Tax forfeitures affect an entity’s liability protection.  You are all familiar with the various entity forms.  You know that some entity forms provide limited liability for owners, shareholders and partners.  These include limited liability companies, S corporations, C corporations, limited liability partnerships, and professions corporations.  You also know that sole proprietorships, general partnerships, joint ventures and DBAs have no limit on liability.  Entities can lose their liability protection by failing to pay state franchise taxes.

Using Texas as an example, entities have three levels of standing.  They are (1) “Good Standing,” (2) “Not in Good Standing,” (3) and ‘Temporary Good Standing.”  Most states have the same or similar designations.  “Good Standing” means the entity has filed all franchise tax reports and paid its franchise taxes in full.  This allows the entity to continue doing business in the state.  “Temporary Good Standing” is really no reflection on the entity itself.  This simply means that the state has not yet processed the franchise tax reports. Until it does, all entities are granted temporary good standing.

“Not in Good Standing,” however, is very different. “Not in Good Standing” is a red flag for factors.  It means that the entity has not paid its state franchise taxes and has, therefore, forfeited its right to do business in Texas.  In practical terms, this means the entity is now operating as an assumed name or DBA so any shareholders, owners or partners are not protected personally from liability for debts incurred while the entity was “Not in Good Standing.”  Or, to be more direct, you are now factoring a sole proprietorship or general partnership.  My experience is that this not only can affect how you factor the client and perfect your security interest, but it is also a red flag that you may very well be factoring into a liquidation.

Because of the effect of failure to pay state franchise taxes, I recommend factors be vigilant in checking this.  Usually, the state comptroller’s office will have this information.  If you have a client whose account status changes for the worse, you should immediately contact the client to learn why this has happened and whether the client intends to correct the problem.  This may allow you to catch a failing business early on and take appropriate steps to protect yourself. Or, it may allow you to avoid factoring a business that just wants your money while intending to file for bankruptcy protection. The bottom line is factoring a client who is not paying its state franchise taxes can be a recipe for disaster.

About the author:

Scot Pierce is a partner with the lawfirm of Bracket & Ellis, P.C. located in Fort Worth, Texas.  He has represented a number of factors with commercial litigation and bankruptcy issues.  He also regularly writes articles and presents speeches on creditor issues, including an upcoming teleconference on Issues to Consider when Litigating against Account Debtors.  He can be reached at 817/339-2474 or spierce@belaw.com.

BY RICHARD EITELBERG, CPA, FOUNDER-PRESIDENT OF HARTSKO FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, A SEVEN-YEAR-OLD PURCHASE ORDER FINANCE FIRM WHICH HANDLES ABOUT $150M IN ANNUAL TRANSACTIONS, BASED IN BAYSIDE, NEW YORK (WWW.HARTSKO.COM)

“The Great Recession” has left a lot of asset-based lenders and factors weak and lame.  Their inability during this period to access credit lines from banks, hedge funds, and equity investors often means they must restrict money to existing customers or refuse prospective clients.

Purchase Order Financing and Letters Of Credit generally looked upon as a last-resort bitter pill have seen increased acceptance as a way for a business owner to preserve a transaction opportunity.  With up front honesty, PF is expensive because of the very high risk issues involved and the intensive servicing requirements.  However, if a deal has the potential to yield a 30% profit or more—why should the business owner be concerned about sacrificing a few more percentage points over and above a traditional lender?  Is losing the opportunity to do the deal altogether, a better alternative?

Factors and asset-based lenders should realize that if they are at the end of their line with their client, referring the PF route can keep their relationship and income opportunity alive.  PF is a fast way for their client to secure funds needed to fulfill customer purchase orders and expand their business without giving up equity or trying to borrow additional funds (an option which no longer exists).

Here’s the process:

1.   The customer submits a purchase order to the client with all documents

2.   The client submits the customer purchase order to the PO financier for approval with all costs associated with transactions

3.   The PO financier will then will make direct payments to the client’s vendors so that the merchandise for the customer PO can be produced

4.   The client’s vendors deliver final product directly to the end customer or to a third party warehouse until shipped to end customer

5.   The seller then invoices the shipment and sends invoice and corresponding copy of customer PO to the factor

6.   The factor funds the invoice at his discount, paying the PO financier their loan plus fee

7.   The factor (or bank) collects from the end customer and pays the client their residual left from the advance

PF is taking a piece of equity in a client’s deal on a temporary basis, perhaps, thirty, sixty, ninety days, or 120 days.  A PF firm earns a fee on a precise part of the deal.  The PF firm doesn’t really “lend” a business money.  Most times, PF firms do not actually give a business any money or hard cash.  The PF firm’s money and equity backs up and supports the integrity of said purchase order.  It makes transactions work by opening up an LC usually overseas to procure merchandise, products, and materials for businesses.  (Or, wires are sent to domestic manufacturers to make purchases in behalf of businesses.)

PF is only transactional and temporary with the money going to fund the goods or merchandise in that specific transaction.  PF funds are not allocated to fund payroll, rents, cars, or any other business operations. Therefore, PF enables start-up companies to grow and troubled companies to survive.  Even bankrupt companies are generally able to access PF because the fees are guaranteed by the court.

Finally, in terms of the relationship, PF firms are not offended that a business owner may use this process one day, while returning to the factor or traditional lender the next day.  The PF community recognizes that PF is only going to be used when it is absolutely necessary and all other lender options have been exhausted.  The PF firm accepts that business owners and their lenders will only use it when they need it!

For more information on purchase order financing, feel free to visit www.Hartsko.com, or contact the IFA directly.

More about the author.

Richard Eitelberg is the Founder, President of Hartsko Financial Services, LLC., with offices in Bayside, New York and Deerfield, Illinois.  Mr. Eitelberg, was graduated from Michigan State University with a BA in Accounting.  He earned his license in certified public accounting (New York State).

Mr. Eitelberg has been the Chief Financial Officer for two garment industry companies: Adrian Landau Designs, and B. Lucid.  He was a Senior Auditor for Josephson, Luxemborg & Kantz, CPA’s, PC. He began Hartsko about seven years ago, assembling a group of private equity investors.  Today, Hartsko handles purchase order financing and letters of credit with some $150m in annual outstandings. (www.hartsko.com)

Mr. Eitelberg, a resident of Plainview, New York is a member of the Commercial Finance Association, the International Factoring Association (preferred vendor) and the Turnaround Management Association.