Does the draft offer any clarity on when exactly these changes will come into effect or is it simply as soon as the president signs it into law?
1 Like
Thereās no transition period specified, so it will take effect on promulgation, whenever that is.
Thank you, @cj807, for posting this update.
Iām really disappointed to see the language in Article 44 and 45 is essentially unchanged and still extremely ambiguous. There are a LOT of us who are going to fall into this very poorly defined process.
How is it possible for any attorney to look at that language and say ādonāt worry?ā FWIW, thatās exactly what my attorney is saying 
2 Likes
Completely agree
2 Likes
I have a pending, submitted application. Real estate option. My lawyer tells me that the changes will not impact my application. But it sounds from CJās read that thereās ambiguity re Article 45? Can someone explain that ambiguity and what article 45 is?
1 Like
Iāll tryā¦
-
Real estate ARIs are scrapped immediately the bill takes effect. If there were no other legal provisions, that would mean that pending applications and renewals couldnāt be completed if you invested in real estate, because thereād be no law to back them up. So Article 44 and 45 step in to the rescue.
-
Article 44 covers already-issued ARIs, and sets out how theyāll be renewed.
-
Article 45 covers pending applications. It now only ārescuesā ARIs relating to capital transfers and real estate, since other ARI types continue anyway and donāt need rescuing. So for real estate ARIs, Article 45 says that your application remains valid. It then says that your application will be converted into an entrepreneurial visa, and further, that various state agencies will be required to āverify the adequacy of the investmentā for an entrepreneurial visa. Such as the Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation, the Development Bank, and so on. Thereās also āother [agencies] that prove appropriate due to the matterā.
This stuff about entrepreneurial visas seems to me to be a hangover from the origins of this bill, which was originally going to scrap all ARIs and shoe-horn everyone into an entrepreneurial visa. Now that Article 45 is basically just for real estate, it looks particularly odd. Lawyers Iāve spoken to seem quite relaxed about this. It may be that the catch-all of āagencies that prove appropriateā ends up being some official that says āYep, thatās a two-bedroom apartment in Coimbra, youāre all fine.ā I donāt know. But that seems to me one of the unresolved issues here.
Again, check with lawyers on this.
8 Likes
Seems to me that a change that no longer permitted a visa to be granted to applicant who applied while they complied with the existing rules, would be a retrospective change (which weāre told is unconstitutional)
Renewals might be a different case, since theyāre not guaranteed, but judging an existing application by new rules just seems āwrongā to meā¦
3 Likes
Someone posted an English version:
Textofinal PPL 71_XV ProvisĆ³rio ENG.pdf (414.5 KB)
3 Likes
Allowing funds that invest in ānon real estateā is insanely ambiguous. There are tons of funds with real estate investment exposure. For example, there are agriculture funds that have purchased the land upon which the crops are grown (or have an interest in the real estate). Same goes for health care funds, where they might buy medical practices that own the building. What about funds that own warehouses or other commercial property?
I am getting the sinking feeling that we are about to experience another full stop on processing applications pending regulations.
2 Likes
I agree, there is clearly some redundant language in those two Articles, as a leftover from April 14th draft which the lawmakers did not bother to clean up.
E.g. Clause 4 of Article 44 should be dropped as it was only needed before due to the previous grand idea of abolishing all ARIs.
Now that most of ARIs are to be continued, and overall ARI regime remains in place, this Clause 4 quoting some undefined āconversion to enterpreneurial visas upon renewalā is no longer needed or making any sense.
It is a pity that all the re-drafting and editing still missed these obvious flaws.
Now that we have no more chance of amending this law, I am only hoping that:
a) such non-sensical clauses will never be implemented into practice
b) the ARI renewals will remain online semi-automatic thus by-passing any undefined āconversionā
3 Likes
Absolutely, and this will need to be clarified. Our fund invests in companies that own student accommodation- an operational business that employs people but also develops and owns student accommodation.
Also, do they really want to stop a fund that might want to build residential accommodation for sale? Any increase in the provision of housing will help the supply issue.
I think the intention is almost certainly to stop funds being used to buy residential property for use by fund investors, but this needs to be clarified.
1 Like
Since the president is a constitutional expert, it is perhaps time to petition the presidentās office sooner than later, pointing out all the flaws in the drafting of the law and potential retroactive conflicts that it may create for existing ARI applicants.
5 Likes
Thanks Chris for quick sharing the latest update, you are amazing!
3 Likes
Hi what will happen time of renewal of GV if GV given on investment on Real estate investment fund
When will we know the result of final vote?
Voting is probably 6pm or so: should be televised. But the result is not in doubt given the PS majority in the Assembly.
Thanks, @cj807 . Very helpful on-going analysis. I was skimming through the final draft, but canāt find the article that specifies the breadth of non-real estate funds that still qualify (e.g., IMGA). I searched for āfundo de riscoā, āfundoā, etc. Could you point me to the language you reviewed that made you believe the IMGA-like funds still qualify? Cheers.
1 Like
Article 48-B of the new Law amends the investment definitions that are in Article 3(1)(d) of Law 23/2007. The old text of paragraph (vii) was [translated]:
vii) Transfer of capital in an amount equal to or greater than ā¬500 000, intended for the acquisition of participation units in investment funds or venture capital funds aimed at the capitalization of companies, which are constituted under Portuguese law, whose maturity, at the time of investment, is at least five years and at least 60% of the value of investments is invested in commercial companies headquartered in the national territory
The new text is
vii) Transfer of capital in an amount equal to or greater than ā¬500 000, intended for the acquisition of shares in non-property collective investment undertakings, which are constituted under Portuguese legislation, whose maturity, at the time of investment, be at least five years and at least 60% of the value of investments is invested in commercial companies headquartered in the national territory;
So in my view, a fund like IMGA is a non-property collective investment undertaking, and continues to qualify under (vii) just as it did before. Because it remains a qualifying ARI investment, it does not need to be included in Articles 44 and 45.
Nowhere is there a definition of what ānon-propertyā exactly means, but it surely includes IMGA, which holds banks, oil & gas companies, electricity generators, telecoms etc.
3 Likes
On the question of what is a non-property fund, itās worth highlighting new clause 5 in the Article 3 definitions:
ā5. The investment activities provided for in the subparagraphs referred to in the previous number [ie including investment funds] may not be destined, directly or indirectly, for real estate investment.ā
Can someone please remind me of when the law is expected to come in to force? I.e. the deadline for submitting an application under the old rules?