Akron, OH May Sell Water Tower and Cell Tower Ground Leases

 

The City of Akron has decided to sell its cell tower and water tower leases to Everest Infrastructure Partners. Curious who they are? The founders are previously from Tristar Investors- a company that purchased easements under tower company towers in order to sell them back to the tower companies. I can’t say whether Everest has the same business model. What is interesting though is that Everest paid a pretty penny for these assets.

 

Why Cities Should Think Hard Before Selling Leases

 

Typically, we advise cities against selling their leases because the sale limits the ability of future city councils to use the underlying properties as they see fit. For example, in this case, the City of Akron won’t be able to tear down these water towers at the end of their life or redevelop the underlying properties where the towers sit. That may not be an issue in this case depending upon the location and age of the properties/water towers. We also advise against selling of leases because the buyout offers for the leases aren’t nearly as high as what Everest Infrastructure Partners paid here. With this type of multiple of cashflow, this transaction is more like that of a tower acquisition than a traditional lease buyout. That’s because Everest gets the current and future revenue from these structures and properties that were sold and the City gets none.

 

But Cities May Not Have a Choice

 

Of course, there are many cases where cities like Akron don’t have another immediately accessible source of funding that doesn’t require raising taxes and must turn to liquidating assets like these cell tower leases. Here the City of Akron was facing a significant cash crunch. We have worked with two other Ohio cities that also ended up selling their leases. In both cases, they evaluated whether the location of the tower or water tower would potentially impact future expansion or development plans. After evaluating the potential sale, they determined that they could live with the future obligations.

 

The Lease Buyout Market is Back

 

Another point of interest is that the lease buyout market is getting frothy- we are seeing more entrants and higher offers than at any time in the last few years. For example, we just received a call from a company that had shut its doors and has now found funding to buy leases again. If you are considering selling your lease, it may make sense to look at doing it now. If you need to know more about lease buyouts- we have a very handy and complete website about the subject- www.celltowerleasebuyout.com.

 

Give us a call and we can help you ascertain the market value of your lease and walk you through the options related to selling.

Verizon’s Tricky-Tricky Cell Site Lease Assignment Language

Verizon sign/logo on building

We applaud Verizon for their interest in preventing their leases from being sold to third parties like lease buyout companies.  It is understandable that Verizon (along with other wireless carriers) would prefer not to have an informed third party purchase the rights to a Verizon ground or rooftop lease.   Having to work through a lease aggregator or whomever that lease aggregator sold their tranches of leases is difficult and time-consuming and likely exposes Verizon to increased cost because the aggregator is incentivized to maximize the rent.   To that end, we have heard of litigation between wireless carriers or tower companies and third party buyout companies who unreasonably withhold consent for modifications.  

However, in Verizon's newest template lease, they have gone too far.   For some time, Verizon has had a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) clause in their lease which prevents a landowner from selling the lease without giving Verizon the right to match the offer.  While we don't like the Right of First Refusal clause, we can accept it with some changes that limit the scope of the ROFR.   In their most recent lease template though, Verizon has added language that would make it difficult if not impossible for a landowner to assign the lease or sell the lease to a third party EVEN IF Verizon chooses not to match someone else's offer.  

Without any approval or consent of the other Party, this Agreement may be sold, assigned or transferred by either Party to (i) any entity in which the Party directly or indirectly holds an equity or similar interest; (ii) any entity which directly or indirectly holds an equity or similar interest in the Party; or (iii) any entity directly or indirectly under common control with the Party.  LESSEE may assign this Agreement to any entity which acquires all or substantially all of LESSEE's assets in the market defined by the FCC in which the Property is located by reason of a merger, acquisition or other business reorganization without approval or consent of LESSOR.  As to other parties, this Agreement may not be sold, assigned or transferred without the written consent of the other Party, which such consent will not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.  No change of stock ownership, partnership interest or control of LESSEE or transfer upon partnership or corporate dissolution of either Party shall constitute an assignment hereunder.  LESSEE may sublet the Premises in LESSEE’s sole discretion.

In other words, Verizon is saying:  "If you get a poor offer to buy the lease that we want to match, we will. Conversely, if we don't want to match, we will not match and then we will decline to consent to your sale of the lease so you can't sell it anyway."   This is a crappy deal and we advise all landowners to remove the anti-assignment language from the lease.  If Verizon doesn't want you to sell to a third party, great.  They can opt to buy the lease directly; if not, they shouldn't be able to prevent you from selling to someone else.   Landowners who agree to this language will end up devaluing their leases as buyout companies won't make offers on leases that aren't assignable.  

Want a Kinder Less Aggressive Tower Company Leasing Specialist? Just Fill Out a Survey!

Image of surveyOne of our client's called us yesterday to let us know that they had been beleaguered by a tower company rep who was perhaps too anxious and aggressive regarding a lease extension for a lease that wasn't set to expire for another 8 years.   This particular client has a Mona Lisa tower- a phrase American Tower used previously to refer to 4-6 carrier towers.   In other words, it wasn't going anywhere.   For some reason, the tower company rep felt that being aggressive and making all kinds of threats to move the tower and to cease discussions would make the landowner agree to the proposed terms.   

The landowner received a survey from the tower company- a generic one that asked about how the landowner felt about the tower company and whether lease payments were coming on time.   The landowner filled out the survey and added comments at the bottom that he didn't appreciate the rep's aggressive nature and angry demeanor.   Within a few days, the agent called him and apologized and the negotiations took a decidedly more friendly turn.    Perhaps that was because our client's tower is a very valuable tower.   Perhaps not.  Either way, if you are having a problem with your tower company rep and their negotiating tactics, fill out a survey or let the company know directly.   While the rep will and should continue to make threats about moving the tower, they should be able to do it in a less aggressive and cordial manner.  Both parties should remember that these negotiations are not personal, they are just business.  Treat the discussion as a business discussion, remove the personal aspect, and if you need help determining the business terms, consider contacting us.  

Everest Infrastructure Partners: The Phoenix of Tristar Investors?

Illustration of Phoenix Rising from AshesHISTORY OF TRISTAR INVESTORS

Back in 2008-2013, a company called Tristar Investors was attempting to acquire ground leases under American Tower Corporation (AMT) and Crown Castle (CCI) cell towers. They had some success acquiring the leases using a unique acquisition model where they would "buy out" the tower ground lease by paying the landowner an additional annual or monthly payment above and beyond their current rent through the expiration of the cell tower lease. Tristar would then offer the landowner 50% of any revenue from the operation of the tower after the expiration of the lease. The marketing pitch? At expiration, Tristar assumes ownership of the tower and the landowner becomes a "partner" in the revenue generated on the tower. This was an effective pitch to landowners, and our best guess is that Tristar acquired 300-500 leases under valuable multi-carrier towers.   

In 2013, Tristar settled litigation with American Tower and after that, they shut down. We surmise that Tristar agreed to non-compete and non-solicitation language in their agreements that barred them from purchasing leases from under American Tower. We also believe that Tristar executives previously agreed to language with Crown Castle that provided for similar restrictions on acquiring Crown Castle leases.  

THE RISE OF EVEREST INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS

Flash forward to 2017 and it appears that these non-compete/non-solicitation agreements have expired, because a landlord of ours with a multi-carrier American Tower Corporation tower received a purchase offer from a company named Everest Infrastructure Partners that looks suspiciously like previous offers from Tristar Investors. Upon further review of the signatory and the agent who contacted our property owner, it appears that someone has gotten the old Tristar team together and is now attempting to acquire leases under the Everest Infrastructure Partners name. Both the agent and signatory list previous positions with Tristar in their LinkedIn profiles .  

Here is what the offer from Everest looks like: 

Everest Infrastructure Partners, Inc. (“Everest”) is pleased to present to you (“Owner”) this offer letter (“Offer”) for Everest to acquire an easement to the cell tower real estate you own at _____________________(“Property”).    

1. Current Lease.  The Offer is based on the following terms of the current lease for the cell tower operated on the Property:

Current Rent:   $xxx.00 /month    Final Lease Expiration: xx/xx/xx

2. Payment to Owner.  Everest will pay to Owner the sum of xxxxx Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($xx,000.00) per year until the expiration of the Current Lease.  Owner will keep all rents generated by the Current Lease until expiration. Additionally, commencing at the expiration of the Current Lease, Everest shall thereafter pay to Owner ongoing payments equal to Fifty Percent (50%) of the rental revenues received by Everest from any lessee(s) of the Property.

 3. Easement. In exchange for the consideration above, Everest will be granted an easement to the property. The easement area shall be the portion of the Property currently leased for wireless telecom use, and shall include access and utility easements thereto. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CELL TOWER LEASEHOLDERS

There are a few concerns that landowners should have about this offer. First, a landowner who receives this offer should clarify with Everest whether they intend to take over the ownership of the tower at expiration, whether they plan to sell the lease back to the tower company, or whether they expect to renegotiate the lease with the tower company and take 50% of the rent for doing so.   

In the first scenario, these types of offers can be attractive to landowners. Our clients who previously sold to Tristar were generally better off for doing so.  

In the second scenario, we believe the landowner is better off just selling or renegotiating the lease with the tower company. Otherwise, at expiration, if Everest sells the lease to the tower company, the tower company could just decide to offer below market lease terms and the landowner would get the very short end of the deal.   

In the third scenario, we also believe that the landowner is better served by selling to the tower company or renegotiating the lease with the tower company. Unless the "buyout" amount exceeds the present value of 50% of future rent from the extended tower lease, the landowner would be better off just keeping the lease and negotiating its own extension or sale with the tower company.   

Accordingly, if you receive an offer from Everest, we recommend confirming with them whether they intend to take over the tower at expiration. If not, we suggest asking Everest about their explicit intentions with the lease. In either of the latter two scenarios, we recommend contacting us so that we can help you determine the value of the lease and explain fully all of your options – not just those presented by Everest.   

Please note that we are not affiliated with Everest. Everest Infrastructure Partners may be a registered trademark. If you found this post while searching for Everest Infrastructure Partners, please direct your browser to www.everestinfrastructure.com.   

Tristar Investors Lawsuit Against American Tower Corporation

On Feb 16,  2012, Tristar Investors sued American Tower Corporation alleging that American Tower had violated the Lanham Act, unfairly competed, disparaged Tristar’s business, tortuously interfered with an existing contract and with prospective business relations, and lastly had breached a contract.   The suit was filed in Federal Court in Dallas.  The suit was quickly posted on the internet.  Tristar alleges in a lengthy complaint full of hyperbole that American Tower has prevented Tristar from purchasing assets that American Tower owns or subleases by using misrepresentation and unfair practices. [Read more…]

Crown Castle and Nextel Revenue Sharing

On a few occasions now, clients of ours with Crown Castle tower ground leases have received proposals to either purchase or extend their ground leases.   These lease extension or lease buyout offers are attempts by Crown Castle to tie up long term rights under their towers.   This is nothing new, as they have been making these offers for years now to every one of their landowners. [Read more…]

Wireless Capital Shutting Its Doors?

One of WCP’s agents told us yesterday that WCP is closing its doors and will not be funding any of the deals for which it has signed letters of intent. He mentioned that he was told this on a conference call where he was let go earlier this week. WCP blamed the issue on the financial markets.

Allegedly, WCP will release individuals who have signed letters of intent from their deal if the landowner calls WCP and requests to be released.

If you have entered into a deal with WCP and would like to check out other options, please contact us.

Wireless Capital Partners – Potential Woes

In recent months, we have received numerous inquiries from cell site lease holders who have entered into letters of intent with Wireless Capital Partners to sell their leases. These owners have contacted us because they have had difficulty getting Wireless Capital Partners to close on the purchases in a timely manner. To be fair to WCP, in some cases, the landowners were given a non-refundable fee to “hold” the closing for up to 3 more months. However in other cases, these owners could not reach their agent at Wireless Capital Partners. These owners wanted to see whether there was anyone else that would close quicker. [Read more…]

Wireless Capital Partners tells Landowners of Sprint/Nextel Credit Problems.

So today, two separate clients who are considering cell site lease buyouts from Wireless Capital Partners received emails from their WCP reps that has a cryptic message regarding Sprint/Nextel’s credit rating being downgraded to junk bond status. [Read more…]

AT&T to Build Cell Sites in McDonald’s Arches?

We have received recent inquiries from AT&T cell site owners who have been approached by Blackdot to renegotiate their leases. Of course, there is a new pitch, because the old pitch that the merger between AT&T and Cingular was going to cause terminations just doesn’t ring true anymore. [Read more…]