I 

Am tc.rt
 ; , SECON fJtø..1 L6d- )


BtLE 30.-1 .. 

I?l- /3/ Cj '6 .


) .v i.'" -a,¡: _ _.. ~., /1\ 

Februai 10, 1998
 

Our Ref. No. 97-471-CC 

Nebraska Higher Education Loan 

Program Inc. 

File No. 132-3 

Your letter of December 16, 1997 requests assurance that the st of the Division
 

o'fInvestment Management (the "Division") would not recommend enforcement action to 

the Coinssion if 
 Nebraska Higher Education Loan Program Inc. ("NEBHELP"), a 

Nebraska non-profit COrporation, estblishes a lited purpose subsidiai that would
 

engage in student loan fiance activities (''Newco'') and does not register Newco under 

the Investment Company Act of 1940. 

Fact 

The Proposed Trasaction
 

You represent that NEBHELP is a qualfied scholarship funding Corporation 

withi the meang of secton 1 50( d) of the 


Intemal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code").l A qualed scholarship funding corporation is a non-profit corporation that 

is org at the reues of a st or politica subdivision and is Opered exelusvely fur
 

the purpose of acquirg stdent loans made pursuant to the Higher Education Act of
 ! 1965. You reres th NEHE is auoried to issue bonds and note as a meas of 

I finacin the adston of a program to acquire stdent loans made puruat to the
 

High Educaon Ac an currtl is the desigted sendai maket úi Nebraka for 

these loans. You assert that NEBHELP's acquisition of 


increases the amount of fuds avaiable to the lenders to make additional student loans. loans from origiating lenders


You represent that NEBHELP currently has aggregate outstanding debt securities 

worth approxiately one bilon dollars. You request relief 


tax-exempt bonds issued by NEBHELP in 1985 (the "1985 Bonds"), 1986 (the "1986 with respect to thee 
 issues of Bonds"), and 1988 (the "1988 Bonds") (COllectively, the "Bonds"). You represenitat 

the Bonds wer ised úi public offer and are exempt secunties under secons 3(a)(2)
 

or 3 
 (a)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933. 

You state that NEBHELP is considerig makg an election, pursuant to section 150(d)(3) of 
 the Code, to termate its status as a qualed scholarship funding 

corporation and establish Newco as a taxable subsidiai to acquire NEBHELP's assets 

an liabilties. Secon 150( d)(3), enac as par of the Sma Busies Job Protecon 

Act of 1996, permts a qualed scholarship funding cOrporation to elect to transfer its 

assets and liabilties to a taxable subsidiai in exchange for al of the senior stock ofthe 

taable subsidiai, provided that certain conditions are met.
 

I You also represent that NEBHELP is a tax-exempt charitable organization under' 

section 50 
 I (c)(3) of the Code. 
", 

2. 

You represent that Congress adopted secion 150(d)(3) in response to the 

anticipated effects of the Federal Direc' Student Loan Program on qualed scholarship 

funding corporations. . The Federal Direct Student Loan Program enacted in 1993, 

permts the federal governent to make student loans diréctly. You state that Congress 

was con~med that, as more student loans are made by the federal governent, loan 

programs such as those conducted by NEB 
 HELP and other qualed scholarship funding 

corporations would be reduced or eliated. In enacting secion 150(d)(3), Congress
 

sought to.provide qualed scholarship funding corporations with the opportnity to 

engage in other education-related chartable activities without jeopardizg the ta-exempt 

status of their outstanding bonds and notes.2 '
 

You represent that, in order to make the tax election permtted by secon 

150(d)(3), NEBHELP would transfer to Newco al of 
 its rights, title and interest in the student loans and other assets that secure the Bonds as well as other NEBHELP bonds 

and notes. Newco would assume al ofNEBHELP's liabilties with respec to the Bonds 

and al other NÉBHELP bonds and notes.3 As required by section 150(d)(3)"Newco also 

would, to the extent permtted by law, ,assume the responsibilties, and succed to the 

rights, of 
 NEB HELP under NEBHELP's agreements with the U.S. Secreta of 

Education in respect of 
 student loans. You represent that al of 
 NEBHELP' s ta-exempt bonds and notes, including the Bonds, would remai tax-exempt ifNewco becmes the 

obligor on them. In exchange for NEBHELP' s transfer of assets and liabilties to Newco, 

NEBHELP wi receive al ofNewco's senior stock, although NEBHELP wi not be 

required to retai ownership of 
 this stock.4
 

The Bonds 

The Bonds are varable rate demand bonds that currently pay interest weekly. The 

Bonds were issued pursuant to' cert trust indentures that permt holders to tender their 

Bonds to a co-paying agent 
 for purchase upon seven days' notice. S The co-payig agent 

2 Staf of Joint Comm. on Taxation, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., General Exlantion!! Tax 

Legislation Enacted in the I04th Congress 244 (Comm. Print 1996). _ 

3 Assumig that NEBHELP makes thé ta election, as discussed above, al subsequent 

references in this letter to NEBHELP's obligations with respect to the Bonds should be 

read as applyig to Newco. 

4 . You believe that the senior stock to be issued by Newco wi not constitute redeemable 

securities within the meang of 
 section 2(a)(32) of 
 the Investment Company 
 Act. You do
 not request relief, and we take no position, regarding the status of these securities under 

section 2(a)(32). 

S You repres,ent that the co-paying agent is not affliated with NEBHELP. You also 

represent that a holder's right to tender Bonds to the co-paying agent would termate if 

certain events occur, including certain ~hanges to the interest rate calculation and interest 

payment schedule applicable to the 1985, 1986, or 1988 Bonds; specified events of default 
" ,f, 

3 

obtains funds to pay tendering holders from either (i) a remarketing agent's remarketing of 

the tendered Bonds,6 or, if remarketing is unsuccessful, (ii) the provider of one of the 

liquidity facilities (the "Liquidity Facilties"), described below. You represent that neither 

NEBHELP, the trustee under each Bond's trust indenture, nor the co-payig ágent is 

obligaled to make funds avaiable for the repurchase of tendered Bonds. 

Two Liquidity Facilties exist to support the co-payig agent's purchase obligation. 

The fist Liquidity Facilty applies only to the 1985 Bonds and consists offive standby 

bond purchase agreements between the trstee under each Bond's trst indenture and the 

Student Loan Marketing Association ("Sale Mae"). Under each agreement, Sale Mae is 

obligated to purchase tendered 1985 Bonds for face value plus accrued interest. Once 

Sale Mae has purchased a 1985 Bond, the remarketig agent is obligated to contiue 

attemptig to remarket the Bond. If 
 the remarketing effort is unsuccssful, the co-payig agent wi hold the Bond for Sale Mae's benefit for the remaider of 


the term of 
 the standby bond purchase agreement. If 
 the Bond is not remarketed, NEBHELP is obligated 

to redeem the Bond three years afer termation of the standby bond purchase
 

7 agreements. 

The second Liquidity Facilty applies only to the 1986 and 1988 Bonds and 

consists ofletters of credit issued by Sale Mae. This Liquidity Facilty operates lie the 

stadby bond purchase agreements that apply to the 1985 Bonds, except that if 
 the remarketing agent is unable to remarket a 1986 or 1988 Bond afer Sale Mae has 

purchased it, NEBHELP is obligated to reimburse Sale Mae withi two weeks, in the 

case ofa 1986 Bond, or thirt days, in the case 

of a 1988 Bond, of the date of 
 the letter of credit draw. You represent that ifNEBHELP does not have adequate funds avaiable to 

reimburse Salie Mae at the time that reimbursement of a 1986 or 1988 Bond is requied 

NEBHELP may either (i) transfer to Sale Mae unencumbered assets; (ii) transfer to Sale 

Mae those loans and other assets in the trust that serve as security for those Bonds held by 

Salle Mae; or (iii) draw upon a separate financig facilty provided by Sale Mae. You 

further represent that, if reimbursement is made in accordance with either (ii) or (il), the 

Bond will be redeemed by NEBHELP. 

under the Bonds" trust indentures; and the termation of the relevant liquidity facilty, 

described below. 

6 You represent that the remarketing agent is not afliated with NEBHELP. 

7 The termation of the standby bond purchase agreements is scheduled to occur on May
 

1, 2004. 
! 

4
 

Issues Presented 

You represent that NEBHELP currently is not registered under the Investment 

Company Act in reliance on an exception from the defition of 
 "investment company" that wo~d not be available to Newco.8 You assert that Newco should not be required to 

register under the Investment Company Act because it wi be excepted fìom the defition 

of "investment company" by rule 3a-7. Rule 3a-7 excepts from the defition of 

"investment company" an issuer that "is engaged in the business of purchasing, or 

otherwse acquirg, and holding eligible asset and who does not issue redeemable
 

securities (and in activities related or incidenta thereto)," provided that cert conditions 

are met. You request the staf s concurrence with your view that the Bonds are not 

"redeemable securities" for purposes' of 
 rule 3a-7. You represent that Newco wi comply in all other respects with rule 3a-7.9 Alterntively, if 
 the stis not able to concur with
 

your view, you assert that requirg Newco to register as an investment company would 

be inconsistent with Congress' intent in enactg secion 150(d)(3) of 
 the Code. 

Analysis 

Section 2(a)(32) of the Investment Company Act defies "redeemable security as
 

any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of 
 which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approxiately his proportionate share of 

the issuer's current net assets, or the cah equivalent thereof. You assert that NEBHELP 

will not be issuing redeemable securities because the Bonds may be tendered only to the 

co-paying agent, who is unafated with NEBHELP, Md tendered Bonds may be 

purchased only 
 with proceeds obtaed from remarketg the Bonds or drawig .on a 

Liquidity Facilty. In addition, you assert that, because Newco wi be the obligor on the 

Bonds but is not the issuer, the possibilty that Newco may reimburse Sale Mae for 

Bonds purchased under a Liquidity Facity does 
 not make the Bonds redeemable.
 

If a security may be tendered only to a thd par that is not designated by the 

issuer, and may not be redeemed by the issuer at any time, the security is not redeemable 

for purposes of rule 3 a-7. 10 If however, a tendered security ultiately may be rede~med 

by the issuer, whether the security is considered redeemable for purposes of rule 3 a-7 wi 

depend on whether there are substantial' enough restrctons on an investor's abilty to 

8 See Section 3(c)(10) of 
 the Investment Company Act. Telephone conversation among 

Richard C. Sams, counsel to NEBHELP, and Bar A. Mendelson and Sarah A.
 

Wagman of the Division on Februai 3, l998. 

9 Telephone conversation among Richard C. Sams, counsel to NEBHELP, and Barr A. . 

Mendelson and Sarah A. Wagman of 
 the Division on Februai 3, 1998'.
 

10 See Donaldson, Lufkn & Jenrette Securities Corporation (pub. avaiL. May 26, 1994); 

McDonald & Company Securities, Inc. (pub. avaiL. Dec. 14, 1983). 
'0

5

obtain from the issuer its proportionate share of the issuer's net assets.11 The fact that

ultimate redemption is by an obligor other than the issuer does not change this analysis if

the obligor essentialy stands in the issuer's place, as Newco wi for NEBHELP.

~ the case of the 1985 Bonds, if Sale Mae acquires a Bond through the Liquidity

Facility, the earliest that NEBHELP would be obligated to redeem the bond would be

three yeas afer Sale Mae's acquisition.12 We agree that this threeyea "holding penod"

requir~ment is suffciently restrictive so that the 1985 Bonds would not be considered

redeemable securities for purposes of rule 3a-7. 13 We therefore would not recommend

enforcement acton to the Commssion ifNewco relies on rule 3a..7 with respect to the

1985 Bonds. if the remarketing agent is unable to remarket the 1986 and 1988 Bonds,

however, NEBHELP might have to redeem the Bonds with two weeks, in the case of

the 1986 Bonds, and th days, in the cae of the 1988 Bonds, followig Sale Mae's

acquisition. Based on these facts, we are unable to conclude that the 1986 and 1988

Bonds are not r~eemable securities.

Alternatively, you assert that requirg Newco to register as an investment

company under the Investment Company Act would be inconsistent with Congress' intent

in enacting section 150(d)(3) of the Code. You state t~at Congress' intent in enacting

section 150(d)(3) was to provide qualed scholarship funding corporations with an

opportnity to diversif their activities whie preservg the tax-exempt status of their

existing debt securities. You represent that ifNEBHELP makes an election under section

150(d)(3) and establishes Newco, however, Newco would not be able to rely on the

11 Brown & Wood (pub. avai. Feb. 24, 1994). In our view, the fact that the Bonds may

be repurchased by the co-payig agent using only procees obtaied from remarketing the

Bonds or drawig on a Liquidity Facilty does not functon as a signficant restriction on

an investor's abilty to redeem the Bonds because under the terms of the Liquidity

Facilties, Sale Mae is obligated to purchase any tendered bonds that are not successfully

remarketed. By contrast, the staf of the Division has stated that it would not recommend

enforcement action to the Commssion if funds did not register as investment com~nies in

reliance on section 3(c)(5)(C) of the Investment Company Act where the funds imposed a

number of restrictions on an investor's abilty to withdraw its share of net assets from the

funds, including permtting withdrawal only to the extent that a fund had cash available

that was not invested in mortgage lpans (Calorna Dentist' Guild Real Estate Mortgage

Fund IT (pub. avaiL. Jan. 4, 1990) or funds were avaiable from pricipal payments or

prepayments on mortgage loans, or from the liquidation of mortgage loans for reasons

other than the need to meet investor redemption requests (United States Propert

Investments, N.Y (pub. avaiL. May 1, 1989)). .

12 NEBHELP wil not be obligated to redeem the Bond at all if the remarketing agent is

able to remarket the Bond.

13 See Brown & Wood, supra note 11; Californa Dentists' Guild Real Estate Mortgage

Fund II, supra note 11; United States Propert Investments, N.V., supra note 11. ..
" 

6
 

exception from the defition of 
 "investment company" that currently is avaiable to 

NEBHELP,14 and therefore would be subjec to the Investment Company Act unless it 

could rely on another exception to the defition of "investment company." You believe 

that Newco could not operate as proposed ifrequired to register as an investment 

compan~ and assert that rule ;3a-7 provides the only feasible exception under which 

Newco could operate. You represent that ifNewco is not able to rely on rule 3a-7 because 

of the demand feature of the 1986 and 1988 Bonds, NEBHELP would have to refiance 

al of 
 the outstanding 1986 and 1988 Bonds to make them fied-rate obligations and 

thereby eIiate the demand feature. is You state that refiancing the 1986 and 1988 

Bonds in this maner would impose signcant costs on NEBHELP. 

We would not recommend enforcement action to the Coipssion under section 7 

of the Investment Company Act ifNewco does not rl?gister as an investment company 

under the Investment Company Act. Our position with respec to the 1986 and 1988 

Bonds is based parcularly on your representations that: (i) Newco wi be estblished in 

accrdance with federal legislation that encourages qualed scholarship funding 

corporations to termate their loan programs and reorgane as a meas to engage in new 

education-related chatable activities; (ü) Newco's predecessor, NEBHELP, currently is 

not subject to the Investment Company Act; (iü) to the extent permtted by law, Newco 

wi assume al ofNEBHELP's responsibilties and succeed to al ofNEBHELP's'rights 

underNEBHELP's agreements with the 
 U.S. Secretai of Education in respect of student 

loan; (iv) Newco wi assume al ofNEBHELP's liabilties with respec to the Bonds and 

al other NEBHELP bonds and notes; (v) Newco wil engage solely Ii student loan fiance 

activities; (vi) before Newco is required to redeem anyBond that has been tendered to the 

co-payig agent, a remarketing agent wi attempt to remarket the Bond; and (vi) with, 

respec to the 1986 and 1988 Bonds, Newco wi comply with the requirements of rule 

3a-7 in al respecs other than the redeemabilty of 
 the Bondsl6. Our position with respect to the 1986 and 1988 Bonds represents the position of 
 the staf on enforcement action
 

only, and does not purport to state any legal conclusion on the issues presented. 17 

14 See supra note 8. 

is Telephone conversation among Richard C. Sams, counsel to NEBHELP, and Barr 

A Mendelson and Sarah A. Wagman of 
 the Division on Februai 3, 1998. 

16 As discussed above, with respect to the 1985 Bonds, Newco wi comply with rule 

3a-7 in al respects.
 

17 Our determation not to recommend enforcement action ifNewco does not register 'as 

an investment còmpany is based solely on our review of the inormation that you have 

provided to us concerng the Bonds, and does not extend to any other securities for 

which Newco currently is, or may in the future become, issuer or obligor. With respect to 

any securities other than the Bonds, Newco would have to comply with the requirements 

of rule 3 a-7 in al respects, avail itself of some other applicable exception or exclusion 

from regulation under the Investment Company Act, or register as an investment company 

under the Investment Company Act. 
.0 7 

Your request for confdentiaI treatment under 17 C.F.R. S 200.81(b) has been
 

granted until the ealier of: (i) the date that the proposed transaction is closed; (ll) the date 

of any public disclosure of facts suffcient to reveal the essence of the no-action request or 

this resplmse; or (ii)120 days from the date of 
 this letter. Pleae inorm this offce as soon 

as the proposed transaction is closed or this inormation is Ìlade public in any fashion 

prior to the expiration of 
 the 120-day period. ~ú.

Sarah A Wagm~ 

Special Counsel 
.. 

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER Richard C. Sammis ~ew York 

Washington. DC 

London 

Pans 

1940 Act/2(a)(32)
 

Rule 3a-7 

December 16, 1997 

Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Associate Director (Chief Counsel)
 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

450 Fifth Street, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20549 

Re: Nebraska HiMer Education Loan Program, Inc. 

Dea Mr. Scheidt: 

We are writing on behalf of Nebraska Higher Education Loan 

Program, Inc., a Nebraska nonprofit corporation locted in Lincoln, Nebraska 

("NEBHELP") for which we serve as special counsel. We respectfully request that 

the Staff of the Division of Investment Mangement (the "Staff") concur with our 

opinion that, under the circumstaces described below, none of the Securities (as 

defined below) would constitute 
 a "redeemable seurity" for purposes of Rule 3a-7
 

under the Investment Company Act of 1940,' as amended (the "Investment Company 

Act"). We further request, in the alternative, that the Staff assure NEB 
 HELP and Newco (as defined below) tht the Sta wil not recmmend any enforcement action 

to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") if, following the Tax 

Election and the Transfer and Assumption (as defined below), none of Newco or any 

of the assets, funds or.accuntspIedged to secure the Securities is registered under the 

Investment Company Act as an investment company in reliance upon the view that 

none of the Securities constitutes a "redeemable seurity" for purposes of Rule 3a-7. 

TH NEBHELP PROGlt
 

NEB HELP is currently the designated secnda market in Nebraska 

for student loans originated under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the 

"Higher Education Act") and, as such, is a "qualified scholarship funding 

corporation" within the meaing of Section 150C d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986, as amended (the "Code"). Qualified scholarship funding corporations are 

nonprofit corporations that are organized at the request of a 
 State or political 

One Citicorp Center 2128218000 

153 East S3rd Street Fax: 212 821811 

New York. NY 10022-4677 Direct: 212 821 8263 
I 

) 

Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission
 

December ,16, 1997
 

Page 2
 

subdivision thereof and are operated exclusively for the purpose of acquiring student 

loans incurred under the Higher Education Act. Interest on bonds and notes that are 

issued by qualified scholarship funding corporations to acquire student loans is 

exempt from federal income taxes provided that such bonds and notes meet the 

requirements of Section 144(b) of the Code or applicable provisions of prior ta law.
 

NEBHELP has recived a determination from the Internal Revenue Service that it is a 

ta-exempt charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. NEB 
 HELP has authority under its Articles of Incorporation, Nebraska law,.the Higher Education 

Act and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secreta of the United States 

Department of Education to issue bonds and notes and to apply the proceeds of the 

sale thereof to the payment of the costs of conducting and administering a program of 

acquiring student loans made under the Higher Education Act (the "NEBHELP 

Program "). 

The purpose of 
 the NEBHELP Program and the basis for NEBHELP's 

ta-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code are that, by acquiring student 

loans from originatig lenders, NEBHELP frees up funds of the lenders which may 

be applied to originate additional student loans, thereby increaing the amount that is 

made available to students to finance their education. As a result of the NEBHELP
 

Program, NEBHELP now owns directly or beneficially approximately $1 bilion in
 

aggregate principal amount of student loans, substatially all of which are financed
 

. under outstading issues of bonds or notes and are pledgect to secure repayment of 

such indebtedness. NEB HELP regularly acquires student loans from lending 

institutions in the Midwest, and specificaly from lenders in Nebraska, as part of the 

NEBHELP Program. 

NEBHELP currently has aggregate outstading debt of approximately 

$1 bilion, all of which is rated not lower than A or its equivalent by nationally
 

recognzed statistica ratig organizations. A majority of NEBHELP's debt is 

currently rate AA by such organiztions. Exhibit A hereto sets forth a summary
 

of the outstadig indebtedness to which this letter relates, all of which i~. ta-exernpt 

(collecúvèly, the "Securities"). All of the Securities were originally issued in public
 

offerings and were, and are currently, exempt securities under either Section 3(a)(2)
 

or Section 3(a)(4) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").
 

TH PROPOSED TRSACTION 

The Tax Electn. For the'reasons set forth below, NEBHELP is
 

currently contemplating an election pursuant to Section 1S0(d)(3) of the Code (the 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission
 

December 16, 1997
 

Page 3
 

"Tax Election") to terminate its status as a qualified scholarship funding corporation 

while continuing to qualify as a ta-exempt charitable organization under Section 

SOI(c)(3) of the 
 Code. Section IS0(d)(3) of the Code was enacted as part of the 

Small Business Job 
 Protection Act of 1996 (Pub L. No. 104-188) and bee
 

eff~ctive on AUgust 20, 1996 (the "Federal Act").
 

In 1993, the Congress enacted the Federal Direct Student Loan 

Program under which student loans are made directly by the, Federal Government. 

To the extent that student loans are made by the Federal Government, loan programs 

such as those conducted by NEB 
 HELP and othtr qualifed scholarship funding 

corporations wil be reduced and possibly terminated. The Congress believed,
 

however, that qualified scholarship funding corporations should be given the 

opportunity to engage in new education-related charitable activities without 

jeopardizing the ta-exempt character of their outstading student loan bonds and
 

notes. In addition, the Congress believed that the surplus, if any, that has been 

accumulated by qualified scholarship funding corporations should continue to'be 

dedicated to cllaritable purposes. Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, 104th Cong., 2d 

Sess., General Explanation of 
 Tax Legislation Enacted in the 104th Congress 244 

(Comm. Print 1996). 

Accrdingly, in 1996 the Congress enacted Section 150(d)(3) of the
 

Code so that the assets and liabilties of a qualified scholarship funding corporation 

may, at the election of such' corporation, be' transferred to a taable subsidiar. in
 

exchange, for all of the senior stock of the taable subsidiary as long as the qualified 

scholarship fundig corporation continues to qualify as a ta-exempt Section 501(c)(3) 

charitable organtion and the terms of the subsidiar's senior stock to be issued to 

such charity protet the charity's interests. Since NEB 
 HELP believes that direct 

lending by the Federal Governent may, as a practica matter, reduce the demand for 

the NEBHELP Program, NEBHELP is considering whether or not to avail itself of 

,the Federal Act. In connection with enactment of the Federal Act, Congress did not 

,,-+ address any seurities law issues, such as,the issue resulting from the;Transfer and 

Assumption described below which involves the transfer of securities by an "exempt" 

obligor to, and the assumption of all obligations on such securities by, a "nonexempt" obligor. 

The Transfer and Assumptin. In order to make the Tax Election, 

NEBHELP wil be required to form a for-profit subsidiary ("Newco"). If NEB 
 HELP makes tle Tax Election, NEB 
 HELP wil form Newco as a limited purpose 
 entity , its purpose being limited to student loan finance activities. As required by the Federal 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
 

Division of Investment Management
 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997 

Page 4 

Act, NEBHELP wil transfer to or on behalf of Newco all of its rights, title and 

interest in and to the student loans and other assets that secure the Securities as well 

as other NEB 
 HELP bonds and notes. In order to meet certin other federal income 

ta requirements, NEB 
 HELP wil also tran~fer substatially all of its remaining assets
 

to or on behalf of Newco in exchange for cash and/or securities. Such assets consist
 

of other student l,oans that are not subject to the liens imposed by indentures, cah and 

investments. NEB 
 HELP wil transfer to Newco,' and Newco wil assume, all of
 

NEBHELP's liabilties with respect to the Securities and all other NEBHELP bonds
 

and notes. Pursuant and subject to Section 150(d)(3) of the Code the Securities, and 

all other ta-exempt NEBHELP bonds and notes, wil rem3Jn ta-exempt when
 

Newco is the obligor on them. As furter consideration for the transfer of assets
 

from NEBHELP to Newco and to protect NEBHELP's net trust estate assets under
 

the indentures governing the Securities and all the other NEBHELP bonds and notes,
 

NEB HELP wil receive all the senior stock of Newco. NEBHELP wil not be 

required to retan ownership of the stock. To the extent permitted by law, Newco 

also wil be required to assume all of the responsibilties and succed to all of the 

rights of NEBHELP under NEBHELP's agreements with the Secreta of Education 

with respect to student loans. The transfers to and assumptions by Newco are 

referred to herein collectively as the "Transfer and Assumption. " 

Under Section 150(d)(3) of the Code, senior stock (the "Senior Stock")
 

is defined as stock whose rights to dividends and liquidation or redemption rights are
 

not inferior to those of any other class of stOCk of the taable subsidiary and that
 

(I) participates pro rata and fully in the equity'value of the subsidiar with any other 

, common stock of the subsidiar, (2) has the right to payments in liquidation prior to 

any other common stock in the subsidiar, (3) upon liquidation or redemption, has a 

fixed right to recive the greater of (a) the fair market value of the stock at the date of 

liquidation or redemption or (b) the fair market value of all assets transferred 'by the 

qualified scholarship fundig corporation in exchange for such'stock and'reduced by ., 

the amount of all liabilties assumed by the subsidiar, and (4) affords its holder a 

right to require its redemption by a date which is not later than ten'years arter the 

date that the Tax Election is made1. The value in item (3)(b) would be established at 

the time of the Tranšfer and Assumption. 

We believe that, based upon its anticipated structure, the Senior Stock will not 

constitute a "redeemable security" under existing interpretations of the Staff of 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

. Oecember 16, 1997 

Page 5
 

Varible Rate Demand Bonds. The Securities are what are known as 

variable rate demand bonds. They are the 1985 Bonds, 1986 Bonds and Series 1988 

Bonds, as described on Exhibit A to this letter. All of the Securities are currently in 

a weekly interest rate mode. Each of the indentures of trust pursuant to which the 

Securities were issued (an "Indenture") provides the holders of the Securities with the 

option to put them to the Co-Paying Agent under the Indenture (a non-affiliate of 

NEBHELP) for purchase upon seven days' notice. Under various circumstaces the 

interest rate mode for any of the 1985 Bonds, 1986 Bonds or 1988 Bonds ca be 

changed to another variable rate mode, under which the interest rate wil be set at 

different intervals and the timing of the related put options wil change accordingly, 

in the cae of the 1988 Bonds to an auction mode, in which case the interest rate is set 

by auction and there are no put options but only opportnities to seek to sell the 1988 

Bonds to other investors through auctions, or to a fixed rate in which case the interest 

rate wil not again change and there wil be no further put options after the conversion 

to a fixed rate. 

Holders of Securities exercising their put option must tender the 

Securities to the Co-Paying Agent. Tendered Securities are to be purchased solely 

from (i) proceeds of a remarketing of the tendered Securities by the Remarketing 

Agent (a non-affiliate of NEBHELP) and (ii) proceds received by the Co-Paying 

Agent from the provider of one of the liquidity facilties described below (the 

"Liquidity Facilties"). None of NEBHELP, the Trustee under the related Indenture 

(the "Truste") or the Co-Paying'agent is obligated to make any funds available for
 

the purchas of tendered Securities. The right of a holder of the Securities to demand 

purchae terminates upon tle ocurrence of certn events of default under the 

Indentures or upon termination of the applicable Liquidity Facilty.' A failure in the 

payment of the purchas price of tendered Securities is an event of default under the 

applicable Indenture. 

The Co-Paying Agent recives funds for the purchase of tendered 

Securities from the Remarketing Agentor, upon failure to remarket,the provider of 

the Liquidity Facilty and delivers those funds to the owners of the tendered 

Securities. Seçurities sold by the Remarketing Agent are delivered by the Co-Paying 

Agent,to the Remarketing Agent or its designee. Securities purchased with money 

the Commission. Consequently we are not soliciting any assurance from the 

Staff with respect to the Senior Stock.
 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
 

Division of Investment Management
 

Securities and Exchange Commission
 

December 16, 1997
 

Page 6
 

provided by the provider of the Liquidity Facilty are held by the Co-Paying Agent on 

behalf of the Liquidity Facilty provider. 

Liquidity support of the 1985 Bonds consists of five Stadby Bond 

Purchase Agreements between the Truste and Student Loan Marketing Association 

("Salle Mae") under each of which Sallie Mae is obligated to purchase 1985 Bonds 

that have been tendered for purchas but not remarketed at the purchase price of par 

(face value) plus accrued interest Under the terms of the Indenture governing the
 

1985 Bonds, the Remarketing Agent is obligated to continue to remarket Securities
 

purchasd by Sallie Mae. If that remarketing effort is not successful, the Co-Paying 

Agent wil continue to hold the Securities for the benefit of Salle Mae during the 

term of the Stadby Bond Purchas Agreements. Under recent amendments to the 

Stadby Bond Purchase Agreements, if the Securities purchased by Salle Mae are not 

successfully remarketed by the Remarketing Agent, they are to be redeemed by 

NEB HELP on a date which is thee yeas after termination of the Stadby Bond 

Purchase Agreements (either by stated expiration or termination of Sallie Mae's 

purchase obligations). The Stadby Bond Purchase Agreements are currently
 

scheduled to terminate on May 1, 2004. 

Liquidity support for the 1986 Bonds and 1988 Bonds is provided by
 

letters of credit issued by Sallie Mae. Under the terms of the Reimbursement
 

Agreements between NEB 
 HELP and Sallie Mae with respect to the 1986 Bonds and
 the 1988 Bonds, NEBHELP is obligated to reimburse Salle Mae for any letter of
 

credit draw made to purchas tendered Securities within two weeks, in the case of the 

Series 1986 Bonds, or thirt days, In the ca of the Series 1988 Bonds, of the date of
 

the draw. If NEBHELP does not have funds on hand suffcient to make the 

reimbursement, or such Salle Mae owned Securities are not remarketed, NEB 
 HELP may transfer loans and other assets from the trst estate securing repayment of the
 

Salle Mae owned Securities, transfer other unencumbered assets or draw upon a
 

separate fincing facilty made available by Sallie Mae in order to effect the
 

,. reimbursement. In the cae of reimbursement from a financing facilty 


draw or
 certan amounts on deposit in funds and accounts held under the related Indenture, the
 

Securities wil be redeemed. In other caes, the Securities are to be delivered by or
 

on behalf of Sallie Mae to or upon the order of NEBHELP.
 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997 

Page 7
 

LEGAL ISSUE AN ANALYSIS 

Issue. A question has arisen as to whether, when their obligor is 

Newco, the Securities constitute "redeemable securities" under Rule 3a-7 of the 

Investment Company Act. 

Rule 3a-7 was adopted by the Commission to exempt issuers of assetbacked securities from regulation under the Investment Company Act. Issuers of 

redeemable securities do not qualify Jor exemption under Rule 3a-7. The Investment 

Company Act defines the term "redeemable security" in Section 2(a)(32) to mean: 

. . . any security other than short term paper, under the terms of 

which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer or to a 

person designated by the issuer, is entitled (whether absolutely or 

only out of surplus) to receive approximately his proportionate 

share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent 

thereof. 

As initially proposed, issuers of debt securities entitling holders to 

receive payment of principal and accrued interest within fourteen days of demand 

would also have been excluded from relying upon Rule 3a-7. In response to 

comments that such an exclusion would be inconsistent with industry practice, the 

Commission deleted the reference to debt securities payable upon fourteen days 

demand from the final rule. The issuing releae directs counsel concerned about 

whether a security is a redeemable security under Rule 3a-7 to examine no-action 

positions taen with respect to the definition of a redeemable security in the context of 

Section 3(c)(5) of the Investment Company Act. 

Anlysis. There is sufficient basis for the Staff to conclude that the 

Securities are not "redeemable" securities when they are meaured against the 

previou,sly expressed views of the Staff and the intent of Congress in enacting the 

Federal Act.
 

Several no-action letters have considered the specific question of 

whether securities subject to a put option are redeemable securities within the 

meaing of the Investment Company Act. See, e.g., Donaldson, Lufkin & 
 Jenrette Securities Corporation (pub. avaiL. Sep. 23, 1994) ("DU"); La Quinta Motor Inns, 

Inc. (pub. avaiL. Jan. 4, 1989) ("La Quinta"); McDonald & Company Securities, Inc. 

!

ì (pub. avaiL. Dec. 14, 1983) ("McDonald"). These no-action letters are based on facts
I 

) 

Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
 

Division of Investment Management
 

Securities and Exchange Commission
 

December 16, 1997
 

Page 8
 

that are, in pertinent part, substatially similar. Each transaction contemplated the 

issuance of securities by entities holding other securities. The securities in question 

afforded holders the right to tender the securities periodicaly to third party liquidity 

providers (~, a bank providing a letter of credit) for purchase at their face value 

plus accrued interest or other accrued distributions. In each cas a remarketing agent 

was obligated to attempt to remarket any tendered securities but, failng successful 

remarketing, the liquidity provider was obligated to purchase the tendered securities. 

In each cae the amounts advanced by the liquidity provider to fund such purchases 

were required to be reimbursed by the sponsor of the issuing entity or the obligor on, 

or the former owner of, the securities held by the issuing entity. Finally, in each case 

the' securities apparently remained outstading after purchase by the liquidity provider 

and reimbursement of the liquidity provider. In each of the letters, the Staff either 

agreed with counsel's view that the securities were not "redeemable securities" under 

the Investment Company Act or expressed a "no action" position in respect of 

enforcement and the applicat's proceeding on the basis of that view. 

We believe that the Securities and the related put options are 

substatially similar to the securities and the related put options present in DU, La 

Quinta and McDonaLd. The put option available to holders of the Securities does not 

permit the Securities to be presented toNEBHELP (or Newco) at the demand or 

request of the holders of the Securities. The Securities may only be tendered to the ' 

Co-Paying Agent (a non-affiliate of NEBHELP), which is to purchase tendered 

Securities only with the proceds of a remarketing or a draw on the applicable 

. liquidity facility. Thus, the tendered Securities are not redeemed at the demand or 

request of the holder of the Securities by their issuer under the terms of the 

Indentures, but rather are purchased by third parties who beme holders of the
 

Securities. We acknowledge that the exercise of the put option for the Securities ca
 

set in motion a 'chain of events that results in repayment of the Securities. However,
 

the Securities are not redeemed upon exercise of the put option but rather remain
 

outstading and are transferred by the Co-Paying Agent to the Remarketing Agent (a 

non-affliate of NEB 
 HELP) or its 
 designees or are held by the 
 Co-Paying Agent for the benefit of Salle Mae if the remarketing is unsuccessfuL. Moreover, in the case of 

the 1986 Bonds and the 1988 Bonds, wliile Salle Mae must be reimbursed for its 

purchase of the Securities that were not reniarketed reasonably quickly, it is not 

mandated under the governing documents that such Securities be redeemed unless the . 

reimbursement is funded by a draw under the Salle Mae finanCing facilty or certain 

amounts on deposit in funds and accounts held under the Indentures. In the case of 

the 1985 Bonds, Salle Mae must eventually be reimbursed for its purchase of 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997 

Page 9 

Securities by means of redemption of such Securities, but such redemption is 

scheduled to be on the date that is three years after the termination of the Stadby 

Bond Purchase Agreements. The current scheduled termination date is May 1. 2004. 

We believe that tlis lengthy period is such a substatial restriçtion on Salle Mae's 

right of redemption that, for this reason alone, the 1985 Bonds should not be 

considered redeemable securities. See California Dentists' Guild Real Estate 

Mortgage Fund II (pub. avaiL. Jan. 4, 1990) and Brown & Wood (pub. avaiL. 

February 24, 1994). Regarding all of the Securities, we note that, while Salle Mae 

has a right of reimbursement, -i does not have the right at its discretion to present the 

Securities to NEBHELP for payment at any time or from time to time after their 

purchase by Salle Mae. 

We think it is particularly importat that, insofar as the question of 

redeemabilty is concerned, the Securities are substatially similar to the securities at 

issue in DU. The Securities may not be tendered to NEBHELP but only to the CoPaying Agent for remarketing or purchase by Salle Mae; in fact NEB 
 HELP is precluded from purchasing tendered Securities in a remarketing. On this point, 

which the Staff clealy considered the central issue when considering redeemabiHty, 

the Staff stated in DU: 

You assert that the Certificates are not redeemable 

securities beuse the Certificates may not be tendered
 

to the Trust, but only to the Bank, which is riot a person 

designated by the issuer within the meaning of Section 

2(a)(32). We agree.
 

We also believe that several other importat distinctions exist between 

the circumstaces a4dressed in the three no-action letters discussed above and those 

extat here. First, the proposing relea for Rule 3a-7 indicated that the proposed
 

rule was "intended to exclude only structured financings from the Investment 

Company Act and to preclude exchided issuers from acting in a manner similar to 

registered investment companies." Newco wil not conduct business in a manner 

similar to a registered investment company. Second, the three no-action letters 

involved programs and securities that were to be offered only prospectively. In 

contrast, the Seçurities are presently outstading and can be refinanced only through 

the issuance of new securities which,' depending upon a variety of circumstaces, maybe disadvantageous to the obligor. Third, any concern about the Securities under the 

Investment Company Act arises only in the context of Newco as the obligor on the 

Securities and under the plain language of the Investment Company Act Newco is not 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997 

Page 10
 

the "Issuer'" of the Securities, quite literally not having issued them. In Section 

2(a)(22) of the Investment Company Act "Issuer" is defined as follows: 

'Issuer' meas every person who issues or proposes to 

issue any security, or has outstading any security which 

it has issued. 

TH PUBLIC POLICY OF TH FEDERAL ACT
 

Ealier in this letter under the heading "PROPOSED 

TRANSACTION-The Tax Election" we summarized the reasons for the Federal Act 

as they have been expressed by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. From 

this expression it is clea that Congress 
 recgnized that the Federal Direct Student
 Loan Program, which competes directly with the NEBHELP Program, wil have an
 

adverse impact on qualified scholarship funding corporations such as NEB 
 HELP and that they should be given an opportnity to diversify their activities while preserving 

the ta-exemption of interest on their ta-exempt bonds. 

A non-municipal entity such as NEBHELP must be a qualified 

scholarship funding corporation in order to issue ta-exempt debt. The permitted 

activities of such corporations are very tightly restricted by Section ISO(d) of the 

Code; as described above under the headig "THE NEBHELP PROGRAM," their 

activities are limited to acquiring student loans incurred under the Higher Education 

Act. These restrictions were conceived and imposed, however, when the Federal 

Government was not an active competitor of qualified scholarship funding 

corporations such as NEBHELP. If NEBHELP were to engage in currently 

unauthorized activities, even though they might be education related, the taexemption of interest on its outstadig ta-exempt bonds, (which include all of the 

Securities) would be jeopardized. Under the Federal Act, however, NEBHEL~ may 

engage in activities that are currently outside the scope of its authorized activities 

without jeopardizing theta-exemption of interest on its ta-exempt bonds. To 

accmplish ths otherwise unattnable result NEB 
 HELP must make the Tax Election, undertae the Transfer and Assumption and, as required by the Federal Act, remain a 

corporation described under Section 501(c)(3) that is exempt from ta under Section 

SOl (a) of the Coqe. In effect, therefore, the Federal Act offers relief to a limited 
" 

Douglas 1. Scheidt, Esq.
 

Division of Investment Management
 

Securities ~d Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997_ 

Page ii , 

number of special corporations2 that were put into a very restricted business by one 

federal law and materially adversely affected by another federal law. 

In addition to providing relief for qualified scholarship funding 

corporations and protection to tae holders of the ta-exempt bonds previously issued 

by such corporations. the Federal Act achieves two other noteworthy federal policy 

goals. Most importtly. by virte of the Senior Stock mechanism described above
 

under "THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION - the Transfer and Assumption, " the 

Federal Act assures that the net equity value of a student loan portfolio which has 

been acquired by a qualifed 
 scholarship fundig corporation that makes 
 a Tax Election wil continue to be dedicated to charitable purposes. Moreover. beuse 

qualified scholarship funding corporations which make, a Tax Election wil not be able
 

to issue additional ta-exempt bonds and beuse upon transfer to corporations such 

as Newco the related student loan portolios \yil for the' first time become subject to 

federal income taation (since they wil be owned by taable corporations instead of 

by Section 501(c)(3) ta-exempt chaitable organizations), the Joint Committee on 

Taxation has estimated that the income ta recipts realized by the Federal
 

Government wil increase by up to $10.00.00 annually as a result of the Federal 

Act. Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxtion. 104th Cong., 2d Sess., General Explanation 

of Tax Legislation Enacted in the l04th Congress 246 (Comm. Print 1996). 

We believe that the Congress meat for the Federal Act to work for the 

benefit and protection of qualified scholarship funding corporations such as 

NEBHELP, the holders of their ta-exempt bonds and the U.S. Treasury. For the 

reasons discussed below, in NEBHELP's ca the Federal Act wil not work very 

well unless NEB 
 HELP '(and Newco) ca procd on the basis that the Securities are 

not "redeemable securities" for purposes of Rule 3a-7. To explain this fact, we draw 

your attention to the interplay between the Investment Company Act and the Federal 

Act. Unlike NEBHELP, Newco wil not enjoy a "status" exemption from the 

Investment Company Act and, therefore, Newco must qualify for an exemption from 

the Investment Company Act under one of Section 3(c)(l), Section 3(c)(7) or Rule 

2 NEB HELP estimates that approximately 23 qualified scholarship funding 

corporations exist at this time, thus defining the approximate number of 

entities that could possibly undertae a transaction of the type contempiated by 

the Tax Election and the Transfer' and Assumption. 
Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq. 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997 

Page 12
 

3a-7.3 Section 3(c)(I) would require, among other things, that the number of 
 holders of NEBHELP securities be limited to 100 while Section 3(c)(7) would require, among 

other things, that all holders'of NEBHELP securities be qualified purchasers. In 

either case, NEB 
 HELP would be required to refinance all NEBHELP securities then
 

outstading (approximately $1 bilion in aggregate principal amount) to achieve the
 

necessary results. Obviously such a rerinancing would be extremely difficult, 

expensive and ineffcient. The issue of whether the Securities are "redeemable
 

securities" for purposes of Rule 3a-7 would be eliminated if NEB 
 HELP were to refinance the Securities ($286,535,00 aggregate principal amount) with fixed rate 

financings. NEB 
 HELP 's management is of the view that fixed rate refinancings of 

the Securities would be expensive to undertae and, over time, would prove to be 

more expensive and thus less efficient than the Securities outstading as variable rate 

demand bonds. NEBHELP's management believes that the result of this increased 

expense and lack of effciency would be a loss of value to NEB 
 HELP as a charity, greater ta-exempt interest income in the market place and diminished taable 

revenue at Newco. If, and only if, NEBHELP (and Newco) are able to proceed on 

the basis that the Securities are not "redeemable seurities" for purposes of Rule 3a-7 

ca fixed rate refinancing of the Securities be avoided.4 We believe that, at least as 

regards the very limited circumstaces in which existing securities are to be 

transferred by a qualified scholarship funding corporation like NEBHELP to a 

transferee corporation like Newco, and in light of the limited nature and scope of the 

"redeemabilty" issue presented by the Securities, 
 the assurance requested in this letter would be entirely consistent with the public policy and Congressional intent 

behind the Federal Act. 

3 We believe that Newco could not operate as a registered investment c~mpany 

under the Investment Company Act. 

4 If it receives the assurance requested in this letter with respectto redeemabilty_ 

and elects to make the Tax Election and undertae the Transfer and 

Assumption, NEBHELP wil structure Newco so that it wil comply in all 

other respecis with Rule 3a-7 in respect of the Securities. '
 
: Douglas J. Scheidt, Esq.
 

Division of Investment Management 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

December 16, 1997 

Page 13
 

REQUESTED STAFF ACTION 

UNER TH INSTlNT COMPANY ACT
 

We respectfully request that the Staff concur with our opinion that, 

under the circumstaces described above, none of the Securities would constitute a 

"redeemable seçurity" for purposes of Rule 3a-7 under 
 the Investment Company Act. We further request, in the alternative, that the Staff assure NEBHELP and Newco 

that the Staff wil not recommend any enforcement action to the Commission if, 

following the Tax Election and the Transfer and Assumption, none of Newco or any 

of the assets, funds or accounts pledged to secure the Securities is registered under the 

Investment Company Act as an investment company in reliance upon the view that 

none of the Securities constitutes a "redeemable security" for purposes of Rule 3a-7. 

Please feel free to direct any questions or responses to the undersigned at (212) 821­

8263. 

Very truly yours, 

~ ~ R: "1l~ 

Richard C. Sammis 

cc: Jon S. Rad, Esq.
 

0306221.09 
$ 286.535 $ 286.535