加拿大华人论坛 加拿大留学移民美国投资移民 - 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论

在加拿大

http://info.eb5info.com/bid/134954/New-Legislation-Could-End-Maryland-EB-5-Visa-Project-LitigationNew Legislation Could End Maryland EB-5 Visa Project Litigation Posted by Adam Green on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 @ 11:00 AMOver in Maryland, the State Center controversy continues. What's more, some new legal developments may have created even more problems for the project's government supporters. When we reported on the Maryland State Center litigation a little over a month ago, it came to our attention that some legislators were trying to pass a bill that would prevent so-called "nuisance" lawsuits from stalling state-supported development projects. That legislation is now making its way through the state's House and Senate, but not without a few raised eyebrows. That's because part of the bill a particular amendment appears to have been added for the sole purpose of ending the lawsuit against State Center. In a suit that project supporters call groundless, a small cadre of commercial property owners allege that the state of Maryland awarded a contract to a developer without a competitive bidding process. If passed with its controversial amendment, many believe there is a good chance that the pending legislation would end the State Center litigation as we know it. Ongoing promotion despite litigationBefore we look at the recent bill, let's consider why the State Center project was problematic from an EB-5 perspective. On February 22, we took a screenshot from the MICON International Website which suggested that State Center was an open project. MICON International is the foreign broker promoting the State Center project to prospective EB-5 investors. This observation was significant since State Center was in the midst of a lawsuit and being promoted at the same time. There was also a video promoting the project (still live as of today) that went online back in July of last year, well after the project was already in litigation. However, neither the MICON listing nor the promotional video disclosed that State Center was involved in an ongoing lawsuit that had put the project on an indefinite hold.We, on the other hand, feel that the litigation is a significant fact that should be brought to the attention of both the public and EB-5 investors. We even reached out to immigration attorneys specializing in EB-5 visa law to check on the promotion-related implications for EB-5 projects in litigation. Jor Law According to attorney Jor Law of Homeier & Law, P.C., it's perfectly fine to promote a project in litigation as long as that fact is disclosed somewhere in the offering documents or in some manner to the investor. After all, he notes, there are plenty of good companies out there that have, at some point or another, been involved in litigation. However, Law adds, if the litigation concerns “the very essence of the project or offering itself,” it may not be wise to continue promoting the project. Does that mean that the State Center project should be going out of its way to disclose the litigation? Not necessarily. Does it mean that they must in some way disclose it to each investor who signs on? Yes. As long as investors are informed that the project can't create any jobs while it's in the midst of a lawsuit, there's no problem at least from a legal perspective. Presumably, the State Center promoters were disclosing this fact to investors. According to MICON's Website, the State Center project is still "current" but, at least for the moment, "closed."。。。。。。But from the EB-5 investor's perspective... It seems to us that investors in this project should know that all of this is going on.From what we have seen, both the regional center and its foreign broker have promoted this project as nothing other than a sound, job-creating EB-5 investment. And were the project in a position to break ground, it may very well be a fantastic opportunity for immigrant investors seeking a US green card. But for the time being, the State Center project can't get going because it's in the midst of a lawsuit a lawsuit that seems now to have involved, at least in an indirect way, the Maryland state legislature. If State Center's promoters are still selling the project to immigrant investors and it could be that they have stopped we feel it's imperative for all the information about these legal proceedings to be disclosed. And while the issues surrounding State Center are unique, they should serve as a cautionary tale for investors and their counsel investigating the panoply of EB-5 opportunities now on the market.

评论
[最新进展] House approves public-private partnership bill, threatening pending lawsuit这个项目的确是“公共-私营合伙”项目，还没有见哪个项目州政府这么努力地动用所有力量清理法律障碍。州众院通过了一个bill，应该马上会到州参院表决。该bill有回溯力，一旦参院通过会使现在的lawsuit失效。结果很可能在几个月内确定。 House approves public-private partnership bill, threatening pending State Center lawsuit March 27, 2012 By Justin Snow The House of Delegates approved a controversial bill backed by Gov. Martin O’Malley that would better define the state’s policy on public-private partnerships for major construction projects after a spirited debate on Monday. An artist's rendering of the finished State Center project. The bill, originally backed by the O’Malley administration and written by a task force that looked at improving public-private partnerships, would provide an improved process for the state to review and coordinate infrastructure project proposals from private developers. CORRECTION: However, there was fierce debate in the House chamber over a committee amendment adopted Saturday that would expedite the legal process for the defendants of public-private partnership lawsuits. This amendment would allow them to go directly to the state’s second highest court, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, without having to first go to the circuit court. If approved by the Senate, the amended bill would retroactively affect a lawsuit currently pending in the courts against the $1.5 billion State Center development project in downtown Baltimore. The new complex would replace dated government buildings with offices leased to state agencies as well as apartments and shops. The project has been on hold since December 2010 when a group of Baltimore landlords and business owners, called the Coalition to Save Downtown Baltimore, filed a lawsuit against the state claiming the project was not competitively bid and would have a devastating impact on properties in the downtown area, which have struggled with high vacancy rates for years. Opponents argued the bill would effectively eliminate the pending lawsuit and deny the right of business owners to have their day in court. Although the chamber approved the legislation 81-52 on Monday, opponents attempted to halt the bill one last time, saying it would open the door to corruption and shady deals. “This modern, progressive General Assembly is ready to vote against transparency, against competitive bidding, against disclosure, and we are ready to vote for shadow government in the 21st century,” declared Del. Patrick McDonough, R-Baltimore County, adding that taxpayers would end up footing the bill as state agencies would pay $36 per square foot for office space built by the state. “Shame, shame, shame,” McDonough thundered, before calling the bill a “disgrace.” Opposition was echoed on the other side of the aisle by Montgomery County Democrat Luiz Simmons, who said arguments from supporters that the development would create jobs were no different from arguments he heard when the legislature was battling corruption in the 1970s upon his arrival. Simmons said some people never learn. “This is a casual and suspect sweetheart arrangement that is going to be confirming special favors,” declared Simmons. “We are sowing the seeds of corruption.”Speaking to MarylandReporter.com after the House vote, the attorney for the lawsuit plaintiffs, Alan Rifkin, said the retroactive amendment was a blatant attempt to end-run a matter still pending before the courts and prevent facts from emerging in a public trial. “It’s an affront to the integrity of the entire judicial system and clearly intended to affect one and only one piece of litigation,” Rifkin stated. Rifkin said that if the bill passes the Senate, the group will challenge the legislation’s constitutionality in court.

评论
回复: 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论村长同学，那你觉得国内中介在去年底就推这个项目在国内，什么都没清楚的情况下，是不是很骗人呢？

评论
回复: 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论村长同学，那你觉得国内中介在去年底就推这个项目在国内，什么都没清楚的情况下，是不是很骗人呢？点击展开... 毫无疑问，当然应该release这个info。村委会强烈要求村事公开。

评论
回复: 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论越发显现出把小V嫁到威州的紧迫性了。

评论
You and I have memories Longer than the road That stretches out ahead. 超赞 赏 W wolfman2012 0$(VIP 0) 9202012-04-22#6 回复: 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论没办法，有些人总喜欢拿中国特色的东西当做世界通用规则。

评论
回复: 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论其实中介业清楚法该法律诉讼，当时州政府也在法庭上反诉了几个找事的小地主。目前政府立法清除障碍，项目还是会上马的，时间问题而已。

评论
回复: 政府介入项目的不确定性－－4／20 马里兰政府大楼的相关立法讨论村长同学，那你觉得国内中介在去年底就推这个项目在国内，什么都没清楚的情况下，是不是很骗人呢？点击展开... 事实上包括中介和客户都清楚这事，Micon在推广的时候就告诉中介了。可能也就eb5info不知道这个info。 有谁会相信一个投标失败的建筑商的无理取闹，由此造成时间的拖延，更是让人大跌眼镜，从哪个方面讲都没有骗人的成分。 eb5info拿人家网站没有后续及时更新来说事，实在有点“上纲上线”、“师出无名”。网站没有更新，就没有披露吗？谁的项目文件会仅仅来自网络？ 另外从专业角度看，就算有法律诉讼，I-526一样可以递交申请。就算诉讼将来无法成功解决（几乎不可能的），也可以通过事先递交带有备选方案的商业计划书，一样可以确保I-829合规。这才是有实战经验的律师的做法，而Michael在这方面却完全是空白。。。。

  ·中文新闻 悉尼学生因佩戴巴勒斯坦围巾被禁止参加12年级正式课程
·中文新闻 二十年来，联邦政府一直向澳大利亚非法商人收取费用