Category: Financial Services Law

What to Do Now With Your CARES Act PPP Loan

A Warning

Those who have obtained Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans (or have applied or been approved for such loans but not yet received the loan proceeds) have been warned by the U.S. federal government to make sure that they, in fact, qualify for the loans. Secretary Mnuchin exonerated lenders who processed the loans and warned that it is the borrowers themselves who sign the application and make the relevant certifications who face potential criminal action for false certifications. Borrowers have now been given a grace period until May 7, 2020, to repay loans they may have obtained “based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of the required certification standard.” This short — now less than one-week — period gives PPP loan borrowers very little time to act and is aggravated by the ambiguity of applicable regulatory and other guidance as discussed below.

Thinking About What to Do

Borrowers are, and should be, asking, “what do we do about our PPP loan?” They are doing so in a unique moment. Indeed, a former member of a Congressional oversight board following the last financial crisis opined in the Wall Street Journal: “[B]orrower beware! Businesses with flexibility should seriously consider to what extent accepting the terms of federal loans or other support may be a Faustian bargain. The ultimate cost may dramatically outweigh the temporary gain.” Understanding the issues that inform the answer to this question, unfortunately, involves some detailed analysis as discussed below.

Broad Loan Availability Initially Heralded and Broad CARES Act Approach

The signing into law of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)on March 27, 2020, was heralded as a critical response to the COVID-19 economic crisis. The PPP loan program was enacted to make $349 billion of loan funds broadly available to qualifying businesses so that those businesses could keep their employees employed. In fact, following enactment, the federal government repeatedly encouraged businesses to apply for (and lenders to quickly process) PPP loans. Even as late as April 15, 2020, Secretary Mnuchin announced that “[w]e want every eligible small business to participate and get the resources they need.” In order to broaden its reach, the CARES Act affirmatively took action to cut back eligibility restrictions in the existing Small Business Administration (SBA) loan program through which PPP loans are administered, including:

  • suspending the requirement that borrowers must not be able to obtain credit elsewhere;
  • repealing the requirement that liquid owners contribute capital alongside an SBA loan;
  • creating a presumption that loan applicants were adversely impacted by COVID-19; and
  • reducing the breadth of the complex affiliation rules.

The SBA itself even published guidance allowing borrowers to restructure their governance arrangements to qualify for a loan.

A Continuing Changing Landscape; Making a Decision to Keep a PPP Loan

Since the passage of the CARES Act, the landscape has continued to evolve — sometimes daily — with ongoing guidance from the SBA and Treasury, whether in the form of Interim Final Rules (immediately effective upon publication in the Federal Register without first soliciting public comment due to the emergency nature of the situation), FAQ guidance from the SBA with new questions and answers added frequently over the past month, or mere public statements by public officials. Through the end of April — just a month into the CARES Act — seven formal Interim Final Rules for the CARES Act have been issued and 12 updates to the SBA’s FAQs on the PPP have been published. It has been difficult to find clear guidance and sure footing, even before the most recent government warnings.

A Sudden Shift in Approach

On April 23, 2020, after significant press reporting and commentary on those participating in the PPP loans, the SBA and Treasury Secretary abruptly shifted course with the publication of a new FAQ (Question 31) stating that the certification each borrower makes in its application that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant” must be made “in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business” (emphasis supplied). As to specific examples where certification might raise questions or get a closer look, an April 23 FAQ highlighted large public companies and an April 24 Interim Final Rule highlighted Private Equity (PE) portfolio companies. On April 28, Secretary Mnuchin made public comments promising audits of all loan amounts over $2 million, and then — also on April 28 — the SBA updated its FAQs twice to highlight this new certification interpretation as also applicable to private companies and to formalize the $2 million audit threshold requirement. In other words, virtually all borrowers must be cognizant of the certification that they made in their loan application.

What Does the Certification Mean?

Unfortunately, there is no real guidance as to what this certification means. However, one thing is certain — this certification and the question of access to “other sources of liquidity” will be judged in retrospect. It is anyone’s guess how long the “look back” risk will exist. Our experience is that these kinds of after-the-fact examinations have a long life. In this respect, a borrower may legitimately ask how it knows if it has access to liquidity — must a public company try to test the capital markets; must a PE fund owner consider drawing down on undrawn commitments or fund level credit agreements to fund a highly distressed portfolio company; will VC-backed companies be judged poorly in this context if their investors have large amounts of so-called “dry powder” to invest; and will private business owners have to evaluate their own wealth, liquidity positions, and borrowing capacity? These are all questions that have no ready answer through current SBA rules or guidance. The fact that the CARES Act “suspended” the normal requirement that a borrower be unable to obtain credit elsewhere and repealed the requirement of liquid owners to contribute capital has simply not been reconciled with the SBA’s new scrutiny on available liquidity, as the Treasury and SBA have leaned hard into the statutory certification requirement that any loan request must be “necessary.” Borrowers and applicants would be excused from asking what it means for the SBA to require liquidity that is not “significantly detrimental to the business.” Does that mean “significantly detrimental” to the current business owners (whether public company stockholders, PE or VC fund investors, or the owners of private businesses themselves) in terms of dilution or the like, or does this important phrase instead mean just what it says — such alternative available liquidity is not “significantly detrimental to the business” itself (e.g., financing that the business cannot make “work“ for any real period of time and which damages the business as a going concern)? Again, the SBA and Treasury have provided no clear answers.

The Other Key Certification Issue:

As borrowers evaluate their options to return loans before the expiration of the safe harbor on May 7, 2020, they must also focus on compliance with the SBA “affiliation” rules. The affiliation rules are complex and directly impact the question of who may apply for a PPP loan. This is because the way in which the CARES Act defines eligible borrowers largely turns on the number of employees involved, and an applicant must generally (under applicable regulatory guidance and rules, but subject to certain waivers set forth in the CARES Act itself) apply the SBA’s affiliation rules to aggregate its own number of employees with that of all of its affiliates. Thus, the application of the SBA’s affiliation rules is critically important to an applicant’s ability to make another certification in each PPP loan application: that “the Applicant is eligible to receive a loan under the rules in effect at the time this application is submitted that have been issued by the Small Business Administration (SBA) implementing the Paycheck Protection Program ….” So, in addition to the question of necessity for the PPP loan and alternate sources of liquidity, borrowers must ensure that they have considered the application of the affiliation rules (unless otherwise waived) in deciding whether to keep SBA loans.

Who Is an Affiliate Under the CARES Act?

According to the SBA, affiliate status for purposes of determining the number of employees of a business concern for PPP loans works as follows:

  • “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both”;
  • “It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists. Affiliation under any of the circumstances described [in 13 C.F.R. § 121.301(f)] is sufficient to establish affiliation” for applicants for the PPP; and
  • There are four general bases of affiliation that the SBA will consider when determining the size of an applicant: (1) affiliation based on ownership; (2) affiliation arising under stock options, convertible securities, and agreements to merge; (3) affiliation based on management; and (4) affiliation based on identity of interest.

As noted, these affiliation rules are both subtle and complex. Interestingly, even Congress did not seem to get the affiliation rules quite right in the CARES Act. In this regard, there are two SBA-related affiliation rules — rules set forth in 13 C.F.R. § 121.103 (Section 103) and rules set forth in 13 C.F.R. § 121.301 (Section 301). When Congress exempted certain business concerns from the affiliation rules for the PPP, it did so under the Section 103 rules. Yet, according to the SBA April 3 Interim Final Rule, it is, in fact, the Section 301 rules that govern affiliation for the PPP loan program (though the SBA explained that it would, consistent with the Congressional Section 103 waiver, also make that waiver applicable for Section 301).

Uncertainty in Application

As questions have arisen under these affiliation tests, borrowers who relied on them in submitting their application would be well advised to “double check” their analysis with appropriate counsel given the heightened scrutiny that will most certainly be applied in retrospective audits of PPP loan recipients. And, it is not just the application of the four bases of control that have given rise to questions of how the affiliation rules work, but the actual language of the CARES Act itself. In this regard, while the CARES Act clearly waives affiliation rules for “any business concern with not more than 500 employees that, as of the date on which the loan is disbursed, is assigned a North American Industry Classification System [(NAICS)] code beginning with 72,” the CARES Act itself has a separate and more expansive provision for NAICS code 72 companies allowing for more than 500 aggregate employees and which provides: “During the covered period, any business concern that employs not more than 500 employees per physical location of the business concern and that is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72 at the time of disbursal shall be eligible to receive a covered loan.” This seems to be clear and self-executing language. Indeed, both applicable House and Senate publicly available explanations of the CARES Act suggest as much, explaining that a qualifying borrower is “Any business concern that employs not more than 500 employees per physical location of the business concern and that is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72, for which the affiliation rules are waived” (emphasis supplied). But, nowhere has the SBA specifically addressed the question of how these two specific NAICS code 72 provisions of the CARES Act are to be applied in conjunction with one another. Even the SBA FAQs seem to intentionally avoid addressing this issue head-on, leaving borrowers at risk for after-the-fact second-guessing.

The Criminal Issue

Secretary Mnuchin referenced criminal liability for a reason. During the past two decades, for every major crisis this country has witnessed, from the Financial Crisis to Hurricane Katrina, high levels of fraud were identified and addressed post-crisis. From the experience gained in prior disasters, the Department of Justice and other enforcers are well aware that fraud may occur under the CARES Act as well. They almost certainly realize that a strong way to prevent such fraud is to take an early, aggressive stance against misconduct. We would predict that U.S. law enforcement will seek to make extreme examples of the individuals who exploited COVID-19-related government assistance improperly and precluded the assistance from helping those actually in need.

The underlying criminal issues relating to PPP loans are relatively straightforward. The loan application itself makes clear that applicants are required to state they qualify, and advises that there are criminal penalties for knowingly making false certifications. Each applicant, by signing the loan application, makes the following statements:
I further certify that the information provided in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including under 18 USC 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $250,000; under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment of not more than two years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 USC 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000.

This certification is essentially the same certification generally applicable to forms and information required by a bank or the government that involve applications for loans, grants or other financial assistance. The certification provides that if you knowingly mislead or lie on the application, you have committed a felony. However, the one completing such an application should endeavor in good faith to provide correct information. This means not simply guessing or blindly answering to expedite processing of the loan application or superficially making the certifications in question. In short, if you mislead in order to receive a PPP loan or lie to receive forgiveness, there is a material risk that the government will believe a felony has been committed.

As stated above, because of the intense pressure to protect the integrity of the PPP loan program and to deter widespread fraud, government enforcers may well use additional criminal statutes to prevent fraud on the United States and the banks. PPP-related prosecutions may involve the usual bank fraud, wire fraud and other common financial fraud statutes. These specific laws all have the common requisite element of deceit. Further, the government will clearly feel free to use whatever remedies possible to recover ill-gotten PPP money and assess related fines to make the U.S. taxpayers whole through various civil enforcement remedies. To avoid such criminal consequences, borrowers need to exercise their best efforts to provide the government with accurate information. There is no criminal liability for mistakes or inadvertent omissions, but when actions are judged retrospectively, trying to prove a lack of intent is not a situation any borrower would want to face. Of course, possible criminal prosecution is not the only redress or negative consequence that wrongful borrowers may face. There are, for example, civil penalties and actions that can be pursued by regulatory or government authorities, qui tam actions, and possible stockholder or equity holders claims against boards or managers, not to mention the potential negative press.

In Sum – This Much is Clear – Double Check, Document and Be Careful Either Way

It would not be surprising or unreasonable for business owners to ask how they are supposed to act with any comfort as to PPP loans given all the uncertainty noted above, with the Treasury Secretary highlighting criminal penalties in relation to improper applications, and with a new “safe harbor” loan “give back” period running only until May 7. It also would not be surprising to see those borrowers who can find a way to make it without the PPP loan decide to return PPP loan proceeds (or not accept funds that have been approved but not yet been received) — even when they have been truly harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, even when they have always intended to use the loan to keep employees paid exactly as intended by the CARES Act, and even when they believe they qualify for the PPP loan. What is clear from all of the above is that not much is truly clear with respect to the eligibility criteria and certification requirements for PPP loans. What also seems clear — including from the most recent SBA rules issued April 30 stating that the maximum loan amount for a related corporate group will be limited to $20 million — is that loans (even big loans) for qualifying firms are legitimate.

Some Practical Points

Finally, those borrowers who ultimately elect to keep their loans should strongly consider working with counsel to create a contemporaneous, written record to support their certifications or their current decisions to keep those loans based on the certifications that were made at the time of the loan application. There are two key inquiries. First, the borrower should review compliance with the affiliation rules to support the eligibility certification. Second, the borrower should review support for its “necessity” certification, considering (for example) the following questions:

  • What were the specific facts and circumstances showing that the applicant bore financial hardship and faced material economic uncertainty?
  • Did the applicant consider its ability to access capital, including conducting discussions with those who were in a position to provide capital such as the applicant’s current lender(s) and equity holders?
  • Did the applicant prepare a forecast projecting its liquidity position and effect on the operations of not obtaining a PPP loan and that would demonstrate that the loan was necessary to support the ongoing operations of the borrower? Alternatively, did the borrower conduct any other financial review in connection with such certification?

Best practices would then have the foregoing crisply documented and reviewed and approved by the borrower’s board or other governing body. The written record should demonstrate that a bona fide, good-faith effort was undertaken to support the certifications truthfully. If this exercise cannot produce a defensible written record, then the prudent decision may be to return the loan proceeds, ideally before elapse of the grace period for doing so.

Authored by: Trevor J. Chaplick, Peter H. Lieberman & Nathan J. Muyskens  of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

Did Economic Uncertainty Make My PPP Loan Necessary?

The United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) continue to issue information and guidance with respect to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the loans made available under it by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). One of the most recent items of note is the SBA’s updated PPP Loan FAQs, which in particular added FAQ 31 and FAQ 37. The answers to these two questions purport to provide guidance, retroactively, on one of the particular certifications that applicants were required to make in the PPP loan application process. This guidance, not coincidentally, came on the heels of negative press regarding the fact that larger companies (notwithstanding the CARES Act’s waiver of affiliation rules and employee sizes that made them otherwise eligible) were some of the recipients of funds appropriated to the PPP loan program.

So, what are the borrowers in the PPP to make of this? Below is an outline that may be helpful to a borrower that is evaluating next steps in light of this new “guidance” and how it plays into the certification initially made at loan application time.

Good Faith Certification

The PPP loan documents required the applicant to certify in good faith to several items. One of those certifications (Loan Necessity Certification) provided that: “Current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant?” Without having the commentary now available in the PPP Loan FAQs, early borrowers understood that the CARES Act did not require that the business had no other means of obtaining credit. That certainty and clarity was provided by the CARES Act itself, which provided that the requirement that an applicant be unable to obtain credit elsewhere was not applicable to the PPP loans. However, no other guidance or definitions were provided with respect to the Loan Necessity Certification.

Guidance

The SBA’s updated version of its PPP Loan FAQs includes, in pertinent part, the following new items:

31. Question: Do businesses owned by large companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?

Answer: In addition to reviewing applicable affiliation rules to determine eligibility, all borrowers must assess their economic need for a PPP loan under the standard established by the CARES Act and the PPP regulations at the time of the loan application. Although the CARES Act suspends the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere (as defined in section 3(h) of the Small Business Act), borrowers still must certify in good faith that their PPP loan request is necessary. Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business. For example, it is unlikely that a public company with substantial market value and access to capital markets will be able to make the required certification in good faith, and such a company should be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification.

37. Question: Do businesses owned by private companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?

Answer: See response to FAQ #31.

These new FAQs, in effect, modify the Loan Necessity Certification such that additional factors are now part of that certification. Whether these new factors are applicable to all borrowers, or just the “businesses owned by large companies”, is unclear. However, the answers seem to indicate that all borrowers should assess their economic need for the loans with these other factors in mind: (a) their current business activity, and (b) their ability to access other sources of liquidity to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business.

Suggested Steps and Response

So, what should a borrower do in light of these new factors, and apparent change or at least qualifier thrown in midstream?

Unless or until additional information or guidance is provided, we suggest that a borrower revisit the certification that it initially made, and do so with additional attention to the facts and circumstances existing as of the date of the Loan Necessity Certification. If those facts and circumstances have changed since that date to the positive for the borrower and its economic position, then it might be prudent to evaluate the Loan Necessity Certification at two additional points in time: (a) the time it received the loan proceeds, and (b) the date of the newest guidance.

If a borrower revisits its Loan Necessity Certification, and does not feel good about the initial certification, the government is allowing a borrower to return the PPP loan proceeds on or before May 7, 2020, and that borrower will be deemed to have made the Loan Necessity Certification in good faith. This means that the borrower will avoid the possibility of civil or criminal enforcement with respect to that certification.  Although we believe testing of the good faith certification should as of the date it was made, the recent developments and problematic guidance make it unclear whether other points in time might have bearing on the evaluation of a borrower’s Loan Necessity Certification. That is the reason for the mention of testing at additional points of time.

To assist in revisiting the initial Loan Necessity Certification, a borrower should consider working backwards to the point of time in question, and borrower should reduce to writing the consideration and analysis of the economic uncertainty and its needs for the PPP loan. Issues or factors that might be useful in the analysis include:

  • The current and projected impact of COVID-19 to the business, and the uncertainties surrounding those projections, including any communications from customers or clients regarding their level of business with the borrower and their respective economic conditions;
  • Recent history of the business and its performance in the wake of other economic downturns;
  • Existing levels of cash reserves or cash equivalents, and the borrower’s ability to access other sources of capital and what the terms and conditions of such sources of capital might be;
  • Current or projected plans for retention or reduction of workforce or payroll costs of such workforce, and the ability of borrower to reinstate such workforce to pre-COVID-19 levels;
  • Reaction and measures taken by competitors to COVID-19;
  • Actions or measures that borrower is considering, or has already taken, to address the economic uncertainty outside of workforce or payroll reduction.

For the borrower that revisits the Loan Necessity Certification and determines that it did make the certification in good faith, the written work product should be saved in case that part of a borrower’s PPP loan is questioned in the future. In that regard, the Treasury has advised that borrowers receiving $2 million or more of PPP loan proceeds will be audited. The audit will likely focus on the Loan Necessity Certification, as well as other aspects of the loan and loan process, including (i) number of employees, (ii) the determination of the size of the loan, and (iii) use of the loan proceeds.

If the consideration and analysis of the Loan Necessity Certification makes a borrower uncomfortable, then it should consult its advisors and maybe also consider returning the amount of any loan proceeds by May 7th.

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

For more on PPP loan administration, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Class Actions Begin: Plaintiffs Target Banks for PPP Loan Processing

A number of class-action lawsuits have been filed targeting national and community banks for their processing of loans under the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). It is not surprising that disputes have already arisen, given the swift creation of the vital relief program and equally rapid depletion of the $349 billion in initial funding. The suits allege that banks violated the CARES Act and state law by prioritizing high-value and existing customers over other small businesses.  More suits are likely to follow, whether based on similar theories or new ones that arise out of the next round of funding.

Plaintiffs in these class actions have accused banks of inappropriately processing and funding larger loans for “bigger business” clients and favoring current customers over other applicants who were unable to obtain loans before the funding ran out. One of the first class actions, filed in federal court in Maryland, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent banks from prioritizing current bank customers over individuals and businesses that were not current customers of the bank. The court denied plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief, concluded that there is no private right of action under the CARES Act, and found that plaintiffs’ claims were unlikely to survive. See here for a link to the decision. Plaintiffs have appealed to the Fourth Circuit. Two similar class actions have been filed in Texas federal court.

Another class action was filed this week in state court in Texas against a community bank, alleging fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, all arising out of claims that the bank gave preference to customers eligible for larger loans in order to obtain more lucrative fees. Similarly, several small businesses have filed federal class actions in California and New York, accusing banks of false advertising, fraud, violations of state unfair competition law and deceptive trade practices, among others. Additional disputes are likely to arise as small businesses continue to face unprecedented circumstances; reportedly up to 80% of small businesses were unable to obtain loans during the first round of the program.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

For more on CARES Act PPP Loans, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Streamlining Financial Institution Regulation to Encourage Lending

In recent weeks, regulators of U.S. financial institutions have heeded calls to relax or provide temporary relief from a wide array of regulations that are viewed as impediments to lending in the current crisis environment.  Some of these actions were mandated (or reinforced) by provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).  Many of the relevant regulations were enacted following the 2008/2009 financial crisis with the goal of strengthening the capital and liquidity positions of financial institutions and limiting their risk taking. The current economic and credit crisis has brought into clear relief the tensions between protecting and limiting risk-taking of financial institutions, and ensuring that those financial institutions have the capacity to lend to support the economy in a crisis, and the changes below make clear that market participants and regulators are increasingly concerned that certain regulations may limit flexibility and credit formation in a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.  Below we present a summary of some of the most significant recent changes that have been enacted by regulators or via statute. If you have questions about what these changes mean for your business or a financial institution you transact with, please reach out to the listed authors or your regular Polsinelli contacts.

Regulatory Streamlining Changes That Have Been Recently Adopted:

  • Changes to Financial Institution Capital Requirements in Connection with Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP):  Existing capital requirements may constrain lending by increasing the amount of equity or other capital that banks must have to support expanded lending, particularly loans that would be assigned a higher risk weighting under existing capital rules.  Additionally, the Federal Reserve’s PPP Lending Facility operates by lending to banks against PPP loans they have originated, which would also have a regulatory capital impact to participating institutions.  To provide liquidity to small business lenders and relief to small businesses, a provision in the CARES Act [1], as implemented with a joint interim final rule issued by the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators [2], (1) provides that PPP loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) will be assigned a zero risk weight under the risk-based capital rules and (2) effects changes to the regulatory capital treatment of utilizing the PPP Lending Facility, which, together, should neutralize the regulatory capital effect of banks increasing lending under the PPP and financing those loans via the Federal Reserve’s PPP Lending Facility.

  • Limiting Troubled Debt Restructurings (TDRs) Determinations: Generally, under U.S. GAAP, lenders are required to treat loans modified due to borrower financial distress as TDRs, which triggers additional reporting obligations and accounting requirements.  Federal and State bank regulators have acted to collectively encourage financial institution to work with borrowers have indicated that they and will not direct supervised institutions to automatically categorize COVID-19 related loan modifications as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs). [3]  Additionally, the CARES Act allows lenders to suspend such determinations, with certain limitations, with respect to loan modifications from March 1, 2020 through the earlier of December 1, 2020 and 60 days after the end of the declared public health emergency. [4]

  • Delay of Application of Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) to Financial Institutions: FASB auditing standards require that financial institutions recognize the inherent losses in their loan and lease portfolios. CECL is a new methodology for measuring the inherent losses, and requires lenders to estimate and report expected credit losses at origination of a loan, rather than when a loan becomes distressed. The Federal Reserve and other banking agencies issued a joint interim final rule authorizing an extension in the transition period for implementing the full effects of CECL, which is intended to delay any impact that CECL might have on regulatory capital (and therefore lending). [5]  Additionally, the CARES Act specifies that insured depository institutions, bank holding companies and affiliates would not be required to adopt the standard prior to the earlier of December 31, 2020 and the termination of the declaration of national emergency—however market participants have raised questions about whether that would still require them to comply for the 2020 reporting period. [6]  Separate adoption dates apply for smaller financial institutions, and have also been delayed.

  • Temporary Change to Federal Reserve Supplementary Leverage Ratio Rule: The Supplementary Leverage Ratio applies to large financial institutions to limit their total leverage exposure. The change would exclude U.S. Treasury securities and deposits at Federal Reserve Banks from the calculation until March 31, 2021, and would therefore allow those institutions to expand their balance sheets and potentially provide additional credit to households and businesses. [7]

  • Temporary Change to Community Bank Leverage Ratio: Under existing law, qualifying community banking organizations have the option to adopt a simplified 9% leverage ratio in lieu of complying with the full panoply of BASEL III capital rules (those financial institutions meeting the leverage ratio requirement are generally deemed to be well capitalized for prompt corrective action purposes). A provision of the CARES Act, [8] as implemented by interim final rules of the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators, temporarily reduces the applicable leverage ratio to 8% (with a graduated transition to 8.5 % in 2021 and back to 9% thereafter) and provides for a grace period for covered institutions whose leverage ratios fall below the applicable requirement. [9]

  • Technical Changes to Total Loss Absorbing Capital Rules (“TLAC”): TLAC rules require global systemically-important  banks to maintain loss-absorbing long term debt and other tier 1 capital at specified levels.  The Federal Reserve System revised the definition of eligible retained income for purposes of the TLAC rules. This technical change allows covered companies to continue to lend and utilize their capital buffers in a gradual manner without severely constraining their ability to distribute capital. [10]

  • Deferral of Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Transactions Affected by COVID-19: The federal banking agencies have issued a final interim rule [11] allowing lenders to defer certain appraisals and evaluations for up to 120 days after closing of residential or commercial real estate loan transactions to provide temporary relief by enabling regulated institutions to continue to close loans even if they are unable to arrange an appraisal/evaluation ahead of closing. [12] Real estate transaction involving acquisitions, development and constructions are excluded from the scope of the interim final rule. The temporary relief provisions will expire on December 31, 2020, unless extended. The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) will consider a similar proposal on April 16, 2020. [13] The federal agencies along with NCUA and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have issued a joint statement offering guidance and describing temporary changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appraisal standards to provide assistance to lenders. [14]

  • Federal Reserve Regulatory Reporting Relief for Small Institutions: The Federal Reserve will not take action against a financial institution with $5 billion or less in total assets for submitting its March 31, 2020, Consolidated Financial Statements for Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-9C) or Financial Statements of U.S. Nonbank Subsidiaries of U.S. Bank Holding Companies (FR Y-11) after the official filing deadline, as long as the applicable report is submitted within 30 days of the official filing due date. [15] The federal financial institution regulators and state regulators also offer similar relief to financial institutions affected by COVID-19. [16]

  • Temporary Modification to Wells Fargo Growth Restriction Order: One of the consequences of the Wells Fargo account opening scandal was a 2018 Consent Order that, among other things, restricted Wells Fargo’s asset growth until it met certain requirements. In light of the extraordinary events related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve amended that order to temporarily lift the asset restriction to allow Wells Fargo to continue lending without violating the limits in the order. [17]

  • Six-Month Delay of the Federal Reserve’s Revised Control Framework:  The Revised Control Framework would have changed the determination of “control” for purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act and therefore the application of certain bank regulatory requirements.  The delay moves the effective date to September 30, 2020 to give additional time for implementation as well as for institutions to consult with the Federal Reserve on the effect of the change. [18]

  • Early adoption of Standardized Approach for Measuring Counterparty Credit Risk Rule (“SA-CCR”): SA-CCR is a new methodology for measuring counterparty credit risk of derivatives contracts for regulatory capital purposes, The Federal Reserve and other banking regulators issued a joint notification allowing the companies early adoption of SA-CCR by banks and bank holding companies, with the intent that the early adoption could reduce regulatory capital requirements and therefore encourage lending. [19]

[1] 26 U.S.C. §1102.

[2] Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Regulatory Capital Rule: Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility and Paycheck Protection Program Loans (amending Sections 32 and 131 of the capital rule) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200409a1.pdf.  See, 12 CFR 3.2, 12 CFR 3.32(a)(1)(iii), 12 CFR 3.131(e)(3)(viii) and 3.305 (OCC); 12 CFR 217.2, 12 CFR 217.32(a)(1)(iii), 12 CFR 217.131(e)(3)(viii) and 12 CFR 217.305 (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 324.2, 12 CFR 324.32(a)(1)(iii), 12 CFR 324.131(e)(3)(viii) and 12 CFR 324.304 (FDIC).

[3]  Federal Reserve et al. Press Release, Agencies Provide Additional Information to Encourage Financial Institutions to Work with Borrowers Affected by COVID-19 (March 22, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200322a.htm. See, also, Federal Reserve et al. Press Release, Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (March 22, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200322a1.pdf; Federal Reserve et al. Press Release, Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working With Customers Affected by the Coronavirus (Revised) (April 7, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200407a1.pdf.

[4] 26 U.S.C. §4013.

[5] Federal Register, Regulatory Capital Rule: Revised Transition of the Current Expected Credit Losses Methodology for Allowances (March 31, 2020) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06770/regulatory-capital-rule-revised-transition-of-the-current-expected-credit-losses-methodology-for.

[6] 26 U.S.C. §4014.

[7] Federal Reserve Press Release, Federal Reserve Board announces temporary change to its supplementary leverage ratio rule to ease strains in the Treasury market resulting from the coronavirus and increase banking organizations’ ability to provide credit to households and businesses (April 1, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200401a.htm.

[8] 26 U.S.C. §4012.

[9] Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Regulatory Capital Rule: Temporary Changes to the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, (amending 12 CFR Chapters I, II and III), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200406a1.pdf; Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Regulatory Capital Rule: Transition for the Community Bank Leverage Ratio Framework, (amending 12 CFR Chapter I, II and III), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200406a2.pdf

[10] Federal Register, Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity, Long-Term Debt, and Clean Holding Company Requirements for Systemically Important U.S. Bank Holding Companies and Intermediate Holding Companies of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations: Eligible Retained Income (March 26, 2020) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/26/2020-06371/total-loss-absorbing-capacity-long-term-debt-and-clean-holding-company-requirements-for-systemically.

[11] Federal Reserve, Interim Final Rule, Real Estate Appraisals (amending 12 CFR 34, 12 CFR 225 and 12 CFR 323), https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200414a1.pdf. See, 12 CFR 34.43 (OCC); 12 CFR 225.63 (Federal Reserve); 12 CFR 323.3 (FDIC).

[12] Federal Reserve et al., Press Release, Federal Banking Agencies to Defer Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Transactions Affected by COVID-19 (April 14, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200414a.htm. 

[13] Id.  

[14] Federal Reserve et al., Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Related Financial Transactions Affected by the Coronavirus (April 14, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20200414a2.pdf.

[15] Federal Reserve Press Release, Federal Reserve offers regulatory reporting relief to small financial institutions affected by the coronavirus (March 26, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200326b.htm.

[16] FFIEC Press Release, Financial Regulators Highlight Coordination and Collaboration of Efforts to Address COVID-19 (March 25, 2020) https://www.ffiec.gov/press/pr032520.htm.  

[17] Consent Order, In the matter of Wells Fargo & Company, Docket No. 20-007-B-HC, United States of America before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Washington, D.C., filed April 8, 2020, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/enf20200408a1.pdf.

[18] Federal Reserve Press Release, Federal Reserve Board announces it will delay by six months the effective date for its revised control framework (March 31, 2020) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/bcreg20200331a.htm. 

[19] Federal Register, Standardized Approach for Calculating the Exposure Amount of Derivatives Contracts (March 31, 2020) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06755/standardized-approach-for-calculating-the-exposure-amount-of-derivative-contracts

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

For more on COVID19 related lending, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Issues Facing Commercial Mortgage Lenders in the COVID-19 Pandemic

The far-reaching impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic will create challenges for commercial mortgage lenders and their borrowers. Rents, and therefore borrowers’ ability to make debt service payments, will be curtailed as, for example, retail tenants are forced to shutter their businesses and apartment dwellers face economic hardship on a rising tide of unemployment. In this environment, lenders will face tough decisions on how to proceed with transactions that have yet to close and with closed transactions that are running into trouble.

Deals in the Pipeline

In the commercial real estate world, whether you are a borrower or a lender, one question you will be asked countless times during the pandemic is, “What do you have in the pipeline?”

From the commercial mortgage lender’s perspective, the pipeline likely means the loan transactions for which a term sheet or a commitment letter has been issued to a borrower, and for which no closing date has been set or for which various closing conditions have not yet been satisfied. Most loans require as a closing condition that on the date of closing, no adverse change in the economic viability of the project or the borrower shall have occurred since the date the loan terms were agreed upon. Given the extreme economic uncertainty now pertaining in the United States, and virtually everywhere else, it is hard to imagine a lender with deals in the “pipeline” that is not asking, “Do I have to fund?”

Many times the answer to this will be found in the list of closing conditions set forth in the term sheet or commitment letter. The condition addressing material adverse changes can vary greatly from lender to lender and deal to deal. One version of this condition is the following: “The absence of any material disruption or material adverse change in current financial, banking, or capital market conditions that in the sole judgment of the lender, could materially impair the loan.” The clause may also appear more simply and require only that there is “no material change in the market value of the project or condition of the borrower.”

As long as this terrible pandemic is impacting the country, it would seem to be nearly impossible for a lender to be able to accurately underwrite an asset under existing conditions, even one for which it had planned to lend against as recently as two and a half weeks ago. Borrowers who have based major equity investments and personal guaranties on the value of a project will have the same concerns.

However, there are borrowers that retain confidence of the same level as they had a month ago, and who may insist on closing. It will behoove lenders with deals in the pipeline to immediately review the closing conditions in their documents to determine the answer to “Do I have to fund?”  If the answer is “no,” a lender could decide to either close regardless or terminate the transaction. However, a third option also exists, whereby a lender could invoke the material adverse change clause as the basis for introducing new lender protections to the deal. For example, a lender could require that the borrower fund a debt service reserve at closing, require additional guaranties, or require that the loan terms include cash management features such as a lockbox.

Modifications to Loans That Have Closed

With the economy in turmoil, borrowers will be contacting secured lenders to discuss their actual or anticipated inability to make debt service payments. Most lenders will require that borrowers in distress propose specific modification terms, as opposed to non-specific requests for relief. A borrower might request modifications such as a reduction in the interest rate, the conversion of an amortizing loan to require interest-only payments for a period, or some other waiver, reduction or deferral of payments. A borrower might also want to take the approach of adding investors to its capital stack, and therefore request that the lender consent to the addition of one or more new equity partners.

When faced with such requests, a lender will need to perform its underwriting on the proposed modifications to determine their feasibility and prudence. It would therefore be appropriate for a lender to ask for additional property and financial information and reports, perform a site visit, and require additional due diligence materials such as title, judgment and lien searches.

Such borrower requests for relief also present the lender with an opportunity to better protect itself. Upon receiving a loan modification request, a lender should review its loan file in order to identify and correct any deficiencies.The following are but a few of the inquiries that should be included in such a review of the loan file. Are any documents missing?  Have all documents been properly recorded or filed?  Do the documents contain any errors?  Is all insurance up to date with the lender properly named?

In the end, a lender might agree to the borrower’s requested loan modifications (or some variation thereof). The lender could also add its own conditions to the changes requested by the borrower. For example, a lender could require new reserves, a letter of credit or other additional collateral, a new guaranty and/or new cash management arrangements.

If some sort of a deal seems possible, the lender should require a pre-negotiation agreement before discussing terms. If it turns out that a deal is not to be had, the lender might agree to enter into a forbearance agreement, in order to give its borrower time to turn things around or find takeout financing. Both of these types of agreements are discussed in more detail below.

Pre-Negotiation Agreements

Before having any substantive discussions, the lender should require any borrowers and guarantors (the “Borrower Parties”) sign a “pre-negotiation” or “pre-workout” agreement (“PNA”) in order to allow the parties to have frank and open discussions about a potential resolution to the borrower’s distress. The PNA should, at a minimum, provide the current status of the loan, including the admission of any defaults, and have the Borrower Parties admit the genuineness of the loan documents. The PNA should also (1) provide that any negotiations, discussions, draft documents, or loan modification proposals are non-binding until a definitive agreement is executed, (2) include provisions preserving the lender’s rights and remedies under the loan documents, (3) provide for the mutual termination of the PNA by either party for any reason, and (4) confirm the ground rules governing settlement discussions, including that all discussions and writings be confidential and inadmissible for evidentiary purposes. Finally, and most controversially, the lender could require a full general release from the Borrower Parties to protect the lender from future lawsuits.

Forbearance Agreements

Because a lender may want to give the Borrower Parties some breathing room, one option is for the lender and Borrower Parties to execute a forbearance agreement. The purpose of such agreement is for the lender to agree to wait to begin exercising remedies (namely, foreclosure or suing personal guarantors), while giving the borrower time for the economy to recover or to seek refinancing. In exchange for the lender agreeing not to proceed against the Borrower Parties, the Borrower Parties should reaffirm the validity of the loan documents, the amount due on the loan, and provide the lender with a general release through the date of the Forbearance Agreement. The lender also can require the borrower to make reduced payments during the forbearance period. Lastly, the parties could use the forbearance agreement to cure any defects in the loan documents discovered after closing.

Conclusion

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic spells bad news for commercial mortgage borrowers. In this environment, lenders will need to re-examine transactions that are currently in their pipelines. In addition, lenders should expect an uptick in requests for relief from borrowers of closed loans. In these uncertain times, lenders will need to be careful and exercise diligence in deciding how to proceed with troubled properties.

© Copyright 2020 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

For more on COVID-19 impacts on real estate and beyond, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Regulators Provide No Meaningful Relief or Guidance to Financial Institutions Struggling with Bank Secrecy Act and Compliance Due to COVID-19

While many disclosure and reporting requirements imposed on regulated entities are being relaxed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has taken a different approach with respect to financial institutions’ duties to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). In an April 3, 2020, release – one of just two issued by the agency in response to COVID-19 – FinCEN recognized that “financial institutions face challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic,” but confirmed that it “expects financial institutions to continue following a risk-based approach” to combat money laundering and related crimes and “to diligently adhere to their BSA obligations.” 1

Thus, even as financial institutions reduce personnel to attempt to weather the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 and limit in-office personnel to comply with state quarantine orders, financial institutions must maintain adequate staff and resources to ensure BSA compliance. In the world of broker-dealers in securities, these BSA obligations generally revolve around complying with anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program requirements, analyzing transactions for potentially suspicious activity and preparing and timely filing suspicious activity reports (SARs).

As detailed below, with very limited exceptions, regulators have offered broker-dealers no relief from these obligations as a result of business disruptions caused by COVID-19.  Indeed, these already onerous burdens may be heightened by the increased risks of fraud, insider trading and other unusual financial activity by customers in these times of financial uncertainty. This “business as usual” attitude denies the reality that companies are coping with stay-at-home orders in the best-case scenarios and employees at home infected and unable to work in the worse-case scenarios.

FinCEN Requires Broker-Dealers to Implement Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Programs and SAR Reporting

In the PATRIOT Act of 2001, Congress required that all broker-dealers establish and implement AML programs designed to achieve compliance with the Bank Security Act (BSA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including the requirement that broker-dealers file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with FinCEN.2

Under FinCEN’s regulation, a broker-dealer “shall be deemed” to satisfy the requirements of Section 5318(h) if it, inter alia, “implements and maintains a written anti-money laundering program approved by senior management” that complies with any applicable regulations and requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for anti-money laundering programs.3 Required program requirements include the implementation of “policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the BSA,” independent testing, ongoing training, and risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence.4  FinCEN also required broker-dealers to establish and maintain a “customer identification program” (CIP) designed to help broker-dealers avoid illicit transactions through “know your customer” directives.5  FINRA largely duplicated these requirements in FINRA Rule 3310.

FinCEN also promulgated broker-dealer SAR filing requirements that largely mirror those applicable to banks. In short, a broker dealer is required to file a SAR on any transaction “conducted or attempted by, at or through a broker-dealer,” involving an aggregate of at least $5,000, where the broker-dealer “knows, suspects or has reason to suspect that the transaction” or “a pattern of transactions” involves money laundering, structuring, unusual and unexplained customer activity or the use of the broker-dealer to “facilitate criminal activity.”6  Broker-dealers must file SARs within “30 calendar days after the date of the initial detection” by the broker-dealer “of facts that may constitute a basis for filing a SAR.”7

These requirements are strictly enforced and sanctions for noncompliance can be extreme for both broker-dealers and their responsible officers and employees. Enforcement actions for “willful” noncompliance frequently result in civil money penalties against firms exceeding $10 million. In December of 2018, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York brought the first ever criminal action against a U.S. broker-dealer for a willful failure to file a SAR to report the illicit activities of one of its customers.8 In addition, because the primary purpose of an AML program is to detect and report suspicious activity, a failure to file SARs frequently gives rise to separate claims for violations of both the SAR filing and AML compliance program requirements.

Regulators Offer No Meaningful Relief from BSA Obligations Regardless of the Logistical issues Resulting from the COVID-19 Crisis

Despite recognizing the challenges broker-dealers and other financial institutions face in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, to date regulators have offered no meaningful relief from the regulatory burdens imposed by the SAR and AML program requirements of the BSA. These steps are currently limited to:

  • FinCEN has created an “online contact mechanism” for “financial institutions to communicate to FinCEN COVID-19 related concerns while adhering to their BSA obligations,” but indicated that volume constraints may limit it to responding “via an automated message confirming receipt to communications regarding delays in filing of BSA reports due to COVID-19.”9

  • FinCEN also opaquely encouraged “financial institutions to consider, evaluate and, where appropriate, responsibly implement innovative approaches to meet their BSA/anti-money laundering compliance obligations.”10

  • FINRA “reminded” broker-dealer members that they have until December 31, 2020 to perform the annual independent testing of the member’s AML compliance program.11

The creation of a hotline and a directionless suggestion to “innovat[e],” at the risk that doing so incorrectly may expose a firm to criminal charges or regulatory enforcement actions, are of little practical use or comfort to firms. In short, it is business as usual for broker-dealers and other financial institutions with respect to their AML and SAR obligations under the BSA, even as they grapple with heightened compliance challenges because of COVID-19.

Heightened BSA Compliance Challenges Surrounding COVID-19

The AML program and SAR reporting requirements under the BSA create substantial compliance burdens even in the best of times. These obligations are resource-heavy, requiring yearly testing, ongoing monitoring of customers and transactions at the broker-dealer for potentially suspicious activity and dedicated personnel and systems to review transactional and customer information and to prepare SARs.

In addition, determining when a SAR filing is required is no easy task. The SAR regulation, as detailed above, is both expansive and vague, equally applying to transactions that may be criminal in any respect, may involve funds from other illegal activity or that may simply be unusual for a customer. Most broker-dealer compliance personnel are not trained in law enforcement, and yet are expected to analyze a host of characteristics about a particular customer and a particular trade to determine whether the transaction crosses an ill-defined threshold of suspiciousness, and to do so within 30 days. Law enforcement and regulators, such as the SEC, by contrast, frequently take years to investigate potentially illicit activity. While guidance issued by regulators has identified a number of “red flags” designed to help compliance personnel identify suspicious transactions, any of these red flags may seem innocuous or explainable in a given transaction, particularly in the limited time provided for review, leaving firms and compliance personnel open to regulatory second-guessing, with the benefit of hindsight, and at the risk of significant sanctions for interpreting the situation incorrectly.

A recent GAO report from August 2019, evaluating the effectiveness of BSA reporting, indicated that affected industry participants have raised questions about “the lack of a feedback loop or clear communication from FinCEN, law enforcement and supervisory agencies on how to most effectively comply with BSA/AML requirements, especially BSA reporting requirements.”12  Representatives from the securities industry in particular raised concerns that “compliance expectations are communicated through enforcement actions rather than through rulemaking or guidance.13

Of course, these are not the best of times. On March 16, 2020, FinCEN warned financial institutions to “remain alert about malicious or fraudulent transactions similar to those that occur in the wake of natural disasters.”14 As relevant to broker-dealers, FinCEN warned about an increase in insider trading, imposter scams, and COVID-19 related “investment scams,” such as promotions that falsely claim the products or services of publicly traded companies can prevent, detect or cure coronavirus.15

While this conduct, if occurring, is undoubtedly criminal, it is often unclear what steps a broker-dealer must take and what indicia of suspicion it must find before it is required to identify a trade as sufficiently suspicious for SAR reporting.  For example, with respect to the COVID-19 related “investment scams,” at what point does the broker-dealer, in the exercise of due diligence, unearth enough indicia that this issuer may be misrepresenting the efficacy of its product or services in preventing or treating COVID-19 to create at least a “reasonable suspicion” of fraud?  The signs may be very subtle and overlooked by compliance personnel at the time, but characterized as glaring red flags by regulators after the fact.

Similarly, a sudden spike in trading volume and price could be indicative of a pump-and-dump scheme, particularly where media coverage and a microcap stock are involved. However, with the current volatility of this market, large volume and price swings are increasingly common. And, the media is adding to the frenzy, and following the lead of the administration, by rushing to report any and all potential COVID-19 treatments.  Such developments can make it difficult for firms to separate suspicious trading activity from innocuous activity, causing them to either fail to file a SAR where they should or filing a SAR where they should not.

Compounding the difficulty of the analysis, the broker-dealer’s customer – and the putative subject of the SAR – will not be the issuer, but generally someone who is trading in the stock.  Accordingly, even if the there is a reason to suspect that the issuer or persons associated with the issuer are involved in an “investment scam,” this does not necessarily mean that the transaction at issue is suspicious within the meaning of the SAR regulation. The trading customer may simply be reacting to the news in buying or selling the securities at issue, as either an opportunistic trader or a victim of a potential issuer fraud, neither of which would appear to raise any indicia of suspicion for SAR reporting.

An examination of the totality of the circumstances of a transaction can help firms make the crucial distinctions between transactions that warrant a SAR and those that do not.  For example, determining the source of the publicity –is it a CNN article or a paid newsletter – or whether the customer is affiliated in some way with the issuer or the promotion are questions, among many others, that must be investigated.

It is unfortunate that FinCEN has failed to provide any meaningful or practical guidance for financial institutions dealing with these heightened risks of fraud during a period when they may have difficulty in even staffing their offices. Performing this work remotely creates its own challenges, given high level of confidentiality of SAR filings under Section 5318(g)(2), and the consequences – including criminal liability – for violating these confidentiality provisions.

Nonetheless, that is the situation broker-dealers are in, and this is likely the point:  FinCEN, law enforcement and regulatory agencies do not want to relax these requirements because of the heightened risks of financial crime during the pandemic and the government has become accustomed to this front-line reporting from private businesses. Even in these unprecedented times of economic disruption, broker-dealers must protect themselves from regulatory criticism and enforcement actions by continuing to follow their AML compliance programs and conducting the necessary due diligence on each transaction they process.

1  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/financial-crimes-enforcement-network-provides-further-information-financial

2  31 U.S.C. §5318(h), (g)

3  31 C.F.R. § 1023.210

4  Id.

5  31 C.F.R. § 1023.220

6  31 C.F.R. § 1023.320(a)(2)

7 31 C.F.R. § 1023.320(b)(3)

8 https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-bank-secrecy-act-charges-against-kansas-broker-dealer.

9 https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/financial-crimes-enforcement-network-provides-further-information-financial

10  Id.

11  https://www.finra.org/rules-guidance/key-topics/covid-19/faq#aml

12   See GAO-19-583, Agencies and Financial Institutions Share Information but Metrics and Feedback Not Regularly Provided (August 2019), at pp. 3-4.

13   Id. at 24

14  https://www.fincen.gov/news/news-releases/financial-crimes-enforcement-network-fincen-encourages-financial-institutions.

 15  Id.

Copyright © 2020 by Parsons Behle & Latimer. All rights reserved.

For more on COVID-19’s financial implications, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

SBA Provides Guidance on Affiliation Rules for Paycheck Protection Program

Many issues have arisen related to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) “affiliation rules” for determination of whether a small business is eligible for a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which is part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).

Since April 3, 2020, the SBA has provided guidance relating to the PPP, including guidance titled “Affiliation Rules Applicable to U.S. Small Business Administration Paycheck Protection Program,” and a Letter Re: Size Eligibility and Affiliation Under the CARES Act. The SBA has also provided responses to a number of FAQs posted on the SBA’s website and updated through April 7, 2020. Pursuant to this guidance, the SBA has modified the affiliation rules (which are codified 13 C.F.R. §§121.103 and 121.301, the “Rules”) for purposes of determining eligibility for a PPP loan [1].

What Is a Small Business Generally?

One of the bedrock principles for SBA loans is that they are to be provided solely to “small businesses.” The SBA has generally defined a small business as one with fewer than 500 employees [2]. To ensure loans are not provided to larger businesses, the SBA enacted the Rules, which aggregate the number of employees of multiple affiliated businesses (each, a “Business Concern”). Although affiliation is generally determined based on control, the Rules are encompassing and provide the SBA with significant flexibility to determine if affiliation exists under a variety of circumstances. Such flexibility permits the SBA to look beyond a Business Concern’s creative structuring to determine if affiliation exists and exclude a Business Concern from meeting the SBA’s definition of a small business.

In practice, the Rules have generally prevented Business Concerns backed by private equity and venture capital investors (as a majority or minority investors) from receiving SBA loans because of the multiple investments typically maintained by these investors. Given the breadth of the Rules, many Business Concerns appeared to be initially ineligible for PPP loans, and therefore, the SBA has provided additional guidance which modifies the Rules (the “Modified Rules”) to permit certain Business Concerns to be eligible for PPP loans. Except as specifically addressed in the Modified Rules and the SBA and Treasury guidance with respect to the same, the Rules remain in full force and effect. Of particular importance, the SBA has opined that the Modified Rules waive the affiliation rules with respect to any Business Concern receiving financial assistance from a company licensed under §301 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and such affiliation rules are waived no matter the amount of the financial assistance or whether there are other non-SBIC investors.

Modified Affiliation Rules

Although the Modified Rules are more limited in determining affiliation, the principle of aggregating the number of employees for a Business Concern that is controlled by a common entity or person (the “Presumed Owner”) remains in place. Under the Modified Rules, affiliation exists, and therefore the number of employees of a Business Concern is aggregated, in the following situations:

  • Affiliation Based on Common Ownership: If the majority of equity (stock, membership interests, partnership interests, etc.) of two or more entities is owned by the Presumed Owner, then the employees of such entities will be aggregated as the same Business Concern. In the most obvious instance, this would involve a Presumed Owner that owns greater than 50 percent of the equity of one or more business entities. As noted below, however, a Presumed Owner cannot circumvent the Modified Rules by divesting its equity in exchange for options, convertible securities or similar contractual rights to ownership.
  • Affiliation Based on Control: If the Presumed Owner has contractual rights to control two or more entities (even if such rights are not exercised), then the employees of such entities will be aggregated as the same Business Concern. Mere ownership of equity is not the sole determinative factor, and a Presumed Owner that owns a minority amount (or no amount) of the equity of an entity can be determined to be in control of such entity if such Presumed Owner has potential ownership of the entity (via options to purchase equity, convertible securities or equivalent) [3] or can control the management of such entity (via contractual rights that prevent a quorum of the governing body or otherwise prevent the governing body or equity holders from controlling the direction of such entity) [4]. This determination is based on contractual rights and therefore, agreements to negotiate future acquisitions, consolidations or mergers (such as letters of intent) do not alone cause an affiliation of entities.
  • Affiliation Based on Common Management: If two or more entities are managed by common management (same governing bodies, officers, managers, directors, partners, etc.), then the employees of such entities will be aggregated as the same Business Concern. Affiliation is also determined if a Presumed Owner can control, directly or indirectly, the management of two or more entities.
  • Affiliation Based on Familial Relations: If two or more entities are owned or managed by “close relatives” [5] and have identical or substantially identical business or economic interests, then the employees of such entities will be aggregated for SBA loan eligibility purposes. Unlike the Modified Rules for control and common management, this presumption may be rebutted by a potential borrower that can show that the interests are separate (e.g., in the case of estranged parties).

Based on the guidance provided by the SBA, the Modified Rules only supersede the Rules in specific instances, such as the elimination of the economic-dependence and common-investment affiliation rules that were in effect under the Rules. The remainder of the Rules, however, including the ability of the SBA to assess size eligibility and affiliation issues based on the totality of the facts and circumstances with respect to a Business Concern, should be presumed to remain in full force and effect.

The guidance provided by the SBA has been fluid in nature and is subject to ongoing modification. Given that and the potential criminal sanctions upon borrowers that seek PPP Loans in contradiction with the Modified Rules, we recommend having an open dialogue with your lender and that you err on the side of over-disclosure in all applications relating to PPP loans. In addition, if you have heeded the SBA’s advice and already applied for a loan under the PPP, you are entitled to rely upon the laws, rules and guidance that were available to you at the time you submitted your application; provided, if your application has not yet been processed, you are also entitled to update such application if your underlying assumptions and analyses are affected by subsequent regulations and interpretations.

If you have questions about small business loans and the PPP’s affiliation rules, we encourage you to reach out to your Much attorney.

  1. Under the Act, the Rules are waived for any business a) with 500 or fewer employees, that as of the date the PPP loan is disbursed, is assigned a North American Industry Classification System code beginning with 72, b) that is operating as a franchise with a franchise identifier assigned by the SBA, or c) that receives financial assistance from a company licensed under §301 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 681). Furthermore, under the Religious Exemption Guidance, the Rules do not apply to persons or entities that are affiliated based on a faith-based relationship.
  2. Under the guidance, the SBA has stated that the determination of whether a Business Concern is a “small business” can also be determined based on the applicable employee-based/revenue-based standards or the alternative size standard, each of which is provided under the SBA’s regulations, provided the Rules are applied with respect to these standards, if applicable.
  3. Affiliation is not created if the options, convertible securities, or equivalent, are subject to certain conditions precedent that are a) incapable of fulfillment, b) speculative, conjectural or unenforceable under federal law, or c) the probability of exercise is extremely remote.
  4. Under the guidance, the SBA has stated that if a Presumed Owner irrevocably waives or relinquishes such rights, then such Presumed Owner would not trigger the Rules (assuming no other circumstances relating to the Presumed Owner would trigger the Rules).
  5. “Close relatives” is a defined under the SBA and means a spouse, parent, child or sibling, or the spouse of any such person.

Disclaimer: We are providing the current SBA Loan Application and links to related information as a convenience. The application and related requirements may change and we are not responsible for updating this information. By providing this information, we are not giving legal or tax advice. For advice on your specific situation, please contact your advisors.

© 2020 Much Shelist, P.C.

For more on the SBA PPP Loans, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Bank Strategy Briefing: Moving Away From Common Bank Names

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a bank’s name. After all, it’s the centerpiece of a bank’s long-term branding strategy. Before reaching the teller line or setting up a meeting with a banker, seeing a bank’s name on a branch sign, billboard or website is likely the first interaction a customer has with the institution.  With many Midwest institutions approaching or surpassing 100-year anniversaries, a bank’s name may reflect generations of service to a community or the ownership family’s legacy.

Many banks share common names

A surprisingly large number of banks in the U.S. share common naming elements, as detailed below:

tableforweb[2].png

While many reasons for this degree of commonality exist, community pride and company history among them, similar names can result in market confusion, or worse, trademark disputes.

To differentiate themselves, a number of banks have begun changing names. In some instances, it’s a legal name change as specified in the institution’s articles, while in others it’s adopting a trade name.

How to change a bank’s legal name

The process for changing a legal name is relatively simple. First, a thorough search must be conducted to ensure the new name is available. This search would identify existing bank trademarks for the name as well as other potential uses that could cause marketplace confusion. Then comes amending the bank’s articles of incorporation. This requires board and shareholder approval. Once the amendment is effective, customer-facing marketing materials and legal documentation will need to reflect the new legal name.

How to adopt a trade name

Trade names are more nuanced and compliance-sensitive. In addition to validating that a name is available for use, various banking agencies require disclosures about the trade name to appear in signage, advertising and account-opening documentation. This helps customers understand that accounts under each name will be aggregated when calculating FDIC insurance coverage. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institution’s (WDFI’s) guidance requires disclosure that trade names be identified as a “branch” of the bank. WDFI does not permit other descriptors like “division” or “unit.”

Name changes create new marketing opportunities

Beyond the legal and logistical aspects of a name change, it’s important to develop a robust marketing plan to maximize the opportunity a name change creates. Consider ways to reintroduce the bank to the marketplace and retell its story to the community.

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Venmo’ Money: Another Front Opens in the Data Wars

When I see stories about continuing data spats between banks, fintechs and other players in the payments ecosystem, I tend to muse about how the more things change the more they stay the same. And so it is with this story about a bank, PNC, shutting off the flow of customer financial data to a fintech, in this case, the Millennial’s best friend, Venmo. And JP Morgan Chase recently made an announcement dealing with similar issues.

Venmo has to use PNC’s customer’s data in order to allow (for example) Squi to use it to pay P.J. for his share of the brews.  Venmo needs that financial data in order for its system to work.  But Venmo isn’t the only one with a mobile payments solution; the banks have their own competing platform called Zelle.  If you bank with one of the major banks, chances are good that Zelle is already baked into your mobile banking app.  And unlike Venmo, Zelle doesn’t need anyone’s permission but that of its customers to use those data.

You can probably guess the rest.  PNC recently invoked security concerns to largely shut off the data faucet and “poof”, Venmo promptly went dark for PNC customers.  To its aggrieved erstwhile Venmo-loving customers, PNC offered a solution: Zelle.  PNC subtly hinted that its security enhancements were too much for Venmo to handle, the subtext being that PNC customers might be safer using Zelle.

Access to customer data has been up until now a formidable barrier to entry for fintechs and others whose efforts to make the customer payment experience “frictionless” have depended in large measure on others being willing to do the heavy lifting for them.  The author of Venmo article suggests that pressure from customers may force banks to yield any strategic advantage that control of customer data may give them.  So far, however, consumer adoption of mobile payments is still miniscule in the grand scheme of things, so that pressure may not be felt for a very long time, if ever.

In the European Union, the regulators have implemented PSD2 which forces a more open playing field for banking customers. But realistically, it can’t be surprising that the major financial institutions don’t want to open up their customer bases to competitors and get nothing in return – except a potential stampede of customers moving their money. And some of these fintech apps haven’t jumped through the numerous hoops required to be a bank holding company or federally insured – meaning unwitting consumers may have less fraud protection when they move their precious money to a cool-looking fintech app.

A recent study by the Pew Trusts make it clear that consumers are still not fully embracing mobile for any number of reasons.  The prime reason is that current mobile payment options still rely on the same payments ecosystem as credit and debit cards yet mobile payments don’t offer as much consumer protection. As long as that is the case, banks and fintechs and merchants will continue to fight over data and the regulators are likely to weigh in at some point.

It is not unlike the early mobile phone issue when one couldn’t change mobile phone providers without getting a new phone number – that handcuff kept customers with a provider for years but has since gone by the wayside. It is likely we will see some sort of similar solution with banking details.

Copyright © 2020 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.

For more on fintech & banking data, see the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law page.

Japan’s New Crypto Regulation – 2019 Amendments to Payment Services Act and Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan

Japan will fundamentally change its crypto asset regulations effective in spring of 2020.

In May, 2019, the National Diet, the Japanese national legislature, passed an amendment bill to the Payment Services Act (the “PSA”) and the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (the “FIEA”), which was promulgated on June 7, 2019 (the “2019 Amendment”).  The 2019 Amendment will become effective within one year from promulgation, following further rulemaking by the Japan Financial Services Agency (the “JFSA”) to implement the 2019 Amendment, which is anticipated sometime soon and includes public comment process.

Key Takeaways of the 2019 Amendment

The 2019 Amendment, coming into force within one year of the promulgation, will bring certain significant and fundamental changes to how crypto assets are regulated in Japan.  Key takeaways are:

  • Crypto asset margin trading and other crypto asset derivative transactions will become subject to Japanese regulations on derivative transactions generally.  Broker-dealers and exchanges will likely need to revisit and update their registration status and policies and procedures.  While it may be possible to rely on a limited grandfathering provision for 6 months after the effective date, a notification must be submitted to a relevant local Finance Bureau within two weeks after the effective date of the 2019 Amendment.
  • Certain crypto assets distributed through distributed ledger technologies (such as blockchain) will be expressly regulated as Type I securities.  Consequently, solicitation and offering of such crypto assets, including Initial Coin Offerings, to Japanese investors will require careful review and structuring to avoid any regulatory pitfalls.
  • Crypto asset-related custodial activities will be subject to licensing.
  • Crypto asset trading activities will be subject to various prohibitions on unfair trading and practices.
  • A detailed rulemaking process will follow and involve opportunities to submit comments during the public consultation process.

Copyright 2019 K & L Gates

ARTICLE BY Tsuguhito Omagari of K&L Gates.
More on cyprocurrency regulation on the National Law Review Financial Institutions & Banking law page.