Business

Yellen may soon get her name on the greenback.

Published

3 years ago

June 22, 2022

Yellen may soon get her name on the greenback.

Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen moved one step nearer to lastly getting her signature on the U.S. greenback on Tuesday, when President Biden named Marilynn Malerba as treasurer of the USA.

Ms. Malerba, the chief of the Mohegan Tribe, would be the first Native American to carry the place. Her function, which doesn’t require Senate affirmation, contains overseeing the U.S. Mint, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and Fort Knox.

Whereas Ms. Yellen sat for her official forex signing greater than a yr in the past, her identify couldn’t seem on the buck till a U.S. treasurer was in place. Underneath arcane guidelines, each signatures should be added to new collection of forex in tandem.

Emblazoning each denomination together with your signature is seen as a key perk of being Treasury secretary — though it will probably carry dangers.

Steven Mnuchin, who served as Treasury secretary underneath President Donald J. Trump, was mocked in 2017 for a way he dealt with the rollout of the primary greenback invoice bearing his signature. He additionally bucked custom and printed his identify, fairly than utilizing cursive, as had been the norm.

Timothy F. Geithner, President Barack Obama’s first Treasury secretary, acknowledged that he needed to work on his signature to make it extra legible. And his successor, Jacob J. Lew, was laughed at for his signature, which initially resembled a doodle.

Ms. Yellen’s identify possible received’t seem on any payments for a number of weeks. A consultant for Treasury stated that whereas she supplied her signature to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on March 10, 2021, it will probably take as much as 4 to 5 months to replace printing plates for every denomination.

These really curious for the way it might look can discover some hints on paperwork she signed throughout her tenure as chair of the Federal Reserve.

Business

For uninsured fire victims, the Small Business Administration offers a rare lifeline

Published

48 minutes ago

January 15, 2025

Press Room

For uninsured fire victims, the Small Business Administration offers a rare lifeline

As wildfires continue to burn around Southern California, thousands of business owners, homeowners and renters are confronting the daunting challenge of rebuilding from the ashes. For some number of them, the road ahead will be all the more difficult because they didn’t have any or enough insurance to cover their losses. For them, the U.S. Small Business Administration is a possible lifeline.

The SBA, which offers emergency loans to businesses, homeowners, renters and nonprofits, is among the few relief options for those who don’t have insurance or are underinsured. Uninsured Angelenos can also apply for disaster assistance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

The current wildfires are ravaging a state that was already in the midst of a home insurance crisis. Thousands of homeowners have lost their insurance in recent years as providers pull out of fire-prone areas and jack up their prices in the face of rising risk.

“For those who are not going to get that insurance payout, this is available,” Small Business Administration head Isabella Casillas Guzman said in an interview during a recent trip to the fire areas. “The loans are intended to fill gaps, and that is very broad.”

About one-third of businesses don’t have insurance and three-quarters are underinsured, Guzman said.

“There will be residual effects around the whole community,” she said. “Insurance will not cover this disaster.”

Businesses, nonprofits and small agricultural cooperatives can apply for an economic injury loan or a physical damage loan through SBA. Homeowners are eligible for physical damage loans. Economic injury loans are intended to help businesses meet ordinary financial demands, while physical damage loans provide funds for repairs and restoration. People can apply online and loans must be repaid within 30 years.

Renters can receive up to $100,000 in assistance, homeowners up to $500,000 and businesses up to $2 million, according to Guzman. Homeowners and renters who cannot get access to credit elsewhere can qualify for loans with a interest rate of 2.5%. The SBA determines an applicant has no credit available elsewhere if they do not have other funds to pay for disaster recovery and cannot borrow from nongovernment sources.

Interest rates for homeowners and renters who do have access to credit elsewhere are just over 5%. Loans for businesses could come with interest rates of 4% or 8% depending on whether the business has other credit options.

An applicant must show they are able to repay their loan and have a credit history acceptable to the SBA in order to be approved. The loans became available following President Biden’s declaration of a major disaster in California.

“We’ve already received hundreds of applications from individuals and businesses interested in exploring additional support,” Guzman said. “We know the economic disruption may not be contained to the footprint of any evacuation zones or power outages.”

People who don’t have insurance or whose insurance doesn’t cover the entirety of their losses are eligible for loans, Guzman said. While many will use the funds to start from scratch after losing their property to the fires, businesses that are still standing can also apply for support to cover lost revenue.

Guzman was not able to estimate the total value of loans they expect to offer in California but said the organization is on solid financial footing after temporarily running out of funds in October.

“Funding has been replenished by Congress, and we expect to be able to coordinate closely with Congress,” Guzman said. “We’re fully funded and in a good position to provide support.”

Business

Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case

Published

9 hours ago

January 15, 2025

Press Room

Cookies, Cocktails and Mushrooms on the Menu as Justices Hear Bank Fraud Case

In a lively Supreme Court argument on Tuesday that included references to cookies, cocktails and toxic mushrooms, the justices tried to find the line between misleading statements and outright lies in the case of a Chicago politician convicted of making false statements to bank regulators.

The case concerned Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman who is the grandson of one former mayor, Richard J. Daley, and the nephew of another, Richard M. Daley. He conceded that he had misled the regulators but said his statements fell short of the outright falsehoods he said were required to make them criminal.

The justices peppered the lawyers with colorful questions that tried to tease out the difference between false and misleading statements.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked whether a motorist pulled over on suspicion of driving while impaired said something false by stating that he had had one cocktail while omitting that he had also drunk four glasses of wine.

Caroline A. Flynn, a lawyer for the federal government, said that a jury could find the statement to be false because “the officer was asking for a complete account of how much the person had had to drink.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about a child who admitted to eating three cookies when she had consumed 10.

Ms. Flynn said context mattered.

“If the mom had said, ‘Did you eat all the cookies,’ or ‘how many cookies did you eat,’ and the child says, ‘I ate three cookies’ when she ate 10, that’s a false statement,” Ms. Flynn said. “But, if the mom says, ‘Did you eat any cookies,’ and the child says three, that’s not an understatement in response to a specific numerical inquiry.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked whether it was false to label toxic mushrooms as “a hundred percent natural.” Ms. Flynn did not give a direct response.

The case before the court, Thompson v. United States, No. 23-1095, started when Mr. Thompson took out three loans from Washington Federal Bank for Savings between 2011 and 2014. He used the first, for $110,000, to finance a law firm. He used the next loan, for $20,000, to pay a tax bill. He used the third, for $89,000, to repay a debt to another bank.

He made a single payment on the loans, for $390 in 2012. The bank, which did not press him for further payments, went under in 2017.

When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and a loan servicer it had hired sought repayment of the loans plus interest, amounting to about $270,000, Mr. Thompson told them he had borrowed $110,000, which was true in a narrow sense but incomplete.

After negotiations, Mr. Thompson in 2018 paid back the principal but not the interest. More than two years later, federal prosecutors charged him with violating a law making it a crime to give “any false statement or report” to influence the F.D.I.C.

He was convicted and ordered to repay the interest, amounting to about $50,000. He served four months in prison.

Chris C. Gair, a lawyer for Mr. Thompson, said his client’s statements were accurate in context, an assertion that met with skepticism. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the jury had found the statements were false and that a ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor would require a court to rule that no reasonable juror could have come to that conclusion.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said that issue was not before the court, which had agreed to decide the legal question of whether the federal law, as a general matter, covered misleading statements. Lower courts, they said, could decide whether Mr. Thompson had been properly convicted.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked for an example of a misleading statement that was not false. Mr. Gair, who was presenting his first Supreme Court argument, responded by talking about himself.

“If I go back and change my website and say ‘40 years of litigation experience’ and then in bold caps say ‘Supreme Court advocate,’” he said, “that would be, after today, a true statement. It would be misleading to anybody who was thinking about whether to hire me.”

Justice Alito said such a statement was, at most, mildly misleading. But Justice Kagan was impressed.

“Well, it is, though, the humblest answer I’ve ever heard from the Supreme Court podium,” she said, to laughter. “So good show on that one.”

Business

SEC probes B. Riley loan to founder, deals with franchise group

Published

10 hours ago

January 14, 2025

Press Room

SEC probes B. Riley loan to founder, deals with franchise group

B. Riley Financial Inc. received more demands for information from federal regulators about its dealings with now-bankrupt Franchise Group as well as a personal loan for Chairman and co-founder Bryant Riley.

The Los Angeles-based investment firm and Riley each received additional subpoenas in November from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and information about Franchise Group, or FRG, the retail company that was once one of its biggest investments before its collapse last year, according to a long-delayed quarterly filing. The agency also wants to know more about Riley’s pledge of B. Riley shares as collateral for a personal loan, the filing shows.

B. Riley previously received SEC subpoenas in July for information about its dealings with ex-FRG chief executive Brian Kahn, part of a long-running probe that has rocked B. Riley and helped push its shares to their lowest in more than a decade. Bryant Riley, who founded the company in 1997 and built it into one of the biggest U.S. investment firms beyond Wall Street, has been forced to sell assets and raise cash to ease creditors’ concerns.

The firm and Riley “are responding to the subpoenas and are fully cooperating with the SEC,” according to the filing. The company said the subpoenas don’t mean the SEC has determined any violations of law have occurred.

Shares in B. Riley jumped more than 25% in New York trading after the company’s overdue quarterly filing gave investors their first formal look at the firm’s performance in more than half a year. The data included a net loss of more than $435 million for the three months ended June 30. The shares through Monday had plunged more than 80% in the past 12 months, trading for less than $4 each.

B. Riley and Kahn — a longstanding client and friend of Riley’s — teamed up in 2023 to take FRG private in a $2.8-billion deal. The transaction soon came under pressure when Kahn was tagged as an unindicted co-conspirator by authorities in the collapse of an unrelated hedge fund called Prophecy Asset Management, which led to a fraud conviction for one of the fund’s executives.

Kahn has said he didn’t do anything wrong, that he wasn’t aware of any fraud at Prophecy and that he was among those who lost money in the collapse. But federal investigations into his role have spilled over into his dealings with B. Riley and its chairman, who have said internal probes found they “had no involvement with, or knowledge of, any alleged misconduct concerning Mr. Kahn or any of his affiliates.”

FRG filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November, a move that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses for B. Riley. The collapse made Riley “personally sick,” he said at the time.

One of the biggest financial problems to arise from the FRG deal was a loan that B. Riley made to Kahn for about $200 million, which was secured against FRG shares. With that company’s collapse into bankruptcy in November wiping out equity holders, the value of the remaining collateral for this debt has now dwindled to only about $2 million, the filing shows.

Griffin writes for Bloomberg.