Companies Are Challenging the SBA to Get PPP Funding
"Once you win all these things, other lawyers all over the country are looking at it and looking at the arguments," the attorney said. "Even if it's not binding, they will take the arguments and try to convince their judges in other parts of the country that this is the right answer."
April 27, 2020 at 03:10 PM
4 minute read
Chapter 11 debtors are challenging the Small Business Administration instead of dismissing their bankruptcy filings to qualify for the Paycheck Protection Program.
Texas attorney Nathaniel Peter Holzer, a partner at Jordan Holzer & Ortiz, represents Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation. He successfully challenged the U.S. Small Business Administration by filing an action in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Holzer filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the SBA, which prohibited borrowers from being in bankruptcy when seeking Paycheck Protection Program loans under the CARES Act.
But Holzer argued that this requirement does not appear in the CARES Act legislation.
The court agreed, entering a temporary restraining order Friday, and setting a hearing on the preliminary injunction two weeks later.
Other litigants are also raising challenges.
In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, five attorneys from Ballard Spahr represent Payday Money Centers. The Ballard Spahr lawyers assert the payday lending company is barred from applying for a cash infusion under the Paycheck Protection Program. In the court filing, the lawyers quote from the legislation, which does not permit borrowers to be "financial businesses primarily engaged in the business of lending."
Attorneys not involved in the lawsuits say the SBA made the correct decision to restrict bankrupt companies from obtaining more money, and instead disburse the funds elsewhere.
For instance, Michael Goldberg, who is the chair of the fraud and recovery practice at Akerman in Fort Lauderdale, says there should not be an overall rule that if a company is in bankruptcy, it cannot borrow under the CARES Act loan program.
Instead, Goldberg says, it should depend on whether the economic shutdown resulting from the coronavirus and social distancing restrictions caused the company to file bankruptcy, or if the company previously had underlying issues prior to the pandemic.
"The congressional attempt by the loan package was to help companies devastated by COVID," Goldberg said. "If the company was already in a poor enough shape to go into bankruptcy, it goes against the purpose of the loan."
The Paycheck Protection Program provides $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to pay their employees during the COVID-19 crisis, according to the United States Department of the Treasury. Due to the demand, it has been increased by an additional $320 billion. The loans can be fully forgiven if the money is allocated to payroll or other delineated expenses.
But the litigant, Payday Money Centers, says if it does not get about $654,000 from the program, it would be forced to close a minimum of 70% of its business locations. Payday Money Centers says this closure would cause "an injury to society as a whole."
Meanwhile Hidalgo County Emergency Service argued in part the services it provides are in the public interest. It provides patients with transportation services in its ambulances and plane to hospitals throughout the county.
While Judge David R. Jones of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas said his ruling only applies to Hidalgo County Emergency Service, attorney Holzer expects other attorneys to look at the argument he made in this case.
Holzer's argued that some requirements are waived under 7(a) of the Small Business Act, and that there is no statutory provision in the CARES Act and the Small Business Act that prohibits extending the Paycheck Protection Loans to a debtor in chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
"Once you win all these things, other lawyers all over the country are looking at it and looking at the arguments," Holzer said. "Even if it's not binding, they will take the arguments and try to convince their judges in other parts of the country that this is the right answer."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThese Law Firm Leaders Are Optimistic About 2025, Citing Deal Pipeline, International Business
6 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250