Pastore & Dailey successfully represented its client, a Registered Investment Adviser, in a preliminary injunction hearing against a national bank on an issue regarding a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan. The hearing was held virtually in the Supreme Court of New York. The bank had taken out PPP loan money from Pastore & Dailey’s client’s account and provided default notices to the client. Pastore & Dailey filed for injunction on behalf of its client and the Court agreed with Pastore & Dailey that the bank had interfered with its client’s ability to apply for forgiveness. The Court directed the bank to put the money in an escrow account and allow the client’s application for forgiveness to proceed through the proper channels. If the loan is forgiven, the money will be released to its client.
Tag: Joseph Pastore
Pastore Defeats Another Billionaire Motion to Dismiss
Pastore & Dailey successfully defeated a Motion to Dismiss in a case against a billionaire and an AM Law 200 firm in a case in front of the Complex Litigation Docket in Stamford. The case involves complex direct and derivative shareholder claims in which the claim for damages is more than $65 million. Pastore & Dailey’s client is one of the shareholders of a two-shareholder company and defendant billionaire is the other shareholder. The Motion to Dismiss sought to dismiss certain counts of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court, however, agreed with Pastore & Dailey’s contention that a shareholder in a two-shareholder action can bring a derivative action against the other shareholder and denied the Motion to Dismiss.
Regulatory Assets Under Management Are Not Always All Assets Under Management
A daunting question that Registered Investment Advisers face in formulating their amended and annual form ADV 1 and ADV 2 (Brochure) submissions as required under the Investment Advisors act of 1940 is determining what the components of regulatory assets under management (“RAUM”) are, and providing adequate disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) as to how and why the RAUM of some investment advisors is much less than the actual value of monies or investment vehicles managed.
Assets under management, or AUM, is a general term used throughout the financial industry that can be defined by many standards. AUM represents “investors’ equity” (like shareholders’ equity) and is an accurate representation of investors’ capital at risk (i.e., the amount of money that investors have invested in a manager’s fund(s))[1]. RAUM specifically refers to Regulatory AUM, which the SEC’s standard form of AUM[2]. The SEC developed this metric to have a consistent internal measurement, implementing a mandatory tiered registration of private investment advisers[3]. RAUM is the sum of the market value for all the investments managed by a fund or family of funds that a venture capital firm, brokerage company, or an individual registered investment advisor or portfolio manager manages on behalf of its clients[4].
In determining RAUM, the SEC specifically states that “In determining the amount of your regulatory assets under management, include the securities portfolios for which you provide continuous and regular supervisory or management services as of the date of filing the Form ADV[5].” An account that a client maintains with a registered investment advisor is considered a securities portfolio if at least 50% of the total value of the assets held in the account consists of securities[6]. For purposes of this test, an investment advisor may treat cash and cash equivalents (i.e., bank deposits, certificates of deposit, bankers’ acceptances, and similar instruments) as securities[7]. The SEC also requires that you must include securities portfolios that are family or proprietary accounts, accounts for which no compensation for services is received, and accounts of clients who are not United States persons[8].
The SEC notes that “[f]or purposes of this definition, treat all of the assets of a private fund as a securities portfolio, regardless of the nature of such assets[9].” The SEC does advise, however, that assets either the under management by another person or entity or assets that consists of real estate or businesses whose operations you “manage” on behalf of a client but not as an investment are excluded from the RAUM calculation[10].
RAUM also requires that supervision of these accounts be “continuous and regular.” This term is defined by the SEC in two ways. The advisor must have either discretionary authority over investments and provide on-going supervisory or management services, or, if they do not have discretionary authority over the account, they must have on-going responsibility to select or make recommendations based upon the needs of the client, as to specific securities or other investments the account may purchase and sell[11]. If such recommendations are accepted by the client, then the adviser is responsible for arranging or effecting the purchase or sale and satisfies the definition of “continuous and regular[12]”.
The SEC also uses three separate factors to determine whether supervision of assets is “continuous and regular.” The first factor is whether there was an advisory contract in place between the parties. If the investment advisor agrees in an advisory contract to provide ongoing management services, this suggests that you provide these services for the account[13]. Other provisions in the contract, or the actual management practices, however, may suggest otherwise. The second factor is the form of compensation received[14]. If the advisor is compensated based on the average value of the client’s assets managed over a specified period, this suggests that the advisor provides continuous and regular supervisory or management services for the account[15]. The third factor is the extent to which the assets are actively managed or whether advice is regularly provided to the client[16]. Note that no single factor is determinative, and the specific circumstances should be viewed in their entirety[17].
In summation, AUM is a method used to compute the total market value of investments that are managed by registered investment advisors on behalf of clients. RAUM is the SEC’s regulatory from of AUM. RAUM consists of the accounts that are made up of 50% or more of securities that are continuously and regularly managed by the registered investment advisor overseeing the facilitation and management of the client’s accounts.
[1] “Assets Under Management,” Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/aum.asp, accessed February 5, 2021.
[2] Form ADV Instructions, https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-instructions.pdf, accessed February 5, 2021.
[3] Id.
[4] “Assets Under Management,” Investopedia, accessed February 5, 2021.
[5] Form ADV Instructions, accessed February 5, 2021.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Calculating Regulatory Assets Under Management – Wagner Law Group, https://www.wagnerlawgroup.com/resources/investment/calculating-regulatory-assets-under-management, accessed February 5, 2021.
[12] Id.
[13] Form ADV Instructions, accessed February 5, 2021.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
Pastore Representing a Large Investment Bank Wins at the Eighth Circuit
Pastore & Dailey won a complex securities and M&A appeal taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit arising from a derivative rights holder agreement and related investment banking engagement agreements. This matter was an appeal filed by Plaintiff-Appellant after Pastore & Dailey successfully defended this case in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
Plaintiff-Appellants, who were shareholders to a company, brought suit against Pastore & Dailey’s client in the District Court seeking to invalidate investment banking fees owed to Pastore & Dailey’s client following a series of complex insurance corporate mergers, in which the company was acquired and merged with another company. In its appeal to the Eighth Circuit, Plaintiff-Appellants argued that the District Court erred in denying certain Post-Judgment motions made by Plaintiffs arguing their lack of standing. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court ruling in Pastore & Dailey’s favor that Plaintiff-Appellants lacked standing.
Pastore & Dailey attorneys have vast experience arguing and defending matters in various federal courts across the country and are well-situated to handle similar claims involving complex contractual and investment banking issues.
Pastore Advises Clients on Accredited Investors
Recently, Pastore & Dailey advised clients on a unique issue related to accredited investors. The client, an SEC registered investment advisor, asked Pastore & Dailey whether the death of an accredited investor had any legal implications for the funds it manages when the accredited investor bequeathed his investment to a non-accredited investor. The simple answer is no.
Under the securities laws, the term “sale” is defined as to include every contract of sale or disposition of a security or interest in a security, for value. Additionally, the term “offer to sell”, “offer for sale”, or “offer” is defined to include every attempt or offer to dispose of, or solicitation of an offer to buy, a security or interest in a security, for value. 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(3).
Thus, an involuntary transfer by operation of law, such as a divestment of an investment upon death to beneficiaries will not be considered a “sale” or an “offer to sell.” Therefore, the recipient is not required to be an accredited investor.
Special Rule for Family Offices
Pastore & Dailey also advised the client on the legal implications of this unique circumstance when the accredited investor is a family office.
An accredited investor now includes any family office as defined in Rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”): (i) with assets under management in excess of $5,000,000, (ii) that is not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring the securities offered, and (iii) whose prospective investment is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such family office is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the prospective investment. 17 C.F.R. § 230.51(a)(12).
The accredited investor definition was also expanded to include a family client, as defined in Rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 under the Advisers Act. A family client as defined in Rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 is: (i) Any family member; (ii) Any former family member; or (vi) Any estate of a family member, former family member or key employee. 17 C.F.R. § 275.202(a)(11)(G)-1(d)(4).
In the Adoption Release, the SEC explained that it is not excluding from the accredited investor definition a beneficiary that temporarily qualifies as a family client under the family office rule. Thus, a beneficiary who receives the stocks from the decedent will be considered a family client for purposes of the accredited investor definition for exactly one year. SEC Release No. 33-10824, August 26, 2020.
There are limitations to this rule. Although a beneficiary would not be required to unwind any of the securities received in an involuntary transfer, the beneficiary would not be considered an accredited investor in connection with the purchase of additional securities, unless the beneficiary qualified as an accredited investor on another basis.[1]
In conclusion, the requirement that an offering or sale of restricted securities be made to an accredited investor applies at the “time of sale of the securities to that person.” Thus, an involuntary transfer such as a divestment of shares to a beneficiary upon death of the accredited investor should not pose a problem for a testator and their funds.
Summary
As the requirement that an offering or sale of restricted securities be made to an accredited investor applies at the “time of sale of the securities to that person,” a involuntary transfer, such as a divestment of shares to a beneficiary upon death of the accredited investor should not pose a problem for an RIA and its funds.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] SEC Expands the “Accredited Investor” and “QIB” Definitions and the Permitted Scope of “Testing the Waters.” Proskauer. September 9, 2020. https://www.proskauer.com/alert/sec-expands-the-accredited-investor-and-qib-definitions-and-the-permitted-scope-of-testing-the-waters#_ftnref3
SPACs Have Grown Up
In 2010, only $500 million of the IPO market was generated through special-purpose acquisition company (“SPAC”). SPACs have evolved from being an ignored strategy in reaching the public markets to becoming an attractive method to take a company public, pursue merger opportunities, and to create liquidity for existing shareholders.
As of October 16, 2020, there have been 143 SPAC IPO transactions in 2020. According to Dealogic, SPAC IPOs have raised $53 billion this year. SPACs have raised more money in 2020 than in the last ten years combined. Melissa Karsh & Crystal Tse, SPACs Have Raised More in 2020 Than the Last 10 Years Combined, Bloomberg (Sept. 24, 2020), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-24/spacs-have-raised-more-in-2020-than-the-last-10-years-combined.
Historically, Pastore & Dailey LLC has worked on SPAC offerings, litigation, and regulatory proceedings. SPACs have become popular in comparison to a traditional IPO because SPACs are cost-efficient and less time-consuming, and they face fewer amounts of due diligence and disclosure requirements than a traditional IPO. In the past, SPACs were generally used by small companies, but now small, mid-size, and large companies are using SPACs to become a public company and raise capital. While historically SPACs had a connotation of a back door method of taking a less than pristine company public, this is no longer the case.
A SPAC is a publicly traded company that raises capital with the intention of using that capital to acquire a private company. Through the acquisition, the SPAC takes the private company public. Many well-known companies have entered the public markets through a SPAC IPO, such as: DraftKings; Virgin Galactic; Nikola; and Opendoor, a real estate technology company.
Until a SPAC acquires a private company, the SPAC is just a company that holds cash. The cash is generally held in an escrow account until the SPAC acquires a private company. SPACs typically have a deadline of two years to acquire a private company. Andrew Ross Sorkin et al., SPACs Are Just Getting Started, N.Y. Times (Sept. 16, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/25/business/dealbook/spac-ipo-boom.html. If the SPAC does not acquire a private company in the two-year deadline, the SPAC is required to return the cash to its shareholders.
While SPACs are gaining a lot of momentum, they have historically had less success then traditional IPOs. From the start of 2015 through July 2020, 223 SPAC IPOs had been conducted; but 89 of the 223 SPACs have managed to take a company public. Ciara Linnane, 2020 Is the Year of the SPAC – Yet Traditional IPOs Offer Better Returns, Report Finds, MarketWatch (Sept. 16, 2020), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/2020-is-the-year-of-the-spac-yet-traditional-ipos-offer-better-returns-report-finds-2020-09-04. Just 26 of those 89 companies that went public through a SPAC acquisition generated positive returns, and the shares of those companies had an average loss of 18.8%.
This current year, however, has proved to be a different story. SPACs in 2020 have generated a rate of return of 35%, significantly higher than the S&P 500’s year-to-date return of approximately 6%. Many of the large banks are starting to work on SPACs, as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank have all conducted underwriting for SPAC IPOs. Richard Henderson et al., The Spac Race: Wall St Banks Jostle to Get In On Hot New Trend, Financial Times (Aug. 11, 2020), https://www.ft.com/content/1681c57d-e64d-4f58-b099-8885e85a708e.
Over the past ten years, the IPO market has significantly diversified. Direct listings gained a lot of momentum, and now SPACs are adding another strategic option in the IPO market.
Pastore & Dailey Managing Partner Receives AV Preeminent Rating for the year 2021
Pastore & Dailey LLC is proud to announce that Managing Partner, Joseph M. Pastore III has been named by Martindale-Avvo to receive the AV Preeminent Rating for the year 2021. This rating is the highest possible rating in both legal ability & ethical standards for practicing attorneys. Mr. Pastore received this honor for his exemplary devotion to judicial standards and ethics practices as an attorney. Mr. Pastore has been a recipient of this honor for the past 18 consecutive years. In addition, Corporate Counsel & The American Lawyer magazines have named Mr. Pastore as a Top-Rated Litigator for the year 2021.
PPP Flexibility Act of 2020 Update
As of June 17, 2020, the Small Business Association (SBA), along with the Department of Treasury, has passed revisions to the loan forgiveness application under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Flexibility Act of 2020 that was signed into law by President Trump on June 5, 2020.
The newly issued application forms and instructions are available in both a full and an EZ version. The EZ application is less intensive and requires fewer calculations and documentation for borrowers. If an applicant wants to use the EZ form, it must be able to answer at least one of the three questions on the face of the EZ Instructions in the affirmative. Both applications offer borrowers the choice to use the 8-week covered period if their loan was made before June 5, 2020, or an extended covered period of 24 weeks.
It is particularly important that eligible applicants for PPP loan forgiveness have available all the necessary documentation at the time of application. Late submission of documentation will disqualify an applicant for forgiveness.
These changes were made with the intention of increasing the efficiency and availability of full loan forgiveness for businesses.
Business Interruption Insurance Update
This is an update on the business interruption insurance claims related to the COVID-19 shutdowns as of May 29th, 2020. Across the United States, businesses are calculating both the sunk and future revenue losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous businesses have filed complaints against their insurers for wrongful coverage of certain losses due to the government-mandated shutdowns of regular business operations.
As of March 16th, The Oceana Grill of New Orleans, LA was the first business to sue an insurance company on the grounds of wrongful coverage of monetary loss as a result of the Coronavirus. In the case of Cajun Conti, LLC et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, the owners of The Oceana Grill argue that Lloyd’s is responsible for insuring their restaurant because they hold an “all risks” policy, which does not specifically exclude losses incurred from a pandemic or virus. All risk policies are most often used in reference to physical damages, however, at this time many businesses are arguing that contamination from the virus constitutes physical damage. There have not been any further proceedings with this case, however, a variety of other businesses have followed suit and filed complaints against their insurers as well.
Currently, there have been eight lawsuits in six different states, including Louisiana, Illinois, California, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. All eight of the pending complaints are from small business owners, six of the suits being from restaurant and bar owners. A majority of these cases claim that the national government shutdowns have majorly impacted their business operations and earnings.
In Chicago, movie theatre and restaurant owners are collectively suing their insurance carrier for wrongful coverage of work interruptions due to the pandemic. In this case, Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC v. Society Insurance, Inc., the small business owners claim that Society Insurance is wrongful in denying their businesses coverage from losses incurred due to “necessary suspension” of daily business when their policies explicitly promise coverage of government shutdowns. Furthermore, Society Insurance did not conduct coverage investigation which is required under Illinois law. Insurance companies in Illinois, like other states, are claiming that the existence of COVID-19 in a business does not qualify as property damage. In the state of Illinois, this is contradictory to laws as courts have held “dangerous substances” in the past to constitute “physical loss or damage.” Insurance industries are creating specific exclusions related to losses consequential to COVID-19, which would not be necessary if, in fact, the virus did not result in “physical loss or damage.”
In California, French Laundry Partners, LP et al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. et al. (Napa County), argues that the government issued stay-at-home order was instituted as a result of evidence that the Coronavirus can live on surfaces and damage property. Many state guidelines are requiring businesses to fumigate their property before reopening to the public, furthering the argument that the Coronavirus has physically impacted business and thus insurance companies should be held accountable for upholding their policies regarding damaged property. Many of the business interruption insurance cases are filing similar claims for the wrongful representation of existing policies.
As the Coronavirus continues to ebb and flow over time and affect daily business procedures, it is expected that other policyholders will take similar legal action against their insurers. Certain states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey and Ohio have acknowledged this trend and have proposed laws related to insurance companies paying certain claims to support small businesses as a result of the economic strains caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, no bill has been passed.
Managing Documentation of Your PPP Loan
To date, nearly 18.5 thousand Connecticut businesses have received forgivable loans under the Paycheck Protection Program. This note will briefly review some of the recordkeeping requirements of the program you should keep in mind if you anticipate being able to qualify for loan forgiveness.
The program requires that borrowers meet two tests for loan forgiveness:
- The loan proceeds are used to cover payroll costs, and most mortgage interest, rent, and utility costs over the 8 week period after the loan is made; and
- Employee and compensation levels are maintained
The loan proceeds may only be used for four categories of business expenses:
- Payroll costs, including benefits. Payroll costs include –
- Salary, wages, commissions, or tips (capped at $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee);
- Employee benefits including costs for vacation, parental, family, medical, or sick leave; allowance for separation or dismissal; payments required for the provisions of group health care benefits including insurance premiums; and payment of any retirement benefit;
- State and local taxes assessed on compensation; and
- For a sole proprietor or independent contractor: wages, commissions, income, or net earnings from self-employment, capped at $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee
- Interest on mortgage obligations, incurred before February 15, 2020;
- Rent, under lease agreements in force before February 15, 2020; and
- Utilities, for which service began before February 15, 2020
Payroll costs also include employee benefits such as parental leave, family leave, medical leave, and sick leave. Note, however, that the CARES Act, P.L. 116-136, excludes qualified sick and family leave wages for which a credit is allowed under section 7001 and 7003 of the FFCRA, P.L. 116-127. You can read an IRS summary of this credit here.
The CARES Act also excludes from payroll costs the following:
- Any compensation of an employee whose principal place of residence is outside of the United States; and
- Federal employment taxes imposed or withheld between February 15, 2020 and June 30, 2020, including the employer’s share of FICA and Railroad Retirement Act taxes
Mortgage prepayments and principal payments are not permitted uses of PPP loan proceeds. Borrowers will need to request loan forgiveness from their lenders. The request must include:
- Verification of the number of employees and pay rates
- Payments made on eligible mortgage, lease and utilities
- Documentation that you used the forgiven amount to keep employees and make the eligible mortgage, lease, and utility payments
This documentation will generally take the form of:
- Payroll reports from your payroll provider
- Payroll tax filings, including Form 941
- State income, payroll, and unemployment insurance filings
- Documentation of retirement and health insurance contributions
- Documentation of payment of eligible expenses. This documentation should meet the same standards as your documentation of business expenses on your tax return. Invoices matched with cancelled checks, payment receipts, and account information
- Documentation that you used at least 75% of your loan for payroll costs
Lenders are expected to require forgiveness documentation to be provided in digital form, so borrowers should get scanning done in advance.
Lenders must rule on forgiveness within 60 days of the borrower’s request. In some cases, borrowers may be asked to provide additional documentation.
If you are not approved for loan forgiveness, your loan balance will continue to accrue interest at the rate of 1% annually for the remainder of the two-year loan period.
These notes review general principles only and are not intended as tax or legal advice. Readers are cautioned to discuss their specific circumstances with a qualified practitioner before taking any action.