In the last twelve months, four national public-private partnerships (“P3s”) have been financed in the U.S. private placement market, accounting for over $800 million in project cost financing. While there has been a shift towards private placement investors as a P3 financing source, the market activity in the last year has confirmed investor appetite in P3s, particularly those with availability payment-based compensation structures.
Private placements are securities offerings to limited numbers of sophisticated investors. These offerings are exempt from registration under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. Conservative, long-term investors, such as insurance companies and pension funds, tend to dominate the U.S. market. While private activity bonds and TIFIA loans present cheaper financing options, they are not available as financing sources across certain asset classes, including social infrastructure and smart city initiatives. Many features of the traditional private placement market align with financing features of the P3 market. For example, private placement investors favor long-term debt, with tenors of 30 years or more depending on the project, far exceeding the short tenors available in the bank finance market. In addition, as private placements in the P3 context are typically closed with a small number of investors, the project benefits from more flexibility in financing terms and, if needed, a simplified process for amendments and waivers over the life of the project, as compared to similarly-tenored bond financings. Finally, because of their long tenors and fixed credit spreads, private placements minimize project refinancing risk. Continue Reading
We have written about how the public-private partnership (P3) project delivery model 
In 2007, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 07-05, which created a voluntary 
After last month’s meeting with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, President Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan has become 
On June 5th, 
In 
In CUBE 3585, LLC, v. CITY OF MIAMI, et al., Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County
In Miami-Dade County v. City of Miami, Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County (Case No. 18-000032-AP-01) [26 Fla. L. Weekly 800b], an appeal was filed by Miami-Dade County (the “County”) from proceedings stemming from plans to renovate the Coconut Grove Playhouse. The Court ultimately ruled that the City of Miami departed from essential requirements of the law when it found that city residents were an “aggrieved party” and therefore had standing to challenge the City of Miami’s Historical and Environment Preservation Board decision. Further, the Court also importantly found the County was not afforded procedural due process as the County was not afforded notice of the relevant hearing and an opportunity to be heard during the proceeding. Adequate notice requires that the scope of the hearing be properly identified and therefore, the City exceeded the scope of the hearing by including the interior of the building in its decision to grant the appeal. This violated the County’s procedural due process. 
Urban cities and developers alike are taking advantage of the modern utility and benefits of shared parking. Particularly in mixed-use projects, 
