Never Forget, here's our Nevada law firms that received more than $1 million from the PPP bailout:
Pereira & Associates (14 employees)
Bighorn Law (81 employees)
Glen Lerner (65 employees)
Harris Law Firm (88 employees)
Heidari Law Group (12 employees)
Hutchison & Steffen (93 employees)
J. Bruce Alverson (92 employees)
Kaempfer Crowell (63 employees)
Kolesar & Leatham (10 employees)
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada (150 employees)
Marquis Aurbach Coffin (61 employees)
McDonald Carano (90 employees)
But don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.
Exactly @10:19. I cannot believe the criticism I am seeing on this blog about firms taking PPP money to save jobs. Complete head scratcher. Bravo to my firm for protecting its people.
How exactly did Pereira & Associates, with 14 employees, get $5M or more, while, for example, Bighorn or Harris with 4-5 times those numbers get approved for less than that?
10:19 – The deadline to apply isn't over until like the middle of August, so more freeloaders like you can continued to apply even if they have dumb leadership.
I would suggest that including Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada on your hall of shame list is misplaced. To compare a non-profit organization whose attorneys are hardly getting rich and for whom the majority of their employees aren't even attorneys with commercial law firms is misplaced.
And even then I feel that the real question is how much of the subsidization went to actually keeping people employed versus what dropped down into overhead. If the bulk went to law firm employees without excessive compensation to senior partners, well then that's what it was supposed to do.
Yo 10:40, what makes you think they took the money to save jobs? I know one of these firms laid people off, crying poor because of Covid and citing that as the reason for the lay-offs. Then the firm got the PPP money and has not made any effort to rehire any of their laid off people with that money. 11:03 had it right. They took the money because it was free money, courtesy of taxpayers.
Yo, @2:11 here- name the firm. What firm took money to save jobs and then misused it? "They didn't take the money because …. quit characterizing the group. Call out the jackasses but don't blame everyone. You're like the teacher who punishes the entire class if one kind does something wrong.
There is very precise rules on how the ppp money can be spent. If you do not use it properly, the payback terms are nasty. The documentation required to get the loan "cancelled" is being closely audited. Will there be abuses? yes but to make a blanket statement that the money was pocketed and not used to retain employees is simply wrong.
How did we make $500bn in PPP “loans” whilst generating next to zero impact on profile of job losses, asks Raj Chetty. A: The firms that took the loans were those that knew they were not going to have to lay off workers! It was free money. https://inquiry.substack.com/p/8-raj-chetty-the-economic-impacts
The lawsuit of the bars is a stupid waste of money for the clients, and will be incredibly unsuccessful and expensive litigation for clients who are already financially in dire straits due to an inability to operate their taverns.
I do not agree with the governor rolling the bars back to phase #1,and in fact I strongly disagree with it. But this ligation will be an expensive drain on tavern owners who are already suffering from a dramatic reduction in income.
The only hope they have is to get it to a jury and then anything could admittedly happen. But it will take a very expensive few years before they could ever get it to a jury, and by that time the issue will probably be largely moot as we will either have climbed out of this hole or society itself will have largely collapsed. If in a couple years, society is still stuck in these roll back pandemic phases as to any viable operations, we will have such a distinctly different society by then that some lawsuit, filed three years earlier, complaining about gin mills being rolled back to phase #1, will be moot and quite ludicrous by that time.
But some might say, but what about early litigation motions that may start over the next few months? Could not the Plaintiffs prevail on any of those? The answer is absolutely, categorically "No." No District Judge, nor any COA or NSC justice dealing with a writ, will carve out exceptions, in favor of alcohol servers, to the shockingly broad "emergency powers" of the executive branch.
No judicial officer will rule that even though the gubernatorial powers remain totally in effect as to how to deal with most aspects of the pandemic, that there will be a carve out exception for alcohol servers, while companies providing much more critical services directly linked to the economic vitality of the state and employment rates, remain under the rather draconian gubernatorial edicts.
The irony is that I hold the Kennedy Bailey firm in very high esteem. But I am mystified by what they perceive as their trajectory of success.
The harsh truth, which the bar owners will soon realize, is this apparently disparate and unfair treatment of them is only temporary in the sense that it appears that all of us, and all aspects are pretty much in the process of being rolled back to Phase #1.
And that is shocking and highly disturbing to me. But I know I am correct that tavern owners will not receive any preferential treatment or any sort of judicial reversal of the executive branches shockingly broad emergency powers. No judge will tread in that direction.
Guest
Laughlin Constable Jordan Ross
July 15, 2020 7:53 pm
Treasurer Conine is absolutely correct that the initial rental assistance funding isn't enough. Constables are well aware of the pending backlog of residential eviction actions that will break out in a torrent come September 1st. This is going to be a social disruption from one end of the country to the other that government cannot ignore.
Guest
Anonymous
July 15, 2020 7:56 pm
12:38–the intention is to deal with all this immediately and aggressively via law and motion. I doubt they are wondering how they would fare at a trial three years down the road, and it will never get nearly that far.
The bars are looking for some immediate relief. They claim they are being treated unfairly compared to other businesses. The governor's response, in part, is that for other businesses people get in and out and make their purchases, while in bars people linger for many hours. A somewhat unfair and inaccurate distinction.
But the problem may be that if the bars are successful in convincing courts and the government that they are being treated unfairly, I doubt the bars will be relieved from these restrictions. Instead, what may occur is other businesses are rolled back to the Phase #1 restrictions the bars have been reversed back to.
Guest
Anonymous
July 15, 2020 8:54 pm
How did the governor's medical advisors determine that the cause was tied to bars and not casinos? People linger in casinos as long as, or longer, than bars. He didn't close down the casinos, which have bars and restaurants, and restaurants with bars.
His "advisors" are lobbyists and low brow backroom deals, with a little input from the DNC that the only way to defeat Trump is to destroy the economy and foster an environment of fear.
If you want to play the math game, know that Clark County, with a population of around 2,267,000, has had 502 Covid-19 deaths. That means that 99.978% of the folks in Clark County have survived Covid-19 thus far. Stop being manipulated by fear.
Never Forget, here's our Nevada law firms that received more than $1 million from the PPP bailout:
Pereira & Associates (14 employees)
Bighorn Law (81 employees)
Glen Lerner (65 employees)
Harris Law Firm (88 employees)
Heidari Law Group (12 employees)
Hutchison & Steffen (93 employees)
J. Bruce Alverson (92 employees)
Kaempfer Crowell (63 employees)
Kolesar & Leatham (10 employees)
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada (150 employees)
Marquis Aurbach Coffin (61 employees)
McDonald Carano (90 employees)
But don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.
Never forget, this guy works for a firm with leadership too dumb to accept take free money from the government.
Exactly @10:19. I cannot believe the criticism I am seeing on this blog about firms taking PPP money to save jobs. Complete head scratcher. Bravo to my firm for protecting its people.
Never forget, 10:19 works for one of the 12 law firms listed above.
How exactly did Pereira & Associates, with 14 employees, get $5M or more, while, for example, Bighorn or Harris with 4-5 times those numbers get approved for less than that?
10:19 – The deadline to apply isn't over until like the middle of August, so more freeloaders like you can continued to apply even if they have dumb leadership.
As they say on the Wire, I'll take any motherf***ers money if he's giving it away.
What's a Pereira & Associates?
I would suggest that including Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada on your hall of shame list is misplaced. To compare a non-profit organization whose attorneys are hardly getting rich and for whom the majority of their employees aren't even attorneys with commercial law firms is misplaced.
And even then I feel that the real question is how much of the subsidization went to actually keeping people employed versus what dropped down into overhead. If the bulk went to law firm employees without excessive compensation to senior partners, well then that's what it was supposed to do.
I think that
And Glen Lerner is giving away free washing machines ever day on your money on taxpayer's bailout, but who are we to complain?
Yo 10:40, what makes you think they took the money to save jobs? I know one of these firms laid people off, crying poor because of Covid and citing that as the reason for the lay-offs. Then the firm got the PPP money and has not made any effort to rehire any of their laid off people with that money. 11:03 had it right. They took the money because it was free money, courtesy of taxpayers.
Yo, @2:11 here- name the firm. What firm took money to save jobs and then misused it? "They didn't take the money because …. quit characterizing the group. Call out the jackasses but don't blame everyone. You're like the teacher who punishes the entire class if one kind does something wrong.
Al Bundy will live on in my heart and then the heart of my descendants.
There is very precise rules on how the ppp money can be spent. If you do not use it properly, the payback terms are nasty. The documentation required to get the loan "cancelled" is being closely audited. Will there be abuses? yes but to make a blanket statement that the money was pocketed and not used to retain employees is simply wrong.
How did we make $500bn in PPP “loans” whilst generating next to zero impact on profile of job losses, asks Raj Chetty. A: The firms that took the loans were those that knew they were not going to have to lay off workers! It was free money.
https://inquiry.substack.com/p/8-raj-chetty-the-economic-impacts
FIRST
I mean SECOND
The lawsuit of the bars is a stupid waste of money for the clients, and will be incredibly unsuccessful and expensive litigation for clients who are already financially in dire straits due to an inability to operate their taverns.
I do not agree with the governor rolling the bars back to phase #1,and in fact I strongly disagree with it. But this ligation will be an expensive drain on tavern owners who are already suffering from a dramatic reduction in income.
The only hope they have is to get it to a jury and then anything could admittedly happen. But it will take a very expensive few years before they could ever get it to a jury, and by that time the issue will probably be largely moot as we will either have climbed out of this hole or society itself will have largely collapsed. If in a couple years, society is still stuck in these roll back pandemic phases as to any viable operations, we will have such a distinctly different society by then that some lawsuit, filed three years earlier, complaining about gin mills being rolled back to phase #1, will be moot and quite ludicrous by that time.
But some might say, but what about early litigation motions that may start over the next few months? Could not the Plaintiffs prevail on any of those? The answer is absolutely, categorically "No." No District Judge, nor any COA or NSC justice dealing with a writ, will carve out exceptions, in favor of alcohol servers, to the shockingly broad "emergency powers" of the executive branch.
No judicial officer will rule that even though the gubernatorial powers remain totally in effect as to how to deal with most aspects of the pandemic, that there will be a carve out exception for alcohol servers, while companies providing much more critical services directly linked to the economic vitality of the state and employment rates, remain under the rather draconian gubernatorial edicts.
The irony is that I hold the Kennedy Bailey firm in very high esteem. But I am mystified by what they perceive as their trajectory of success.
The harsh truth, which the bar owners will soon realize, is this apparently disparate and unfair treatment of them is only temporary in the sense that it appears that all of us, and all aspects are pretty much in the process of being rolled back to Phase #1.
And that is shocking and highly disturbing to me. But I know I am correct that tavern owners will not receive any preferential treatment or any sort of judicial reversal of the executive branches shockingly broad emergency powers. No judge will tread in that direction.
Treasurer Conine is absolutely correct that the initial rental assistance funding isn't enough. Constables are well aware of the pending backlog of residential eviction actions that will break out in a torrent come September 1st. This is going to be a social disruption from one end of the country to the other that government cannot ignore.
12:38–the intention is to deal with all this immediately and aggressively via law and motion. I doubt they are wondering how they would fare at a trial three years down the road, and it will never get nearly that far.
The bars are looking for some immediate relief. They claim they are being treated unfairly compared to other businesses. The governor's response, in part, is that for other businesses people get in and out and make their purchases, while in bars people linger for many hours. A somewhat unfair and inaccurate distinction.
But the problem may be that if the bars are successful in convincing courts and the government that they are being treated unfairly, I doubt the bars will be relieved from these restrictions. Instead, what may occur is other businesses are rolled back to the Phase #1 restrictions the bars have been reversed back to.
How did the governor's medical advisors determine that the cause was tied to bars and not casinos? People linger in casinos as long as, or longer, than bars. He didn't close down the casinos, which have bars and restaurants, and restaurants with bars.
His "advisors" are lobbyists and low brow backroom deals, with a little input from the DNC that the only way to defeat Trump is to destroy the economy and foster an environment of fear.
Yes. 35 thousand people died from covid in Italy just to deny Trump reelection.
If you want to play the math game, know that Clark County, with a population of around 2,267,000, has had 502 Covid-19 deaths. That means that 99.978% of the folks in Clark County have survived Covid-19 thus far. Stop being manipulated by fear.
Ely is hiring for a city attorney if folks are looking: https://jobs.nvbar.org/link.cfm?c=iCn5MZpxPdzm