United States of America v. Novus Ventures II
Filing
2
COPY OF ORDER (USDC-Northern District California 5:12cv523) appoint U.S. Small business Administration as received of Novus. (MKR)
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 pag~L~~(?
,
h
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
10
t.1S
's
11
==
Qt.1S
12
.- .....
a..
...-
13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
t:~
U
U f+.<
..
ColO
Plaintiff,
v.
NOVUS VENTURES II, L.P.,
I:)
.S b
14
=.~
rr;Cl
.as
Su
15
1 0
:::Z
Defendant.
1:1 u
j;;l-fj
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS
RECEIVER UNDER 15 U.S.C. § 687C
On February 1,2011, the United States filed a Complaint for Receivership and Injunction
17
!5
~
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
----------------------------~)
16
fI.l,€
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
on behalf of its agency, the U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA" or "Plaintiff'), against
18
Defendant Novus Ventures II, L.P. ("Novus" or "Defendant"), a Delaware limited partnership that
19
maintains its place of business and principal office in Cupertino, California. SBA seeks
20
receivership ofNovus, among other forms of injunctive relief, pursuant to Sections 308(d) and 311
21
of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 687(d), 687c; ECF
22
No.1 ("Compl."). Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and Appointment of
23
SBA as Receiver Under 15 U.S.C. § 687c, filed on April 19,2012. ECF No. 18 ("Mot."). The
24
Court held a hearing on the motion on July 26,2012. Having considered the parties' submissions
25
and argument and the relevant law, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS
26
Plaintiff's motion.
27
28
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background
Case No.: 12-CV-OOS23-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
CaseS:12-cv-OOS23-LHK Document44 Filed08108/12 Page2 of 13
The purpose of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (the "Act") is to improve and
2
stimulate the national economy, and small business in particular, by stimulating and supplementing
3
the flow of private equity capital and long-tenn loan funds that small businesses need for sound
4
financing of their operations and growth. I See 15 U.S.C. § 661. Section 391 of the Act authorizes
5
SBA to license non-bank financial institutions, as well as private companies including
6
corporations, as Sma)] Business Investment Companies ("SBIC"), which in turn provide capital to
7
small businesses. See 15 U.S.C. § 681. Pursuant to Section 303 ofthe Act, SBA can provide
8
financing to a SBIC through what is known as Participating Securities, a fonn of Leverage as
9
defined in the Regulations at 13 C.F.R. § 107.1500 et seq. See 15 U.S.C. § 683; 13 C.F.R. §§
10
107.1100, 1500. By issuing a Leverage instrument, SBA becomes a Preferred Limited Partner of
11
the SBIC. Id. In addition, when a SBIC is licensed, the license application contains an
==
cas
12
acknowledgment that the SBIC will be operated in accordance with the Act and the implementing
.- .....
.....
13
Regulations, both of which place several restrictions on SBICs, including, among others, in regard
14
to their fmancing and business decisions.
as
's
t:c.S
(,.)U
.... c..,.
~o
... u
.- .....
III ....
~.~
IIlQ
$e
15
1Zlt:
16
industries. See Decl. of Greg Lahann ("Lahann Decl.") ~ 2. Novus's General Partner is DT
17
Associates II, LLC, of which Greg Lahann, Dan Tompkins, and Stewart Schuster are the Managing
18
Directors. Decl. of Stewart Schuster ("Schuster Decl.") ~~ 2-3. On January 5, 2001, SBA licensed
19
Novus as a SBIC pursuant to Section 301 (c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 681 (c), under SBA License No.
20
09179-0433. Decl. of Dianna L. Seaborn ("Seaborn Decl.") ~ 10. Pursuant to Section 303 of the
21
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 683, and 13 C.F.R. § 107.1600 et seq., SBA provided financing to Novus by
22
purchasing $68,100,000 in Participating Securities, and thereby became Novus's Preferred Limited
23
Partner. Seaborn Decl. ~ 12. SBA has paid the entire amount of$68.1 million, plus prioritized
24
payments of approximately $39,400,000, to the investor pool. Seaborn Decl.
25
SBA's financing to Novus, the Managing Directors have, collectively, personally invested over
as~
.. ..c
1 0
.1:Z
I:
~
;J;S
....
0
IJ;..
Novus is a venture capital finn that invests in seed and early stage companies in technology
~
12. In addition to
26
27
28
I Section 308(c) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 687(c), empowers SBA to prescribe implementing
regulations to carry out the provisions of the Act. These implementing regulations are codified at
Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 (the "Regulations").
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page3 of 13
1
$1,200,000 in Novus. Lahann Decl. ~ 16. Novus' Limited Partners have also collectively invested
2
a total of$42,126,117 in Novus. /d. However, as Novus's Preferred Limited Partner, SBA has
3
priority over the private Limited Partners in liquidation, meaning, among other things, that SBA
4
must be repaid all of its Participating Securities before any private Limited Partners may obtain any
5
return oftheir capital. Seaborn Dec!. ~ 18.
Among its responsibilities, SBA monitors the operation of all SBICs, in the course of which
6
7
it undertakes annual reviews of the SBIC's financial statements. In March 31,2006, Novus's
8
quarterly financial submission showed that Novus had a condition of "capital impairment" as
9
defined under 13 C.F.R. §§ 107.1830-1850. 2 SBA sent notification via letter dated June 5, 2006,
lO
that Novus had a condition of capital impairment of 80.92%, which exceeded the allowable
II
maximum of 60% under 13 C.F.R. §§ lO7.1830-1850. Seaborn Decl. ~ 15 & Ex. F. Pursuant to 13
==
e tll
12
C.F.R. § 107 .1820(f), the letter directed Novus to cure the capital impairment within 15 days by
.... "-'
.......
.....
13
increasing its regulatory capital by not less than $14,647,109, plus an amount equal to any
=.!a
14
additional unrealized depreciation and operating expenses incurred subsequent to March 31, 2006 .
.... 8
15
Id. The letter also notified Novus that if it failed to cure its impairment, SBA would impose
16
Restricted Operations remedies under 13 C.F.R. § 107.1 820(f). /d.
·s
t:cB
til
UU
~o
~(.)
•~ !:=
~Q
"
II)
.... .c:
(/jt:
"go
;:::Z
1:11)
17
i=l.;3
...
0
~
Novus failed to cure its capital impairment in the time and manner required by SBA. See
18
Lahann Dec!. ~ 10. Subsequently, SBA placed Novus on "Restricted Operations" status, imposing
19
several restrictions, including a prohibition on new portfolio investments unless approved by SBA,
20
prohibitions on distributions to any party other than SBA, and imposition of a 50% reduction in
21
management fees. Id.; Seaborn Decl. Ex. F at 1-2. SBA also required Novus to submit financial
22
information on a monthly basis, information on the status of each portfolio investment, a cash
23
report, and any additional liquidity requirements needed to meet follow-on investments or current
24
Capital impairment is the degree to which the regulatory capital of a SBIC has deteriorated
because of accumulated losses. Generally speaking, the capital impairment percentage is
calculated by adding the SBIC's undistributed net realized loss and net unrealized depreciation and
dividing the result by the SBIC's private capital. See 13 C.F.R. § lO7.1840; United States v. ECC
Partners, L.P., 820 F. Supp. 2d 654, 657 n.6 (D. Md. 2011). A capital impairment condition exists
if the capital impairment percentage exceeds permitted levels set forth in the Regulations and
varies depending on the percentage of equity capital investments made by the SBIC. See 13 C.F.R.
§ 107.1830(c)(2).
25
26
27
28
2
3
Case No.: 12-CV-OO523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
CaseS:12-cv-OOS23-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page4 of 13
1
operating expenses. Seaborn Decl. Ex. F at 2. Novus complied with all of SBA' s imposed
2
reporting requirements. Lahann Dec1. ~ 10; Decl. of David Gerogosian ("Gerogosian Decl.") Ex. B
3
at 2-5. From the sales of some of its holdings and sale ofone of its portfolio companies, Novus
4
cured its capital impairment and was not impaired from September 2006 to August 2007. See
5
Lahann Decl. ~ 11. However, Novus again became capitally impaired shortly after the market
6
crashed. /d.
7
By letter dated July 22, 2008, SBA notified Novus that it was transferring Novus from
8
operating status to liquidation status. Seaborn Decl. ~ 17 & Ex. G. SBA also threatened to seek
9
receivership immediately, prompting Novus's General Partner to meet with SBA on September 10,
10
2008, to explore alternatives to receivership. Lahann Decl. ~ 12. Shortly after the September 10,
11
2008 meeting, Novus provided SBA with a plan to wind down Novus, subject to SBA's approval
=:.:
Q
uC,)
12
and discretion ("Wind Down Plan"). Seaborn Decl. ~ 20 & Ex. I ("Wind Down Plan"); Lahann
~o
13
Decl. ~ 13. Pursuant to the Wind-Down Plan, executed on December 23, 2008, SBA agreed to
14
permit Novus's Managing Directors to manage the fund until it was completely liquidated and to
15
forbear from seeking receivership until December 1,2009, in exchange for Novus's agreement to
ccs
"s
t:
18
2.
'C
t)
"-I ....
"-10
~.;:;
~
19
20
A. Permanent Injunction
SBA argues that, by virtue of its condition of capital impairment in excess of the maximum
21
allowed impairment percentage of60%, Novus is in violation of the Regulations at 13 C.F.R. §
22
107.1830(b). See 13 C.F.R. § 107.1 830(b) ("If you have a condition of Capital Impairment, you
23
are not in compliance with the terms of your Leverage."). SBA further argues that Novus is in
24
violation of the Regulations at 13 C.F.R. § 107.507(a) as a result of its failure to comply with the
25
requirements of its Participating Securities. See 13 C.F .R. § 107 .507(a) ("Nonperformance of any
26
of the requirements of any Debenture, Participating Security or Preferred Security, or of any
27
written agreement with SBA," constitutes a violation of the Regulations.").
28
7
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page8 of 13
As described above, the Act provides that in the event SBA detennines that one of its
2
licensed SBICs is in violation ofthe Act or the implementing Regulations, SBA may apply to the
3
appropriate federal district court for an adjudication of such a violation and for pennanent
4
injunctive relief. 15 U.S.C. § 687(d). Upon a showing of a violation of the Act or its Regulations,
5
the license of the SBIC may be revoked. See United States v. Marathon lnv. Partners, LP, 399 F.
6
Supp.2d 1,2 (D. Mass. 2005). As demonstrated by the record, since at least July 2008, Novus's
7
percentage of capital impairment has far exceeded its maximum pennitted capital impainnent
8
percentage of 60%, as prescribed under 13 C.F.R. § 107 .1830(c). Novus does not contest its
9
capital impainnent percentage. Accordingly, SBA has made the necessary showing that Novus is
10
in violation of the Act and the implementing Regulations. As specifically mandated under 15
11
U.S.C. § 687c(a), SBA is therefore entitled to a pennanent injunction. The Court therefore grants
12
Plaintiff's request for a pennanent injunction enjoining Novus from further violating the Act and
.... to-.
~o
13
its implementing Regulations.
.- ....
14
~Cl
15
The question remains, however, as to whether SBA should be appointed receiver ofNovus
1'§
16
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 687c. As described above, the Act authorizes the Court to "take exclusive
a::et)
17
jurisdiction of the licensee ... and the assets thereof," to the extent deemed necessary, and confers
18
jurisdiction to "appoint a trustee or receiver to hold or administer under the direction of the court
19
the assets so possessed." 15 U.S.c. § 687c(b). The Act explicitly authorizes the Court to appoint
20
SBA to act as receiver "unless the court deems such appointment inequitable or otherwise
21
inappropriate by reason of the special circumstances involved." 15 U.S.c. § 687c(c). SBA argues
22
that (1) Novus has already consented to receivership, and (2) Novus has not shown that
23
appointment of SBA as receiver would be inequitable or otherwise inappropriate, given that
24
Novus's violation of the Regulations is on its own sufficient grounds for appointing SBA as
25
receiver. See Mot. at 20; Reply at 14-18. Defendant argues in opposition that (1) Novus' consent
26
was fraudulently obtained and should thus be void, and (2) SBA has not shown that receivership is
27
necessary. See generally Opp'n at 9-22. Because SBA does not rely on Novus's consent in
's
t:t.8
t':I
::s:':::
ot':l
UU
.- ,
....
....
10. (.)
rIl ....
=.~
.... e
Set)
oo..c:
B. Receivership
;o,::Z
i.;J-B
....
0
~
28
8
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page9 of 13
seeking receivership, the Court addresses the parties' equitable arguments for receivership first
2
3
4
before then turning to the issue of consent.
1. Equitable Factors
While the Act authorizes the Court to appoint SBA as receiver, it does not mandate such
5
appointment. Rather, as courts have recognized, "appointing a 'receiver is an extraordinary
6
equitable remedy,' which should be applied with caution." Canada Life Assur. Co. v. LaPeter, 563
7
F.3d 837, 844 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Aviation Supply Corp. v. R.S.B.l. Aerospace, Inc., 999 F.2d
8
314,316 (8th Cir. 1993); 12 Wright, Miller & Marcus § 2983, at 24); see also Rosen v. Siegel, 106
9
F .3d 28, 34 (2d Cir. 1997) ("[T]he appointment of a receiver is considered to be an extraordinary
10
remedy, and ... should be employed cautiously and granted only when clearly necessary to protect
'8
11
plaintiffs interests in the property." (quoting CWbank, N.A. v. Nyland (CF8) Ltd., 839 F.2d 93, 97
=:=
\:lCO
12
(2d Cir. 1988)); First Louisiana Inv. Corp. v. United States, 351 F.2d 495,497-98 (5th Cir. 1965)
.......
............
.2a
13
("The appointment of a receiver, )ike the granting of a preliminary injunction is, in no small
14
measure, a discretionary matter."); Maxwell v. Enter. Wall Paper Mfg. Co., 131 F.2d 400, 403 (3d
.as
So
15
Cir. 1942) ("Receivership "is not to be resorted to if milder measures will give the plaintiff ...
1'g
16
adequate protection for his rights .... It is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and
=0
17
only under extreme and exceptional circumstances.") (internal citations omitted). Under Ninth
18
Circuit law, "there is 'no precise formula for determining when a receiver may be appointed.'"
19
Canada Life Assur., 563 F.3d at 844 (quoting Aviation Supply Corp., 999 F.2d at 316).
20
Nonetheless, relevant factors for determining whether to appoint a receiver include the following:
21
"(1) whether [the party] seeking the appointment has a valid claim; (2) whether there is fraudulent
22
conduct or the probability of fraudulent conduct[] by the defendant; (3) whether the property is in
23
imminent danger of being lost, concealed, injured, diminished in value, or squandered; (4) whether
24
legal remedies are inadequate; (5) whether the harm to plaintiff by denial of the appointment would
25
outweigh injury to the party opposing appointment; (6) the plaintiff's probable success in the action
26
and the possibility ofirreparabJe injury to plaintiff's interest in the property; and (7) whether [the]
27
plaintiff'S interests sought to be protected will in fact be well-served by receivership." Id. (quoting
28
Moore's, § 66.04[2][b]; New York Life Ins. Co., 755 F. Supp. at 292 (citing 12 Wright, Miller &
co
't~
t,)u
.... 1+-0<
y
0
"'"
(J
'" 1-1
~
",0
\1.)'=
.1:Z
~.s
1-1
0
r.:...
9
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08108/12 Page10 of 13
1
Marcus § 2983» (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). In detennining
2
whether to appoint a receiver, the Court "may consider a host of relevant factors," and "no one
3
factor is dispositive." Id. at 845. In short, the Court's equitable powers in detennining whether or
4
not to appoint a receiver are "broad" in nature." Id.
5
In support of its request for receivership, SBA argues that it reviewed Novus's proposed
6
Wind Down Plan and projections prior to filing this action, and allowed Novus three years to
7
attempt to self-liquidate. Mot. at 12-15; Reply at 15. Novus has remained in a condition of
8
extreme capital impainnent (greater than 100%) for more than three years and has repeatedly failed
9
to meet its proposed projections, and SBA argues that these facts alone justify appointment ofSBA
10
CIS
's
1:.£
=:.=
U
U~
....
~o
QCIS
.- it)
1"-1 .1-0
CI.~
1"-10
.!a
So
oo,€
"=0
!Z
.: 0
;:J.s
11
as receIver.
Novus, along with four of its Limited Partners who were granted leave to file a special
12
appearance and supplemental briefin opposition to Plaintiff's motion, argues that receivership is
13
unwarranted under the circumstances. First, Novus argues that SBA has not alleged any fraudulent
14
conduct on Novus's part. Opp'n at 6. Second, Novus argues that "the evidence shows that the
15
value of Nov us' portfolio is actually increasing substantially and should be enough to ensure that
16
the SBA's investment is returned in fuJI, along with a return to private limited partner investors."
17
Opp'n at 13-14. To support this argument, Novus submits two valuation reports projecting that the
18
value of two ofNovus's most significant investments, mBlox, Inc., and Pathwork Diagnostics, Inc.,
19
will increase significantly between now and the end of2014 or 2015. See Timmins Decl. Ex. B;
20
Gerogosian Decl. Ex. B. Third, Novus argues that SBA has not shown that it would be more
21
successful in maximizing the value of Novus's assets than would Novus's Managing Directors.
22
Opp'n at 14-15. Novus argues that "the SBA has a terrible track record of maximizing the value of
23
the assets ofSBICs that it places in receivership," due in large part to SBA's alleged lack of
24
expertise and knowledge in the companies and industries in which the SBICs are invested. Id. In
25
contrast to the SBA, Novus's Managing Directors are seasoned venture capitalists with specific
26
industry expertise and are thus in a better position to liquidate Novus's portfolio to maximize
27
returns. See generally Lahann Decl.; Dec!. of Dan Tompkins ("Tompkins Decl."); Schuster Decl.
28
Moreover, Novus's Managing Directors have a stronger incentive than does the SBA to maximize
1-0
0
'"'"
10
Case No.: 12-CV-OOS23-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page11 of 13
the return for all of Novus's investors, because not only have the Managing Directors invested a
2
substantial amount of their own money (collectively, more than $1.2 million) into Novus, but also
3
they want to protect the business relationships they have with the Limited Partners. Lahann Decl. ~
4
16. Furthermore, Managing Directors not only invest in Novus's portfolio companies, but also sit
5
on the boards of these companies and actively participate in their management, and if a
6
receivership is imposed, Novus's portfolio companies "will lose the valuable support and guidance
7
of the Managing Directors." Opp'n at 16; see Gerogosian Decl. Ex. B at 10-17. Finally, Novus
8
argues that it has formulated and has been executing a reasonable Wind Down Plan, whereas the
9
SBA has failed to propose its own plan for operating Novus and for liquidating its assets. Opp'n at
10
\.'II
's
1:..£
11
16-17.
In reply to Novus's arguments, SBA argues that there is no basis in law for accepting
==
12
Novus's own independent valuations of assets, which do not apply the SBA's special valuation
U
U <+-<
...
.- .....
....
....
13
criteria, as a basis for denying receivership. Reply at 17. Furthermore, SBA argues that even the
.- .....
14
two independent valuation reports submitted by Novus do not fully support Novus's argument that
~\.'II
c; 0
"'1;)
~
Q.~
GrjO
.!S
=G)
~'€
IS
no receivership is warranted. Id. at 18. For example, one of the valuations notes that "the timing
16
of these recoveries as stated early in this Report[] extend beyond the currently approved Wind up
G)
17
plan that Novus is operating under." Gerogosian Decl. Ex. B at 14. Thus, even Novus's own
18
evidence confirms that the current liquidation plan is inadequate. Finally, SBA argues that neither
19
Novus nor the Limited Partners explain how leaving Novus's current management in place would
20
cure Novus's ongoing regulatory violations, which have persisted since 2006. Under the current
21
management, Novus first entered a condition of capital impairment over six years ago, and since
22
2009 has maintained a condition of extreme capital impairment in excess of 100%. See SUpp.
23
Reply at 3-4. Furthermore, Novus's efforts to liquidate pursuant to its Wind Down Plan have been
24
unsuccessful, as Novus has consistently recovered far less than its projections.
!~
=
1=l;S
....
0
j:.I;.,
25
As noted above, the Act authorizes this Court to appoint SBA as receiver of any SBIC
26
licensee in violation of the Act or its implementing Regulations, ''unless the court deems such
27
appointment inequitable or otherwise inappropriate by reason of the special circumstances
28
involved." 15 U.S.C. § 687c(c). Having considered the parties' arguments and evidence
11
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page12 of 13
presented, the Court is not persuaded that appointment of SBA as receiver for Novus would be
2
"inequitable or otherwise inappropriate by reason of the special circumstances involved." 15
3
u.S.C. § 687c(c); cf. Marathon, 399 F. Supp. 2d at 3 (granting SBA receivership upon finding,
4
among other things, that the licensee had failed to address why appointing SBA as receiver would
5
be inequitable). Here, although there are no allegations of fraudulent conduct on Novus's part,
6
there is no dispute that: (1) SBA has a valid claim to a debt of$39.5 million in outstanding
7
Leverage; (2) Novus first entered a condition of capital impainnent in excess of 60% in 2006, over
8
six years ago; (3) Novus has remained in a condition of not only capital impainnent but extreme
9
capital impainnent since 2009, and its percentage of capital impainnent has been steadily
10
increasing; (4) SBA has forborne from seeking receivership until now, allowing Novus at least
S
11
three years to attempt to self-liquidate under its Wind Down Plan; (5) Novus has been unable to
==
C:>C\J
12
meet its projections under its Wind Down Plan; and (6) SBA is entitled to seek injunctive relief,
ColO
........
13
and specifically appointment of receivership, upon demonstrating Novus's violation of the Act or
14
Regulations. In light ofNovus's inabiJity to cure its capital impainnent condition over several
!s
.... u
15
years, despite extended opportunities to do so, SBA has adequately shown that its request for
-ct:
!» 0
.i:: Z
u
i:;l-6
16
receivership is reasonable and would not yield an inequitable result.
C\J
....
t::J3
U
U~
....
... 0
~'E
....
~.~
file
!:I.)..c
=
17
Although Novus has explained why it believes receivership is not necessary, its arguments
r...
0
~
18
do not adequately identify any special circumstances that would render receivership inequitable.
19
As SBA points out, courts have routinely granted injunctive relief and appointed a receiver to take
20
charge of the assets of an SBIC on the basis of capital impainnent and other similar violations of
21
the Act and Regulations. See Vanguard J, 667 F. Supp. at 261; Vanguard II, 694 F. Supp. at 1227
22
28; Norwood, 273 F. Supp. at 240 n.8; Marathon, 299 F. Supp. 2d at 3 n.l. The Court finds that
23
the facts of this record merit appointing the SBA as receiver. Accordingly, the Court takes
24
exclusive jurisdiction ofNovus and all of its assets, wherever located, and further appoints SBA as
25
receiver ofNovus, pursuant to 15 u.S.C. § 687c(b) and (c).
26
2. Consent
27
As an alternative basis for seeking receivership, SBA argues that Novus already consented
28
to receivership as part of the 2008 Wind Down Agreement. Because the Court finds that the SBA
12
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INruNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECEIVER
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document44 Filed08/08/12 Page13 of 13
1
has shown entitlement to injunctive relief and receivership ofNovus pursuant to 15 U.S.c. § 687c,
2
the Court need not address Novus's argument that the consent was fraudulently obtained and thus
3
void.
4
5
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief and
6
appointment ofSBA as receiver under 15 U.S.C. § 687c. The Court hereby incorporates by
7
reference the Proposed Order of Receivership filed by Plaintiff in conjunction with the motion. See
8
ECFNo.18-12.
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
·s
t:"£
~
11
==
12
... to-..
~
10.. U
13
Ill'"'
Dated: August 8, 2012
14
C>~
UU
0
........
........
........
~.~
III
0
.ae
.au
15
"C~
16
tI)-C
!Z
au
;;;J;S
'0"'
~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
Case No.: 12-CV-00523-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND APPOINTMENT OF SBA AS RECENER
Case5:l2-cv-00523-LHK Document18-l2 Filed04/l9/l2 Pagel of 6
MELINDA HAAG, CA No. 132612
2
United States Attorney
JOANN M. SWANSON, CA No. 88143
3
Chief, Civil Division
EDWIN L. JOE, CA No. 112328
4
Special Assistant United States Attorney
5
6
7
8
455 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-2420
Telephone:
(415) 744-8494
Facsimile:
(202) 481-1810 or (415) 744-6812
Email:
edwin.joe@,sba.gov
CHRISTOPHER 1. MCCLINTOCK, VA Bar No. 68417
ARLENE M. EMBREY, FL Bar no. 0125539
10
Trial Attorney
II
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Small Business Administration
12
409 Third St., S.W.
Washington, DC 20416
13
Telephone: (202) 205-7715
14
Facsimile: (202) 481-5497
Email: christopher.mcclintock@,sba.gov
9
15
16
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
18
19
20
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
21
Plaintiff,
22
v.
23
24
NOVUS VENTURES II, L.P.,
25
26
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No: CV 12-cv-00523 LHK
ORDER OF
RECEIVERSHIP
Date: August 30, 2012
Time: 1:30 pm
Ctrm: 8, 4th Floor
280 So. 1st St, San Jose
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh
27
28
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP, No. 12-cv-00523 LHK
Page 1
CaseS:12-cv-OOS23-LHK DocumenU8-12 Filed04/19/12
Page2 of 6
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
2
I.
Pursuant to the provisions of 15 U .S.C. § 687c, this Court takes exclusive
3
jurisdiction of NOVUS VENTURES II, L.P. ("Novus") and all of its assets and property,
4
5
of whatever kind and wherever located, and the United States Small Business
6
Administration ("SBA") is hereby appointed Receiver of Nov us ("Receiver") to serve
7
without bond until further order of this Court. The Receiver is appointed for the purpose
8
of marshaling and liquidating in an orderly manner, all of Novus's assets and satisfying
9
the claims of creditors therefrom in the order of priority as determined by this Court.
10
II
2.
The Receiver shall have all powers, authorities, rights and privileges
12
heretofore possessed by the officers, directors, managers, investment advisors and other
\3
agents ofNovus under applicable state and federal law, by the Certificate of Limited
14
Partnership and Agreement of Limited Partnership of said limited partnership, in addition
15
16
to all powers and authority of a receiver at equity, and all powers and authority conferred
17
upon the Receiver by the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 687c and 28 U.S.C. § 754. The
18
trustees, directors, employees, managers, investment advisors and agents of Novus are
19
hereby dismissed. Such persons shall have no authority with respect to Novus's
20
operations or assets, except to the extent as may hereafter be expressly granted by the
21
22
23
24
25
Receiver. The Receiver shall assume and control the operation ofNovus and shall pursue
and preserve all of its claims.
3.
The past and/or present officers, directors, managers, investment advisors,
agents, trustees, attorneys, accountants, and employees ofNovus, as well as all those
26
27
28
acting in their place, are hereby ordered and directed to tum over to the Receiver
forthwith all books, records, documents, accounts, and all other instruments and papers of
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP, No. 12-cv-00523 LHK
Page 2
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document18-12 Filed04/19/12 Page3 of 6
and relating to Novus and its assets and all other assets and property of the corporation,
2
whether real or personal. The Receiver will provide reasonable access to all participants
3
with regard to any investment in the Novus portfolio. The former General Partner and/or
4
5
other agent ofNovus, shall furnish a written statement within five (5) days after the entry
6
of this Order, listing the identity, location and estimated value of all assets ofNovus as
7
well as the names, addresses and amounts of claims of all known creditors ofNovus.
8
Within thirty (30) days following the entry of this Order, such person shall also furnish a
9
written report describing all assets. All persons having control, custody or possession of
10
II
any assets or property ofNovus are hereby directed to tum such assets and property over
12
to the Receiver.
13
4.
The Receiver shall promptly give notice of its appointment to all known
14
officers, partners, directors, agents, employees, shareholders, creditors and debtors of
15
16
N ovus, as the Receiver deems necessary or advisable to effectuate the operation of the
17
receivership. All persons and entities owing any obligation or debt to Novus, until
18
further ordered by this Court, shall pay all such obligations in accordance with the terms
19
thereof to the Receiver and its receipt for such payments shall have the same force and
20
effect as ifNovus had received such payments.
21
22
5.
The Receiver is hereby authorized to open such Receiver's accounts at
23
banking or other financial institutions to extend credit on behalf ofNovus, to utilize SBA
24
personnel, and to employ other such personnel as it may deem necessary to effectuate the
25
operation of the receivership including, but not limited to, attorneys, accountants, and
26
appraisers, and is further authorized to expend receivership funds to compensate such
27
28
personnel in such amounts and upon such terms as the Receiver shall deem reasonable in
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP, No. 12-cv-00523 LHK
Page 3
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document18-12 Filed04/19112 Page4 of 6
light of the usual fees and billing practices and procedures of such personnel. The
2
Receiver is not required to obtain Court approval prior to the disbursement of
3
receivership funds for payments to personnel employed by the Receiver or for expenses
4
5
that the Receiver deems advantageous to the orderly administration and operation of the
6
receivership. In addition, the Receiver is authorized to reimburse the SBA for travel
7
expenses incurred by SBA personnel in the establishment and administration of the
8
receivership. The Receiver may, without further order of this Court, transfer,
9
compromise, or otherwise dispose of any asset (including without limitation any claim)
10
11
12
13
other than real estate.
6.
Novus's past and/or present partners, officers, directors, agents,
accountants, managers, shareholders, employees, debtors and creditors ofNovus and
14
other appropriate persons (including without limitation, the defendant's portfolio of small
15
16
business concerns and financial institutions doing business with defendant and/or
17
defendant's portfolio of small business concerns) shall answer under oath to the Receiver
18
all questions which the Receiver may put to them in compliance with the Federal Rules
19
of Civil Procedure, and pursuant thereto shall produce any documents as required by the
20
Receiver regarding the business of said corporation, or any other matter relevant to the
21
22
operation or administration of the receivership or the collection of funds due to Novus.
23
In the event that the Receiver deems it necessary to require the appearance ofthe
24
aforementioned persons, the production of documents, infonnation, or any other
25
discovery concerning the assets, property or business operations ofNovus, or any other
26
matter relevant to the operation or administration of the Receivership or the collection of
27
28
funds due to Novus, the Receiver shall make its discovery request(s) in compliance with
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP, No. 12-cv-00523 LHK
Page 4
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document18-12 Filed04/19112 Page5 of 6
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
7.
The parties, or any prospective parties, to any and all civil legal
3
proceedings of any nature, excluding the instant proceeding, but including without
4
5
limitation bankruptcy proceedings, arbitration proceedings, foreclosure actions, default
6
proceedings, or other actions of any nature involving Novus or any assets ofNovus,
7
including subsidiaries, partnerships and other business combinations ofNovus, wherever
8
located, or involving Novus, the Receiver, or any of Novus's past or present officers,
9
directors, managers, agents, or general or limited partners sued for, or in connection with,
10
11
any action taken by them while acting in such capacity of any nature, whether as plaintiff,
12
defendant, third-party plaintiff, third-party defendant, or otherwise, are enjoined from
13
commencing or continuing any such legal proceeding, or from taking any action, in
14
connection with any such proceeding or any such asset. All civil legal proceedings of
15
16
any nature, excluding the instant proceeding, but including without limitation bankruptcy
17
proceedings, arbitration proceedings, foreclosure actions, default proceedings, or other
18
action of any nature involving Novus or any assets ofNovus, including subsidiaries,
19
partnerships and other business combinations ofNovus, wherever located, and excluding
20
the instant proceeding, or involving Novus, the Receiver, or any of Novus' past or
21
22
present officers, directors, managers, agents, or general or limited partners sued for, or in
23
connection with, any action taken by them while acting in such capacity of any nature,
24
whether as plaintiff, defendant, third-party plaintiff, third-party defendant, or otherwise,
25
are stayed in their entirety, and all Courts having any jurisdiction thereof are enjoined
26
from taking or permitting any action until further Order of this Court.
27
28
8.
Further, as to a cause of action accrued or accruing in favor of Novus
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP, No. 12-cv-00523 LHK
PageS
,
Case5:12-cv-00523-LHK Document18-12 Filed04/19/12
Page6 of 6
against a third person or party, any applicable statute of limitation is tolled during the
2
period in which this injunction against the commencement of legal proceedings is in
3
effect as to that cause of action.
4
5
9.
Novus and its past and/or present directors, officers, managers, general or
6
limited partners, agents, investment advisors, employees and other persons acting in
7
concert or participating therewith be, and they hereby are, enjoined from either directly or
8
indirectly taking any actions or causing any such action to be taken which would
9
dissipate the assets and/or property ofNovus to the detriment of the Receiver appointed
10
11
in this cause, including but not limited to destruction of corporate records, or which
12
would violate the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 661 et.
13
seg., or the regulations promUlgated thereunder ("Regulations"), 13 C.F .R. Part 107.
14
10.
The Receiver is authorized to borrow on behalf ofNovus, from the SBA,
15
16
up to $500,000 and is authorized to cause Novus to issue Receiver's Certificated of
17
Indebtedness in the principal amounts of the sums borrowed, which certificates will bear
18
interest at or about 10 percent per annum and will have a maturity date no later than 18
19
months after the date of issue. Said Receiver's Certificates of Indebtedness shall be
20
deemed to be administrative expenses of the Receivership.
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED,
23
DATED this _ _ day of _ _, 2012.
24
25
26
Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
27
28
ORDER OF RECEIVERSHIP, No. 12-cv-OOS23 LHK
Page 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?