will impose a figure, perhaps sometime soon. His view on how Par operated could be an important factor in his decision. Court precedent permits bigger penalties for firms deemed to have been corrupt.
Par resumed paying investors later, albeit with returns cut by half. All payments to investors were then halted after the SEC filed suit in July 2020.While Par insists that it could have kept on operating smoothly, the SEC and a court-appointed receiver have painted a far more negative picture of its operation.
In April, SEC senior trial counsel Amie Riggle Berlin outraged the defendants by flatly labeling their business in court as a Ponzi operation. Under an agreement with the judge, she later agreed not to use the term — but all the while accusing Par of the same conduct. In May, her amended demand for money from the defendants still said they “operated Par Funding as a fraudulent scheme and also used investor money to pay purported investment returns.
Glick said the receiver’s expert “erroneously alleges” that Par “was a Ponzi Scheme.” In fact, he wrote, “a forensic analysis” of the firm’s books “demonstrates that cash flows from merchants were sufficient to cover principal and interest payments made.”