Is a Coronavirus Loan Truly a 'Loan'? Federal Judge Questions Whether Lobbyists Can Tap Relief Funds
U.S. Justice Department lawyer David Morrell pointed to favorable rates and availability of forgiveness to argue that the loans are "subsidies regardless of how one looks at it."
April 20, 2020 at 05:23 PM
4 minute read
Lobbyists and political consultants faced a skeptical judge Monday in Washington as they pressed for access to coronavirus relief funds, in a hearing convened over the phone as courts across the country limit their operations amid the ongoing global health crisis.
The telephonic hearing before U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth came a week after the American Association of Political Consultants sued for access to a nearly $350 billion federal loan program designed to help small businesses upended by the coronavirus outbreak.
In its lawsuit, the trade association argued the Trump administration had violated the free speech rights of political consultants in barring them from the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, which was authorized as part of the roughly $2 trillion coronavirus relief package.
Within days, the Justice Department answered that the federal government cannot be compelled to "subsidize" lobbying and other speech.
At Monday's hearing, Lamberth questioned the trade group about whether the loans amounted to the kind of subsidy that has long been off-limits to lobbyists and other political consultants.
Noting the favorable rates and other "unusual" terms, Lamberth asked for the "best argument" for why a loan through the Payroll Protection Program should not be seen as a subsidy.
"Your honor, it's not a subsidiary because [the relief is] still a loan," said Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky, a Virginia firm representing the trade group. "You still have to go to a bank, you still have to submit an application, you still owe the bank interest on that money."
"When it looks like a loan and acts like a loan, it's a loan," he added.
"Well, that's not totally accurate," Lamberth replied, "because they're also saying most if not all of the loans are going to be forgiven, right?"
Torchinsky said the extent of loan forgiveness available under the program remains unclear, adding that, for small businesses, there is "no guarantee" of receiving such relief.
On Monday, Justice Department attorney David Morrell pointed to the favorable rates and availability of forgiveness to argue that the loans are "subsidies regardless of how one looks at it."
"For one thing, the availability of forgiveness of the loan transforms these into a subsidy," said Morrell, a top political appointee in the Justice Department's civil division.
"The delta between market terms and the terms of these loans is exactly the kind of economic benefit that transforms these into subsidies," he added.
Monday's arguments came just days after the PPP, a hallmark of the Trump administration's coronavirus stimulus, was fully tapped. During an appearance Sunday on CNN, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the Trump administration was closing in on a deal with Democratic leaders to authorize more loans for small businesses upended by the coronavirus outbreak.
"I think we're very close to a deal today. I'm hopeful that we can get that done," Mnuchin said.
The deal under negotiation would inject another $370 billion into the small business relief program.
Lamberth said he hopes to issue a ruling Tuesday.
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 AllFinancial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Nasdaq-Traded Blockchain Company Countersues Financer Over 'Toxic Lending Practices'
4 minute readDOJ's Visa Antitrust Suit Hands Class Action Lawyers New Line of Attack Against Payments Giant
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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