its cash.49 Moreover, if the Purchaser has accurately calculated the appropriate discount for the receivables purchased, the cash flow from collections should be sufficient to repay the capital markets investors. Finally, if the Originator has effective mechanisms for terminating its receivables sales program, it should be able to prevent unsold receivables from being paid to the Purchaser. It remains to be seen why the structure broke down with NCFE and what the lasting effects will be for health care receivables securitization.
V. CONCLUSION
Securitization is a useful financial tool that health care providers can use to their benefit. Properly structured, securitizations of health care receivables give health care providers access to a broad array of capital sources and provide the Lenders with secure access to collateral that is structurally separated from the credit risks of the Originator. The double lock box structure is generally recognized as being effective to securitize governmental health care receivables, and Revised Article 9 of the UCC has recently resolved the uncertainty surrounding private insurance receivables in favor of allowing securitization and providing a single filing location to perfect assignments of those receivables. Privacy Standards set to go into effect next year will require that securitizations be carefully structured to permit the parties to exercise their rights in the same manner as they have in the past. However, once the proper structure has been put in place, health care providers should be well-positioned to take advantage of the benefits that securitization has provided to numerous other asset classes.
1 Charles E. Harrell & Mark D. Folk, Financing American Health Security: The Securitization of Health Care Receivables,50 BUS. LAW. 47, 51-52 (1994).
2 Factoring History, at http://www.fredcoutts.com/publishserv13/se00002.html; What is Factoring? at http://liquidcapitalcorp.com/factoring/history.html.
3 Id.
4 HOWARD RUDA, ASSET-BASED FINANCING: A TRANSACTIONAL GUIDE, §27.01 [1] ( Matthew Bender 1985).
5 Joseph C. Shenker and Anthony J. Colleta, Asset Securitization: Evolution, Current Issues and New Frontiers, 69 TEX. L. REV. 1369, 1383 (1991).
6 It is possible, of course, for a factor to issue its own asset-backed securities to the capital markets; however the cost and added complexity of such an intermediate step is often prohibitive. STEVEN L. SCHWARCZ, STRUCTURED FINANCE: A GUIDE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ASSET SECURITIZATION §1:4 (P.L.I. 3d ed. 2002).
7 A study by Sandra Ferconio and Michael Lane revealed that securitization generally offers thirty to forty percent more funds in advance than would "old line" factoring. Sandra Ferconio and Michael Lane, Financing Maneuvers: Two Opportunities to Boost a Hospital's Working Capital, 45 HEALTH CARE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 74 (Oct. 1991)
8 Such statutes and regulations are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Federal Anti-Assignment Provisions." In addition, the federal Assignment of Claims Act, 41 U.S.C. §15 (1988), and 31 U.S.C. §3727 (1988) may apply to the securitization of some health care receivables. See Harrell & Folk, supra note 1, at 49-50.
9 Michael Reese Physicians & Surgeons, S.C. v. Quern, 606 F.2d 732, 734 (7th Cir. 1979); see also Danvers Pathology Assocs. v. Atkins, 757 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1985).
10 See H.R. REP. No. 231, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4989, 5090.
11 796 F.2d 752, 758 (5th Cir. 1985).
12 Id.
13 United States v. Northwest Commerce Bank, 727 F. Supp. 403 (N.D. Ill. 1989); Chinchuretta v. Evergreen Mgmt., Inc., 790 P.2d 369 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989); Snowden Investment Co. v. SCI-Wentzville Care Center, Inc., 896 S.W.2d 732 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
14 Memorandum from Christine Nye, Director, Medicaid Bureau, to All Associate Regional Administrators for Medicaid (Dec. 11, 1990) (on file with CMS); Letter from Kathleen A. Buto, Director of Policy Development, Department of Health and Human Services, to Alan E. Reider (Dec. 24, 1991) (on file with Department of Health and Human Services, Reference Number FQA-831); Letter from Kathleen A. Buto, Acting Director, Bureau of Eligibility, Reimbursement and Coverage for HCFA, to Cathy M. Kaplan (Sept. 15, 1988), (on file with CMS).
15 In the legislative history of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, the House Committee on Ways and Means approved a hypothetical transaction whereby a provider would agree with a lender to remit receivables from Medicare as soon as they are paid to the provider. The Committee stated that such an arrangement would not violate the prohibition against the Medicare program making payments to a third party. H.R. Rep. No. 247, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. at 1020 (1989), reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1906, 2491. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce concurred with this sentiment, stating that providers may use Medicaid receivables as collateral for loans, or may sell such receivables, so long as payment by States under Medicaid for service rendered by the provider is always made directly to the providers. Id. at 495, reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1906, 2221.
16 Uniform Commercial Code, Official Text and Comments (hereinafter "U.C.C.") §9-102(a)(46) & cmt. 5.a (West 2002).
17 See former U.C.C. §9-104(g).
18 U.C.C. §9-109(d)(8) (West 2002) (emphasis supplied).
19 U.C.C. §9-312 & U.C.C. §9-309(5) cmt. 5.
20 U.C.C. §9-408(a)&(c) & cmt. 2.
21 U.C.C. §§9-301(1) and 9-307(e).
22 Harrell & Folk, supranote 1, at 50.
23 See, e.g., Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1396-2.02 A(7) (Vernon Supp. 2002).
24 Absent any such impediment, an Originator would usually choose to form a for profit subsidiary because there is some question whether non-profit corporations are permitted to pay dividends or make distributions. See, e.g.,TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 1396-2.24 (Vernon 1997).
25 Seth Lubove, Risky Business, 10/28/02 at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1028/150.html.
26 65 Fed. Reg. 82462 (Dec. 28, 2000), as amended by 67 Fed. Reg. 53182 (Aug. 14, 2002), codified at 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164.
27 Social Security Act §§ 1171 - 1179 codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-1329d-8 added by Section 262 of Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 2021-2031, and Section 264 of Pub. L. No. 104-191 (42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2 (note)).
28 45 C.F.R. §164.534(a).
29 See 45 C.F.R. §§164.501-164.514.
30 45 C.F.R. §164.501 (definition of payment); id. §164.506(c)(1)(permitting uses and disclosures for the providers own payment activities without patient authorization).
31 "We recognize that covered entities sometimes make … uses and disclosures for purposes that are permitted under the rule without authorization. For example, a covered health care provider may sell its accounts receivable to a collection agency for payment purposes …." 65 Fed. Reg. at 82514.
32 Harold S. Novikoff and Barbara Kohl Gerschwer, Bankruptcy Remote Vehicles and Bankruptcy Waivers, SG001 ALI-ABA 97, 99-100 (July 26, 2001).
33 STANDARD & POOR'S, LEGAL CRITERIA IN STRUCTURED FINANCE TRANSACTIONS 19 and 81 (April 2002), athttp://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/fixedincome/Legal2002.pdf.
34 In re Vecco Constr. Indus. Inc., 4 B.R. 407, 409 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1980); Committee on Bankr. and Corp. Reorg., Ass'n Bar of N.Y.C., Structured Financing Techniques, 50 BUS. LAW. 527, 558-60 (1995); STANDARD & POOR'S, supra note 34 at 19-22.
35 In re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., 860 F.2d 515, 518 (2d Cir. 1988); Vecco, 4 B.R. at 409, 411; id.
36 See Fox v. Peck Iron & Metal Co., 25 B.R. 674 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1982) (in finding that a transfer was not a true sale, court emphasized that transferred assets were worth at least twice the amount paid for them); Major's Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Castle Credit Corp., 602 F.2d 538 (3rd Cir. 1979) (court held that purchaser's recourse to seller for receivables in default, along with seller's right to reacquire transferred receivables, required characterization of the transfer as a loan rather than a true sale); Steven I. Glover, Structured Finance Goes Chapter 11: Asset Securitization By Reorganizing Companies, 47 BUS. LAW. 611, 622-23 (1992).
37 In re Golden Plan of California, Inc., 829 F.2d 705, 709 (9th Cir. 1986).
38 U.C.C. §9-109(a)(3) & cmt. 4 (West 2002).
39 See, e.g., Fish v. East, 114 F.2d 177, 191 (10th Cir. 1940) andIn re Vecco Constr. Indus. Inc. at 410.
40 In re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., 860 F.2d at 518-519.
41 People v. Service Institute, Inc., 421 N.Y.S.2d 325, 327 (N.Y. 27, Sup. Ct. 1979)
42 See discussion in Structured Financing Techniques, supra note 35, at 566-67.
43 Elisa Williams,Health Care Financier's Bitter Pill,10/30/02, http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/30/cz_ew_1030ncfe.html.
44 Michael O'Neal, Ohio Firm's Woes Ripple Across Health Care Business, 11/13/02, at http://www.nytimhes.com/2002/11/13/business/13CARE.html; Bill Brubaker, National Century's Woes Claim 2nd Health Provider, 11/13/02, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45881-2002Nov12.html; Jenny Wiggins,US health financier files for bankruptcy, 11/18/02, at http://news.ft.com/s01/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid....
45 Mark Taylor, Provider cites National Century in bankruptcy, 11/11/02, http://www.modernhealth care.com/news.com?newsId=273; id. (Med Diversified Inc., a client of NCFE's, announced plans to sue J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank One, and Deloitte & Touche, the bond trustees and the accountants for two of NCFE's securitization vehicles, for $1 billion.)
46 Michael O'Neal, supra note 44.
47 One report quoted sources at NCFE who indicated that collections in some securitization pools were so poor that NCFE had accepted real estate and artwork--in violation of the covenants of the securitization vehicles' bond indentures--from some of its clients selling the health care receivables. Michael O'Neal, F.B.I. Raids Headquarters of Health Services Lender, 11/18/02, at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/18/business/18HOSP.html
48 NCFE's clients apparently attempted to notify insurers and the federal Medicare and Medicaid payers to make future payments directly to them, but NCFE's securitization vehicles obtained a temporary restraining order requiring that the payments be made to NCFE. Bill Brubaker, supra note 44.
49 Of course, the insolvency of the Purchase would adversely affect any residual equity interest the Originator held in the Purchase, as well, perhaps, as the Originator's ability to do future securitizations.
Print Document
Contact Customer Relations at customercare@bna.com
Contact the Webmaster at webmaster@bna.com
1231 25th St. NW Washington DC 20037 - Phone: 1-800-372-1033
Copyright © 2007 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright FAQs Internet Privacy Policy License Terms
Disclaimer Reprint Permissions BNA Accessibility Statement
Investwise ? from synopsis. Based on last weeks projected market cap and the forward looking anticipation of the reverse merger with CMHS at what price is or would it be advantages to acquire the shell shares? explain as things have changed now with the rise in share price of Gsief.
Here is a quick synopsis:
Market cap @ close Tues:
CMHS shell 17.7m o/s x .06 = $1,005,000 (Ends up with 10% of new company when transaction is complete)
GSIEF 87.4 m x .01 = $ 874,000 (Ends up with 90% of new company when transaction is complete)
last years board member announcement "kenneth Cummings"
Gunther Slaton, CEO of GSI Securitization Ltd. Announces That Dr. Kenneth Cummings Has Joined Us as Principal Advisor to the Board
Related Quotes
GSIEF Quote Chart Profile
PRINCETON, N.J., March 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Kenneth B. Cummings, M.D.FACS has joined the staff at GSI Securitization Ltd. GSIEF · News · Profile as Principal Advisor to the Chairman. Dr. Cummings brings an important dimension to our organization because of his in depth understanding of the transitions emerging in health care reimbursement and finance. He has enjoyed a highly successful career as a Urologic Oncological Surgeon, researcher and educator. He received his B.S. from Wheaton College, his M.D. from Northwestern University, and did his residency training at UCLA.
Dr. Cummings served as Professor and Chairmen of Urology at the University of Wisconsin prior to accepting the position of Professor and Founding Director of Urology and the Residency training program at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He served as the founder of Urologic Oncology at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, which he helped establish in 1993. Dr. Cummings is President of the N.Y. Section of the American Urological Assn., has over 150 scientific articles in pier reviewed journals, and in 2005 published the text "Prostate Cancer: Advances and Controversies," which he edited. He is a member of numerous Scientific Societies, as well as an invited member of several Honorary Societies. Dr. Cummings has intimate understanding of the impact of current Healthcare reimbursement on the practice of medicine and on the environment in which Doctors must practice.
Dr. Cummings, who is internationally renowned as a surgeon and leader in hospital and physician group management, will bring to GSI business growth opportunities with in-depth knowledge of the market.
About GSI Securitization Ltd.
GSI's principal business consists of financing for healthcare providers. GSI is publicly traded GSIEF · News · Profile, and growing in a non-cyclical market that continues to grow on average 8% a year with no end in sight, a market of $2-trillion estimated for 2006.
Contact: Gunther Slaton
(609) 987-8080
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT ADVISORY: Statements that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. The Company, through its management, makes forward-looking public statements concerning its expected future operations, performance and other developments. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates reflecting the Company's best judgment based upon current information and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that other factors will not affect the accuracy of such forward-looking statements. It is impossible to identify all such factors, factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated by the Company. They include, but are not limited to, government regulation, managing and maintaining growth, and the effect of adverse publicity, litigation, competition and other factors that may be identified from time to time in the Company's public announcements.
CONTACT: Gunther Slaton of GSI Securitization Ltd., +1-609-987-8080
last years board member announcement "kenneth Cummings"
Gunther Slaton, CEO of GSI Securitization Ltd. Announces That Dr. Kenneth Cummings Has Joined Us as Principal Advisor to the Board
Related Quotes
GSIEF Quote Chart Profile
PRINCETON, N.J., March 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Kenneth B. Cummings, M.D.FACS has joined the staff at GSI Securitization Ltd. GSIEF · News · Profile as Principal Advisor to the Chairman. Dr. Cummings brings an important dimension to our organization because of his in depth understanding of the transitions emerging in health care reimbursement and finance. He has enjoyed a highly successful career as a Urologic Oncological Surgeon, researcher and educator. He received his B.S. from Wheaton College, his M.D. from Northwestern University, and did his residency training at UCLA.
Dr. Cummings served as Professor and Chairmen of Urology at the University of Wisconsin prior to accepting the position of Professor and Founding Director of Urology and the Residency training program at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. He served as the founder of Urologic Oncology at the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, which he helped establish in 1993. Dr. Cummings is President of the N.Y. Section of the American Urological Assn., has over 150 scientific articles in pier reviewed journals, and in 2005 published the text "Prostate Cancer: Advances and Controversies," which he edited. He is a member of numerous Scientific Societies, as well as an invited member of several Honorary Societies. Dr. Cummings has intimate understanding of the impact of current Healthcare reimbursement on the practice of medicine and on the environment in which Doctors must practice.
Dr. Cummings, who is internationally renowned as a surgeon and leader in hospital and physician group management, will bring to GSI business growth opportunities with in-depth knowledge of the market.
About GSI Securitization Ltd.
GSI's principal business consists of financing for healthcare providers. GSI is publicly traded GSIEF · News · Profile, and growing in a non-cyclical market that continues to grow on average 8% a year with no end in sight, a market of $2-trillion estimated for 2006.
Contact: Gunther Slaton
(609) 987-8080
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENT ADVISORY: Statements that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. The Company, through its management, makes forward-looking public statements concerning its expected future operations, performance and other developments. Such forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates reflecting the Company's best judgment based upon current information and involve a number of risks and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that other factors will not affect the accuracy of such forward-looking statements. It is impossible to identify all such factors, factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated by the Company. They include, but are not limited to, government regulation, managing and maintaining growth, and the effect of adverse publicity, litigation, competition and other factors that may be identified from time to time in the Company's public announcements.
CONTACT: Gunther Slaton of GSI Securitization Ltd., +1-609-987-8080