Premium 72 Capital, Llc

Allegations: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, PLAITIFF ALLEGED HE IS OWED $25,000 Status: Pending Summary: SANDLAPPER WEALTH MANAGMENT LIEN FOR APPROXIMATELY $25,000

Allegations: 1) FINRA STATED THAT NICOLAYEVSKY NEEDED TO BE A PRINCIPAL OF A BROKER DEALER TO CONDUCT AND BE PART OF ITS DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS; HOWEVER, NICOLAYEVSKY NEVER ACTED NOR PERFORMED ANY DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS WITHIN THE BD BUT ACTED AS A DIRECTOR OF THE BD'S BOARD COMMUNICATING TO BD'S MANAGEMENT ON COMPANY'S STRATEGY AND CHOICE OF OFFICERS. THE NORMAL TASKS ANY DIRECTOR (NON-REGISTERED DIRECTOR) ON ANY COMPANY IS ENTITLED TO DO. 2) FINRA CLAIMS THAT NICOLAYEVSKY APPLIED OF AN SBA PPP LOAN THAT BELONGED TO BROKER DEALER. HOWEVER, SBA ALLOWED PEOPLE WITH 20%+ EQUITY OF A CORPORATION TO APPLY FOR A PPP LOAN. AT THE TIME OF REQUESTING THE PPP LOAN, NICOLAYEVSKY WAS 24% OWNER OF THE BD. THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT SBA MADE SEVERAL MISTAKES IN APPROVING NICOLAYEVSKY'S APPLICATIONS, AS NICOLAYEVSKY RECEIVED TWO PPP LOANS (ONE WAS RETURNED), AND SEVERAL APPROVAL LETTERS FROM SBA FOR DIFFERENT COMPANIES (THE RIA AND THE BD), DIFFERENT AMOUNTS, FOR DIFFERENT BANKS, ETC. 3) FINRA CLAIMS THAT NICOLAYEVSKY VIOLATED FINRA'S REGULATIONS, AS HE COULD NOT USE THE BROKER DEALER'S CASHFLOW AS A COLLATERAL OF A LOAN. NEVERTHELESS, BOTH THE SBA AND NICOLAYEVSKY'S BANK HAD USED BD'S CASH FLOW AS COLLATERAL FOR NICOLAYEVSKY'S SBA LOAN. MOREOVER, UNDER SBA REGULATIONS, AFTER NICOLAYEVSKY BECAME NEW OWNER OF THE BD, HE AND HAD COMPLETE CONTROL OF BD'S CASH FLOW. FURTHERMORE, NICOLAYEVSKY ACTED IN HIS BEST EFFORTS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH, FINRA (NOT INVOLVED IN ANY DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF BD NOR TOUCHING ANY OF BD'S MONEY), AND WITH SBA, ACTING AS A NON-REGISTERED DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, MANAGING THE BD'S MONEY, STRATEGY AND HIGH-RANKING OFFICERS OUTSIDE THE COMPANY, AS THE CHAIRMAN OF BD'S BOARD DIRECTORS; IN THE SAME MANNER ALL MEMBERS OF ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE COMPANY'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS DO. Status: Pending Summary: PENDING