Page 16 - CLT083120

16 ¦ AUGUST 31, 2020 NEWS

¦ From FEDERAL on PAGE 15 The court also dismissed the
that an agent may collect, which plaintiff ’s state law claim of un-
is 1% for loans less than $350,000, just enrichment based on similar
0.50% for loans of more than reasoning. It also dismissed the
$350,000 and less than $2 mil- state law claim based on conver-
lion, and 0.25% for loans over $2 sion and contract implied in law,
million. The decision states the because the plaintiff failed to al-
In the order, Wetherell stated lege any direct benefits conferred
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and on the lenders, finding that the
that Section 7(a) of the Small Economic Security Act, also fees the lenders earned were only
Business Act required an agent known as the CARES Act, indirect benefits.
to execute a compensation “does not require lenders to
agreement on SBA Form 159, pay the agent’s fees absent Ryan said this court opinion

specifying the portion of the an agreement to do so.” means people cannot view the

agent fee to be paid by the bor- CARES Act in a vacuum.
rower and the lender. “You have to look at it in the
But neither Sport & Wheat nor context of a broader regulatory
the borrower filed the form, nor scheme under the SBA,” Ryan
did Sport & Wheat have an agree- said. “Now, we have more insight
ment with the lenders regarding with this opinion of how courts
their claimed agent fees. Based on that omission, the are picking apart the CARES Act and the regula-
court held that the lenders had no legal obligation to tions, and how they are going to rule in future cases
pay any agent fees. under this line of thinking.”
¦

Division Over Roberts’ Louisiana Abortion
Opinion Flares Up in Lower Courts

By Marcia Coyle
Federal judges ruling in a recent spate of cases that trial and appellate judges are supposed to use to
divided over how to apply the U.S. Supreme resolve abortion-related matters.
Court’s latest, and fractured, abortion rights de- The legal wrangling presents a fresh opportunity
cision in June that struck down a Louisiana law that for courts to resolve how to interpret Supreme Court
regulated abortion clinics. “plurality” decisions.
The U.S. Justice Department and state anti-abor- In its 1977 ruling in Marks v. United States, the
tion officials and groups rely on a 1977 Supreme court stated: “When a fragmented court decides a
Court ruling in arguing that the concurring opin- case and no single rationale explaining the result
ion by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in the Louisiana enjoys the assent of five justices, the holding of the
case altered the standard for judging the constitu- court may be viewed as that position taken by those
tionality of abortion regulations and controls all the members who concurred in the judgments on the
disputes going forward. narrowest grounds.”
On the other side, reproductive rights advocates The abortion context is just the latest example of
contend Roberts’ vote in the Louisiana case—June the confusion created by the Marks rule “not only
Medical Services v. Russo—did not alter the standard in the lower courts but in the Supreme Court itself

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune