X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER   Michael R. Feinsod (“Feinsod”) and Richard L. Feinstein (“Feinstein”) (together, “Movants”), former directors and officers of Elk Associates Funding Corporation (“Elk”), move this Court for an order lifting the receivership stay entered on April 24, 2013 for the limited purpose of allowing Movants to file an action against the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) in its agency capacity. (Mot., D.E. 104; Movants’ Br., D.E. 104-1; Rec’r Opp., D.E. 106-2; Reply, D.E. 109.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 I. Elk and the SBA The SBA issued Elk a Small Business Investment Company (“SBIC”) license in 1980. As a SBIC, Elk made loans to small businesses through private capital and money raised by selling debt instruments (“Debentures”) to the SBA. In 1999, Ameritrans Capital Corporation (“Ameritrans”) was formed to acquire and manage Elk as a wholly-owned subsidiary. (Movants’ Br. at 3.) In January 2009, Elk applied for SBA financing. The SBA did not provide financing for almost a year and Elk encountered difficulty raising capital. As a result, Elk became underfunded and on July 8, 2010, the SBA informed Elk that it was “capital impaired.” Under the relevant regulations, SBICs that remain capitally impaired are eligible for liquidation by the SBA. To cure its capital impaired status, Ameritrans and Elk sought to sell equity in Ameritrans to private investors. However, the transactions required SBA approval. In 2011 and 2012, Elk and Ameritrans reached deals with two investors that, if successful, would have allegedly raised sufficient funds to recapitalize the companies. The SBA denied both transactions. In February 2012, Elk remained in capital impaired status and the SBA indicated that it intended to begin liquidation to recover the amount Elk owed to the SBA under outstanding Debentures. II. The Elk Action Settlement On March 20, 2012, Elk initiated an action against the SBA, among others, under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the SBA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied the transactions that would have allowed Elk to raise “the capital required to prevent Elk from being liquidated.” See Elk Assocs. Funding v. U.S. Small Bus. Admin., No. 12-CV-0438 (D.D.C.) (the “Elk Action”); (See Movants’ Br. at 4.) On October 31, 2012, Elk and the SBA executed a “Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release” that resolved the Elk Action (the “Settlement”). (Settlement, Ex. A to Mot., D.E. 104-2.) As relevant here, the Settlement required, among other things, that Elk: (1) pay $7,900,000 to satisfy its outstanding debt to the SBA (Settlement at 2 1) and (2) execute a Consent Order of Receivership to be filed by the SBA “only in the event that ELK fails to make the Payment” as required by the Settlement (Settlement at 3 4).2 The Settlement also contained mutual releases. As pertinent here, the SBA, and its “officers, officials and its present and former employees and agents, in their official capacities only” released Elk, including Elk’s officers and directors, from “any and all actions.” (Settlement at 3-4 6.) III. This Action3 On January 4, 2013, Elk made an initial payment of $1.2 million to the SBA but failed to pay the remaining amount due under the Settlement. (Movants’ Br. at 5.) Consistent with the terms of the Settlement, on February 14, 2013, the SBA commenced this Action (Compl., D.E. 1) and on April 5, 2013, filed the proposed Consent Order of Receivership (Proposed Order, D.E. 7-1). On April 24, 2013, the Court entered the Consent Order of Receivership (the “Receivership Order”) that appointed the SBA as the permanent, liquidating receiver of Elk (the “Receiver”) and entered judgment in favor of the SBA in the amount of Elk’s outstanding debts, over $20 million. (Receivership Order, D.E. 15.) The Receiver was appointed “for the purpose of marshaling and liquidating all of Elk’s assets and satisfying the claims of creditors therefrom in the order of priority as determined by this Court.” (Receivership Order 1.) The Receivership Order enjoined and stayed all civil litigation involving Elk, Elk’s assets, the Receiver, or Elk’s present or past officers and directors, among others, absent permission from the Court. (Id.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
July 22, 2024 - July 24, 2024
Lake Tahoe, CA

GlobeSt. Women of Influence Conference celebrates the women who drive the commercial real estate industry forward.


Learn More
September 06, 2024
Johannesburg

The African Legal Awards recognise exceptional achievement within Africa s legal community during a period of rapid change.


Learn More

Be the game-changer at a pioneering Queens/Brooklyn law collective, making strides in Commercial and Real Estate Disputes. Immerse yourself ...


Apply Now ›

White Plains Insurance Defense Firm of 60+ years is looking for an entry level or pending admission to NYS Bar attorney.The Firm focus is on...


Apply Now ›

Description: Fox Rothschild LLP has an opening in multiple offices in our Entertainment and Sports Law Department for an Associate with Corp...


Apply Now ›
06/27/2024
The American Lawyer

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/21/2024
Daily Business Review

Full Page Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/14/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›