Tag: business

Federal Courts Side With Strip Clubs in Opposing the SBA’s Ineligibility Rules for the Paycheck Protection Program, Possibly Signaling a Broader Trend

Recent rulings from federal courts enjoined the US Small Business Administration (SBA) from applying its April 2, 2020 Interim Final Rule (April 2 IFR) to limit the types of businesses that can participate in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Some of these rulings are expressly limited to the named plaintiffs that had been denied PPP loans and do not directly impact any other businesses that have or might apply for a PPP loan. Irrespective of any limitations in these cases, such decisions may signal a broader trend. In increasing numbers, federal courts are agreeing with arguments made by small businesses facing COVID-19-related challenges that the SBA’s PPP business eligibility limitations are inconsistent with Congress’ intention to help “any business concern” during this unprecedented time.

Financial services businesses that are deemed ineligible under the April 2 IFR need to pay close attention to cases that challenge the SBA’s incorporation of its existing list of “prohibited businesses” into eligibility requirements for a PPP loan. Even without court rulings, it also is possible (although not likely) that Congress or the SBA could suspend or revise the April 2 IFR to broaden PPP eligibility to include some or all of the currently designated “prohibited businesses.”

This advisory will explore:

  • the SBA’s April 2 IFR restricted eligibility in the PPP to certain financial services businesses that were ineligible for SBA-guaranteed loans under existing federal programs;

  • a recent Sixth Circuit ruling challenging the April 2 IFR as well as other federal court cases may signal a trend by federal courts to adhere to the text of the CARES Act; and

  • whether other federal courts will follow the Sixth Circuit’s view, or whether Congress or the SBA will suspend or revise the April 2 IFR to broaden PPP eligibility.

The April 2 IFR and Subsequent SBA Rules and Guidance

The PPP was one of several measures enacted by Congress under the CARES Act to provide small businesses with support to cover payroll and certain other expenses for an eight-week period due to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted in a prior Katten Financial Markets and Funds advisory, the SBA published the April 2 IFR on the evening before lenders could accept PPP applications, determining that various businesses, including some financial services business, were ineligible to apply for PPP loans under the CARES Act.1

The April 2 IFR limited the types of businesses eligible for the PPP by specifically incorporating an existing SBA regulation and guidance document that lists the types of businesses that are ineligible from applying for Section 7(a) SBA loans. In particular, the April 2 IFR provides, in part, that: “Businesses that are not eligible for PPP loans are identified in 13 CFR 120.110 and described further in SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10, Subpart B, Chapter 2.”2

Some of the ineligible financial services businesses listed in the SBA’s Standard Operating Procedure 50 10 (SOP) include, without limitation:

  • banks;
  • life insurance companies (but not independent agents);
  • finance companies;
  • investment companies;
  • certain passive businesses owned by developers and landlords, which do not actively use or occupy the assets acquired or improved with the loan proceeds, and/or which are primarily engaged in owning or purchasing real estate and leasing it for any purpose; and
  • speculative businesses that primarily “purchas[e] and hold[ ] an item until the market price increases” or “engag[e] in a risky business for the chance of an unusually large profit.”

With respect to last category in this list, the SBA provided further clarity regarding certain investment businesses and speculative businesses that were applying for PPP loans. In an April 24, 2020 Interim Final Rule (April 24 IFR), the SBA expressly clarified that hedge funds and private equity firms are investment and speculative businesses and, therefore, are ineligible to receive PPP loans.3 However, the April 24 IFR created an exception for portfolio companies of private equity firms, which were deemed eligible for PPP loans if the entities met the requirements for affiliated borrowers under the April 2 IFR.4

Recent Sixth Circuit Case

As noted above, the SBA’s SOP did not only deem financial services businesses ineligible to receive PPP loans. Other types of businesses, including without limitation, legal gambling businesses, lobbying firms, businesses promoting religion and businesses providing “prurient sexual material” also were deemed ineligible. Believing that these limitations were inconsistent with a plain reading of the text of the CARES Act, some of these businesses have challenged the SBA’s restrictions imposed pursuant to the April 2 IFR.

On May 11, 2020, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan preliminarily enjoined the SBA from enforcing the April 2 IFR to preclude sexually oriented businesses from PPP loans under the CARES Act.5 Plaintiffs were primarily businesses that provided lawful “clothed, semi-nude, and/or nude performance entertainment,” which were considered ineligible businesses for the PPP under the April 2 IFR due to their “prurient” nature.6 The district court found that the CARES Act specifically broadened the class of businesses that are PPP eligible,7 determining that it was clear from the text of the statute that Congress provided “support to all Americans employed by all small businesses.”8 The district court, however, limited the injunction to the plaintiffs and intervenors in the case, noting that it was “not a ‘nationwide injunction’ and did not restrict any future action the SBA may take in connection with applications for PPP loans.”9 The SBA appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and requested a stay of the injunction.10

The Sixth Circuit ultimately denied the SBA’s stay, and agreed with the district court’s interpretation of the CARES Act’s eligibility requirements.11 Specifically, the Sixth Circuit held on May 15 that the CARES Act conferred eligibility to “any business concern,” which aligned with Congress’s intent to provide support to as many displaced American workers as possible. The SBA pointed out that the CARES Act explicitly listed “nonprofit organizations” as eligible for PPP loans, even though “they are ineligible for ordinary SBA loans.”12 The SBA argued that if Congress wanted to include previously ineligible businesses for PPP loans, like sexually oriented businesses, the CARES Act would have listed such entities.13 The Sixth Circuit stated that it was “necessary to specify non-profits because they are not businesses,” which further supported the district court’s expansive interpretation of the CARES Act.14

The Sixth Circuit’s opinion only requires the SBA to issue loans to the businesses that were a party to the underlying lawsuit. The ruling does not require the SBA to make PPP loans to any other businesses that are defined as ineligible in its April 2 IFR. However, as a practical matter, this opinion could be used to support a small business located in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan (i.e., the states within the jurisdictional reach of the Sixth Circuit) in a federal court proceeding initiated prior to the submission of a PPP application requiring the SBA to defend its eligibility criteria in connection with such small business’s specific facts. (Note that an application should not be made without first obtaining a similar legal result as the small business applicant would not otherwise be able to make the certifications necessary to apply for a PPP loan.)

Cases in Other Circuits

In addition to the Sixth Circuit, several other federal courts have struck down the SBA’s imposition of its ineligibility criteria on PPP applicants engaged in sexually oriented businesses. For example, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 1 preliminarily enjoined the SBA from enforcing the April 2 IFR to preclude “erotic dance entertainment” companies from obtaining a PPP loan.15 The SBA argued that because Congress removed some conditions that would ordinarily apply to Section 7(a) SBA loans (such as the PPP eligibility for non-profits), “it must have intended for the SBA to enforce all other conditions.”16 Similar to the Sixth Circuit, the district court found the SBA’s interpretation “highly unlikely” given “Congress’s clear intent to extend PPP loans to all small businesses affected by the pandemic.”17 Additionally, the SBA failed to identify any purpose of either the CARES Act or Section 7(a) that is furthered by the SBA’s exclusion of sexually oriented businesses.18 The SBA appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and requested a stay of the injunction pending appeal. The Seventh Circuit denied the request for a stay on May 20, 2020, but has yet to rule on the merits of the appeal.19

Implications

As of May 21, 2020, roughly $100 billion PPP funds are still available.20 In its recent statutory amendments to the PPP, Congress decided not to address PPP eligibility issues.21 Notwithstanding Congress’s decision not to take action on these issues more recently, financial services businesses deemed ineligible under SBA regulations for PPP loans under the CARES Act should still pay close attention to these cases and whether federal court rulings influence Congress or the SBA to revisit the April 2 IFR.22

1 See US Small Business Administration, Interim Final Rule: Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 20811, (Apr. 15, 2020).

2 See Interim Final Rule at 8, citing 13 C.F.R. § 120.110 and Small Business Administration Standard Operating Procedure 50 10 Subpart B, Chapter 2.

3 See US Small Business Administration, Interim Final Rule: Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program – Requirements – Promissory Notes, Authorizations, Affiliation, and Eligibility, __ Fed. Reg.___, available.

4 According to the April 24 interim final rule, the affiliation requirements are waived if “the borrower receives financial assistance from an SBA-licensed Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) in any amount. This includes any type of financing listed in 13 CFR 107.50, such as loans, debt with equity features, equity, and guarantees. Affiliation is waived even if the borrower has investment from other non-SBIC investors.” Id.

5 DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC, et al. v. SBA, et al., No. 20-1437 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2020).

6 Id. at 2.

7 DV Diamond Club of Flint LLC v. SBA, No. 20-cv-10899 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2020), at 2. The district court stated that 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36)(D) of the CARES Act specifically “broadened the class of businesses that are eligible to receive SBA financial assistance.” Id. at 9. This section provides, in relevant part, that “‘[d]uring the covered period, in addition to small business concerns, any business concern . . . shall be eligible to receive a covered [i.e., SBA-guaranteed] loan’ if the business employs less than 500 employees or if the business employs less than the size standard in number of employees for the industry,” which is established by the SBA. Id. See also 15 U.S.C. §§ 636(a)(36)(D)(i)(I)-(II).

8 DV Diamond Club, No. 20-cv-10899 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2020), at 2.

9 Id. at 45.

10 DV Diamond Club, No. 20-1437 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2020), at 1.

11 Id. at 4. The Sixth Circuit interpreted the CARES Act under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Id. In Chevron, the Supreme Court stated that if a federal statute can be facially interpreted, “the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43.

12 DV Diamond Club, No. 20-1437 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2020), at 5.

13 Id.

14 Id. US Circuit Judge Eugene E. Siler Jr. dissented, stating that the CARES Act was ambiguous and the district court’s injunction should be stayed to give time to decide on the merits. Id. at 6. He noted that the CARES Act requires “PPP loans to be administered ‘under the same terms, conditions and processes’” as the SBA’s section 7(a) loans, which would exclude sexually oriented businesses from PPP eligibility. Id. See also 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36)(B).

15 Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc., et al. v. SBA, et al., No. 20-C-061 (E.D. Wis. May 1, 2020), at 27-28. A similar case, filed early May 2020, is currently pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Admiral Theatre Inc. v. SBA et al., No. 1:20-cv-02807 (N.D. Ill May 8, 2020).

16 Camelot Banquet Rooms, No. 20-C-061 (E.D. Wis. May 1, 2010), at 15.

17 Id. at 16. In contrast to the Eastern District of Michigan, the Wisconsin federal court did not explicitly limit its injunction to the parties. In light of the potentially serious penalties for ineligible applicants, businesses that are ineligible for the PPP under the April 2 IFR should be cautious about applying for a PPP loan without exploring all options and consequences with counsel.

18 Id.

19Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc., et al. v. SBA, et al., No. 20-1729 (7th Cir. May 20, 2020). In contrast to the Sixth and Seventh Circuit rulings, the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied an injunction to enjoin the SBA from making an eligibility determination for the PPP under the CARES Act. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants v. SBA, No. 20-970 (D.D.C. April 21, 2020). Plaintiffs, a trade association of political consultants and lobbyists, argued that the denial of PPP loans under the SBA’s April 2 IFR due to the political nature of their businesses violated plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Id. at 1-2. The district court ruled that it was constitutionally valid for the SBA to decide “what industries to stimulate” with PPP loans. Id. at 11. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 22, 2020. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 22 (D.D.C. April 22, 2020).

20 Kate Rogers, More than half of small businesses are looking to have PPP funds forgiven, survey says, CNBC News (May 21, 2020), available at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/21/more-than-half-of-small-businesses-are-looking-for-ppp-forgiveness.html.

21 On June 3, 2020, Congress passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (“PPP Flexibility Act”), which modified certain provisions of the PPP. H.R. 7010, 116th Cong. (2020), available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/7010/text?r=12&s=1. At a high level, the PPP Flexibility Act: 1) extends the PPP to December 31, 2020; 2) extends the covered period for purposes of loan forgiveness from 8 weeks to the earlier of 24 weeks or December 31, 2020; 3) extends the covered period for purposes of loan forgiveness from 8 weeks to the earlier of 24 weeks or December 31, 2020; 4) increases the current limit on non-payroll expenses from 25% to 40%; 5) extends the maturity date on the portion of a PPP loan that is not forgiven from 2 years to 5 years; and 6) defers payroll taxes for businesses that take PPP loans.

22 IFRs are subject to public comment under the Administrative Procedures Act. The particular comment period of the April 2 IFR expired on May 15, 2020.

©2020 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

For more on business’ PPP loan eligibility, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 – Changes To The CARES Act

On Wednesday, June 3, 2020, the U.S. Senate passed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (“Act”) by voice vote.  The bill had passed the U.S. House on May 28 nearly unanimously.  It now heads to the President’s desk for signature.

Summary of Key Provisions

The Act provides important new flexibility to borrowers in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) in a number of key respects:

Loan Maturity Date: The Act extends the maturity date of the PPP loans (i.e. any portion of a PPP loan that is not forgiven) from 2 years to 5 years.  This provision of the Act only affects borrowers whose PPP loans are disbursed after its enactment.  With respect to already existing PPP loans, the Act states specifically that nothing in the Act will “prohibit lenders and borrowers from mutually agreeing to modify the maturity terms of a covered loan.”

Deadline to Use the Loan Proceeds: The Act extends the “covered period” with respect to loan forgiveness from the original 8 week period after the loan is disbursed to the earlier of 24 weeks after the loan is disbursed or December 31, 2020.  Current borrowers who have received their loans prior to the enactment of the Act may nevertheless elect the shorter 8 week period.

Forgivable Uses of the Loan Proceeds: The Act raises the cap on the amount of forgivable loan proceeds that borrowers may use on non-payroll expenses from 25% to 40%.  The Act does not affect the PPP’s existing restrictions on borrowers’ use of the loan proceeds to eligible expenses: payroll and benefits; interest (but not principal) on mortgages or other existing debt; rent; and utilities.

Safe Harbor for Rehiring Workers: Loan forgiveness under the PPP remains subject to reduction in proportion to any reduction in a borrower’s full-time equivalent employees (“FTEs”) against prior staffing level benchmarks.  The Act extends the PPP’s existing safe harbor deadline to December 31, 2020: borrowers who furloughed or laid-off workers will not be subject to a loan forgiveness reduction due to reduced FTE count as long as they restore their FTEs by the deadline.

New Exemptions from Rehiring Workers: The Act also adds two exemptions to the PPP’s loan forgiveness reduction penalties.  Firstly, the forgiveness amount will not be reduced due to a reduced FTE count if the borrower can document that they attempted, but were unable, to rehire individuals who had been employees on February 15, 2020 (this codifies a PPP FAQ answer discussed on a previous post) and have been unable to hire “similarly qualified employees” before December 31, 2020.  Secondly, the forgiveness will not be reduced due to a reduced FTE count if the borrower, in good faith, can document an inability to return to the “same level of business activity” as prior to February 15, 2020 due to sanitation, social distancing, and worker or customer safety requirements.

Loan Deferral Period: The Act extends the loan deferral period to (a) whenever the amount of loan forgiveness is remitted to the lender or (b) 10 months after the applicable forgiveness covered period if a borrower does not apply for forgiveness during that 10 month period.  Under the unamended PPP, a borrower’s deferral period was to be between 6 and 12 months.

Payroll Tax Deferral: The Act lifts the ban on borrowers whose loans were partially or completely forgiven from deferring payment of payroll taxes.  The payroll tax deferral is now open to all PPP borrowers.

Summary

The Act provides much-needed flexibility to businesses who needed to spend PPP loan proceeds but could not open in order to do so.  As with the initial rollout of the PPP, it will be up to the Department of the Treasury and the Small Business Administration to provide regulations with respect to the Act.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

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

Get Closer With Your Contracts During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Contracts with customers, vendors, or other parties are a normal part of doing business.  Most businesses are party to numerous contracts and although it may seem that contracts are fairly standard documents, the reality is that each individual document is its own legally binding arrangement.  The parties to contracts often customize the arrangements to suit the particular business conditions or economics of the relationship.

Most businesses neither fuss over nor spend a lot of time on the contract provisions that allocate risk between the parties (outside of the major issues of payment and performance).  During extraordinary times, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, business owners may not realize that the “roadmap” to their relationships with their business partners is usually in the often unread details of their business contracts.

Just as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides guidance to prepare individuals, families and their households for natural disasters or political unrest, a well-prepared business owner has created a plan of their own for how their business will respond to unforeseen situations.  Understanding how a business might be impacted by the contracts they are party to should be part of that planning.  Even now, as we continue to face uncertainty as to when businesses will fully reopen as the pandemic begins to recede, it is not too late to assess how this may impact your contractual relationships.

Here are ideas and important things to keep in mind while reviewing your contracts:

  • Take stock of your most important contracts. Where are they located?  Are they easily accessible?  When was the last time they were reviewed?  Are you readily familiar with the provisions in each?  Now is a perfect time to organize those contracts into a system that allows those in your organization to quickly refer to them as needed.
  • Pay special attention to contracts with customers or vendors which are or may be impacted the most heavily by the economic uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Several remedies are available to contracting parties to enable them to excuse performance or protect themselves in a situation such as an epidemic, civil unrest or natural disaster. The “force majeure” clause is a well-known provision included in many contracts that excuses performance during certain unforeseen and highly adverse situations.  Included in the definition of force majeure is often a laundry list of events where a party’s performance obligation is excused.  I am seeing more efforts by parties in recent draft contracts to specifically exclude pandemics such as COVID-19 from the scope of force majeure, just as contracts written after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack often specifically excluded terrorist events.  However, most force majeure clauses have a specific exclusion regarding payment obligations, which require the paying party to make payment to the other party regardless of the occurrence of a force majeure event.  It is important to review your contract to determine which contain force majeure clauses and under what particular circumstance a party is excused from performance.  If you are currently negotiating a contract, pay particular attention to the force majeure clause and how that may affect future unforeseen circumstances.
  • Rights of termination and damages for breach are often clearly spelled out in contracts. Be familiar with those triggering events and any provisions providing for damages, including liquidated damages.  Keep in mind that the normal business of the state court system has also been affected by this pandemic, so your ability to obtain relief or damages will be limited or delayed for the foreseeable future.  In light of that, alternative dispute resolution (such as mediation or arbitration), if permitted under the contract or as the parties otherwise agree, may be your best bet to get a prompt resolution.
  • Be careful about entering into any course of business that deviates from the written terms of the contract. This comes into play in two areas in particular.  First, if the parties agree to or engage in a course of practice that deviates from the written terms of the contract, it may be difficult for a party moving forward to enforce terms of the contract as written following that deviation.  The second scenario includes one of the parties waiving their right(s) in the contract (usually for a reason that makes good business sense in the current state of affairs).  Businesses will want to make sure that any departure from the written contract during the current pandemic, or otherwise, does not become the “new normal” and undercut important legal rights within their contract.
  • If the contract is silent on a particular aspect, the answer can often be found in statutory law. The Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) provides “standard” rules for purchases and sales, leases, and other transactions.

Keep in mind that there is no requirement that a contract that is not beneficial to either or all parties be rigidly adhered to if the parties are willing to amend the contract or enter into a new contract altogether.  The key to staying afloat or even thriving in business in general, but especially during extraordinary times such as these, is flexibility and willingness to adapt.  Remember that contracts which have been altered to account for an event such as the COVID-19 pandemic may not be as sound once the economy bounces back, so do some mental visioning about where your business needs to be when returning to “business as usual” so that your contracts put you where you want to be.

If you have any concerns with how your contracts are being interpreted or administered during the COVID-19 pandemic, an attorney can be an important resource to prevent loss and ensure the continuing health of your business.

© 2020 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights Reserved

Legislation Enabling Policyholders to Obtain Insurance Coverage for Coronavirus Claims is Constitutional Part 1

On top of its human toll, the coronavirus pandemic has had massive economic effects.  Stay-at-home orders, which remain in place in much of the United States, have resulted in massive layoffs, spiraling claims for unemployment compensation, and unprecedented federal aid.

Many businesses affected by the pandemic have turned to their insurers seeking “business interruption” coverage.  As its name suggests, this coverage typically reimburses the policyholder for costs incurred when the business is unable to open.  Insurers have denied policyholders’ pandemic-related claims, contending that they only have to cover business interruption that results from a “physical injury” and that the damage that results from infestation with the coronavirus or a governmental shutdown order does not constitute “physical injury.”  Insurers have also cited the exclusions in many of their policies that purport to bar coverage for virus-related injuries.

Legislative Responses to the Crisis

One response to the insurance industry’s position has been introduction of legislation voiding virus exclusions and/or defining physical injury to include coronavirus.  New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina are all considering such legislation.  The proposed bills generally provide that, notwithstanding any other law or policy language to the contrary, every insurance policy that insures against loss or damage to property which includes the loss of use and occupancy and business interruption shall be construed to include coverage for business interruption resulting from COVID-19.  The bills typically provide mechanisms for insurers to seek reimbursement from a state established and managed fund for losses paid related to COVID-19.

Insurance Industry Responses to the Proposed Legislation

Predictably, the insurance industry has objected to this legislation.  For example, in a recent interview, Evan Greenberg, CEO of Chubb, said in an interview on CNBC state governments can’t force insurance companies to cover incidents not included in the policy.  “You can’t just retroactively change a contract. That is plainly unconstitutional,” Greenberg told “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer.  See https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/chubb-ceo-making-insurers-cover-pandemic-losses-is-unconstitutional.html.

Law firms that defend insurers have similarly argued that “This proposed legislation …., is unfair and is likely unconstitutional, as it appears to run afoul of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution.”   That Clause prohibits States from “pass[ing] any . . .  Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . . .”  U. S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 10.  The insurer lawyers contend that “the proposed legislation would substantially impair insurance policies, as [it] would operate to rewrite policies to cause them to cover a risk they do not currently cover.…”   While acknowledging that the Supreme Court has upheld state laws that impair contracts, so long as they are reasonably tailored to fulfill a legitimate interest, insurer counsel contend that such laws are still unconstitutional.  Counsel claim that the proposed laws do not fulfill a legitimate interest because they “arguably benefit[] only a narrow class of businesses; the public at-large is only an indirect beneficiary.”  Id.  And counsel assert that the proposed laws are not “appropriate and reasonable” because they “attempt[] to shift the responsibility of providing financial assistance to small businesses from the government to certain insurance companies. . . .” Id.

Why the Insurance Industry Is Wrong about the Contracts Clause

This analysis is simply mistaken.  The case law interpreting the Contracts Clause demonstrates that legislation designed to provide relief to policyholders is constitutional.

As discussed below, under the cases, courts have established a balancing test that weighs the extent to which the challenged legislation contravenes contractual expectations against the purpose of the legislation and the means used to achieve that purpose.  Under that test, the proposed legislation is constitutional.

Basic Principles

The range of state legislative actions that can affect contractual relationships is broad. For instance, a state statute may render a contract wholly illegal.  See Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814, 819 (1879) (upholding state statute outlawing lottery against claim that it violated contract rights of lottery company).  Or a statute may directly change the term of a contract.  E.g., United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 3 (1977) (state law abrogated covenant in contract with holders of state bonds); Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 416 (1934) (state law modified foreclosure provisions in mortgages).  Even a law that has nothing to do with either the express terms of the contract or its subject matter can affect the parties’ allocation of risk, such as a law that changes the statute of limitations for contract actions.  See J. Ely, Jr., Whatever Happened to the Contract Clause?, 4 Charleston L. Rev. 371, 377 & n.48 (2010) (discussing Contracts Clause cases involving statutes of limitations).

Yet, as the Supreme Court has made clear, “it is not every modification of a contractual promise that impairs the obligation of contract under federal law.”  City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 506–07 (1965).  Even though the language of the Contracts Clause is  “facially absolute,” Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 410 (1983), “the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts is not to be read literally,” Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. at 502.  Rather, “[t]he States must possess broad power to adopt general regulatory measures without being concerned the private contracts will be impaired, or even destroyed, as a result.”  United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. at 22.  In other words, the ban on impairment of contracts “must be accommodated to the inherent police power of the State ‘to safeguard the vital interests of its people.’’’  Energy Reserves Group, 459 U.S. at 410, quoting Home Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. at 434.

Though not specifically referenced in the Constitution, the “police power” gives state legislatures broad leeway to pass laws to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.  The classic case is Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814 (1879).  There, a state statute outlawing lotteries was challenged by a company that had previously obtained a charter from the state to run a lottery.  Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the state’s power to shield the public from the evils of gambling trumped the contract rights of the lottery company.  Id. at 819.  Over time, the definition of the police power expanded to include a wide variety of laws designed to protect the public.  See, e.g., Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 444 (1934) (Great Depression “furnished a proper occasion for the exercise of the reserved power of the State to protect the vital interests of the community” by providing for mortgage relief for financially strapped homeowners); Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) (even if contract for sale of alcohol was permissible when made, state could later prohibit such sales without violating Contracts Clause).

As we’ll discuss in the next part of this post, since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has generally applied these principles to uphold state legislation against challenges brought under the Contracts Clause.  We’ll also discuss how these basic principles have been applied by lower courts in insurance coverage cases and why we think the proposed legislation passes muster under the Constitution.

© 2020 Gilbert LLP

ARTICLE BY Mark A. Packman of Gilbert LLP.
For more business policies & the coronavirus, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance, and Surety law section.

Best Practices for Commercial Property Owners/ Operators: Phase One of Reopening the Economy

The Federal Coronavirus Task Force issued a three-stage plan last week to reopen the economy, where authorities in each state – not the federal government – will decide when it is safe to reopen shops, schools, restaurants, movie theaters, sporting arenas and other facilities that were closed to minimize community spread of the deadly virus. Once phase one is adopted in certain states, businesses that reopen will need to be prepared to take certain precautions to meet their common law duty to provide and maintain reasonably safe premises.

Phase One

The first stage of the plan will affect certain segments of society and businesses differently. For example, schools and organized youth activities that are currently closed, such as day care, should remain closed. The guidance also says that bars should remain closed. However, larger venues such as movie theaters, churches, ballparks and arenas may open and operate but under strict distancing protocols. If possible, employers should follow recommendations from the federal guidance to have workers return to their jobs in phases.

Also, under phase one vulnerable individuals such as older people and those with underlying health conditions should continue to shelter in place. Individuals who do go out should avoid socializing in groups of more than 10 people in places that don’t provide for appropriate physical distancing. Trade shows and receptions, for example, are the types of events that should be avoided. Unnecessary travel also should be avoided.

Assuming the infection rate continues to drop, then the second phase will see schools, day care centers and bars reopening; crowds of up to 50 permitted; and vacation travel resuming. The final stage would permit the elderly and immunologically compromised to participate in social settings. There is no timeline prescribed, however, for any of these phases.

Precautionary Basics

Once businesses are reopened during phase one, there are several common sense and intuitive safety practices that business owners/operators must absolutely ensure are in place to meet their common law duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for those present on their premises.

The guidelines issued by the CDC are the core protocols that form the baseline for minimal safety precautions: persistent hand washing, use of masks/gloves and strict social distancing.

Additional Measures

Given the highly infectious nature of the virus, the fact that it is capable of being transmitted by asymptomatic people who are nonetheless infected, and the apparent viability of transmission through recirculated air or via HVAC systems without negative pressure (per a recent report from China about transmission from one restaurant customer to several others via the air circulation system), there is nothing that reasonably can be adopted that will effectively and readily ensure that a business is completely free of someone who is infected and capable of spreading the virus.

As such, additional measures are advisable beyond the CDC protocols, such as robust cleaning/hygienic regimens/complimentary wipes and hand sanitizer for common areas, buttons and handles; and the necessary protections for employees who interact with the public (e.g., shielding and protective gear for checkout clerks at the supermarket or lobby desk/check-in personnel in hotels and office buildings). In addition, it would not be unreasonable or unduly intrusive to check the temperatures (via no-touch infrared devices) of those entering the premises. In the absence of available portable, instant and unobtrusive virus testing methods, temperature readings are the most practical and reasonable precautionary measure beyond the CDC baseline deterrents.

Conscientious and infallible implementation of maintenance, housekeeping and hygiene protocols for the commercial, hospitality, retail and restaurant industries also will be critical to mitigate potential liability claims for negligently failing to provide an environment reasonably safe from the spread of coronavirus.

Advisability of Warnings

Aside from conspicuously publicizing – via posted signage or announcements – the CDC guidelines relating to persistent hand washing, use of masks/gloves and strict social distancing, the need to warn of the potential for – or a history of – infections generally is not considered to be necessary or essential unless there is an imminent threat of a specific foreseeable harm.

Unless there is a specific condition leading to a cluster of infections within a particular property (unlikely given the ubiquity of the disease and community spread, but the reporting would be to the CDC or local health authorities in such an instance), or an isolated circumstance that can be identified to be the source of likely infections to others who proximately were exposed, there is no need or obligation under existing law or regulatory guidelines to report generally that someone who tested positive for the virus may have been on a particular property.

Moreover, unless the business is an employer who administers a self-funded health plan (who are thus charged with the duty to maintain “protected health information”), businesses that are not health providers are not subject to HIPAA; as such, concerns about HIPAA violations are misplaced to the extent that the identity of someone who is infected is somehow disclosed or otherwise required to be disseminated by a business not otherwise charged with the duty to maintain “protected health information.”

A Coordinated Approach

While the CDC’s guidelines are important, they are not exclusive. Businesses planning to reopen also should consider regulations and guidelines from a number of other sources, including OSHA and state and local departments of public health.

© 2020 Wilson Elser

For more on reopening the economy, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

A Glut of “Opportunistic” Margin Calls: Are Creditors Moving Too Quickly to Seize Assets?

What can companies expect from their funding sources as COVID-19 does damage to the economy? In at least some instances, perhaps, opportunistic attempts by lenders to illegally take control of business assets. A real estate investment trust (REIT) in New York alleges in a new lawsuit that it has already fallen victim to that type of misconduct.

AG Mortgage Investment Trust Inc. (AG) filed suit against the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) on March 25 for allegedly taking advantage of the pandemic to unlawfully seize the trust’s assets and sell them at below-market prices. AG says RBC is just one of many banks that are now trying to trigger margin calls on entities like AG. It alleges that RBC is doing so by applying “opportunistic and unfounded” markdowns on mortgage-based assets. A margin call then occurs, according to AG, with RBC contending that the value of a margin account — an investment account with assets bought with borrowed money — has fallen, requiring the borrower either to make up the difference with more collateral or have the asset seized. RBC, the suit further alleges, is being unreasonable in its valuations. Having seized assets based on what AG calls an “entirely subjective and self-serving calculation” of true market value, RBC then auctioned off $11 million worth of AG’s commercial mortgage-backed securities.

Two days before filing the suit, AG had warned in a statement that it might not be able to satisfy the glut of margin calls it now faces from lending banks like RBC, as coronavirus crisis fears and fallout cripple the mortgage-based asset market. In its complaint, AG asserts that rampant, unwarranted margin calls have brought the nation’s mortgage-based REITs “to the brink of collapse.” AG notes, however, that unlike RBC, most banks have thus far agreed to hold back on taking action against those trusts’ assets — for the time being, at least.
“Recognizing the aberrant state of the markets, most banks have stopped short of taking precipitous steps that could push the mREIT industry into the abyss. This action is brought to stop one outlier bank—Royal Bank of Canada—that has not stopped short but is instead hitting the accelerator to unlawfully seize and unload a large portfolio of Plaintiffs’ assets at fire-sale prices into the seized markets which will have a cascading effect in the market for mortgage-based assets, and potentially the entire U.S. economy. These consequences are likely to undermine the emergent efforts currently being undertaken by federal and state agencies to provide breathing room and help stabilize the economy.”

Hours after filing its suit, AG sought a temporary restraining order to halt the auction. The auction had already begun that day by the time the judge had a chance to review AG’s request. RBC must soon respond to AG’s complaint, and, as the case progresses, will have to defend itself against AG’s claims for damages. If AG’s perception of a glut of unjustified margin calls is shared by other business entities, we should expect many similar suits to follow.

© 2020 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

For more COVID-19 related business news, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19: Paycheck Protection Program: Is this the solution you have been waiting for?

The $2.2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill enacted by Congress on March 27 provides immediate cash assistance to small businesses that keep their employees or recall employees they have furloughed or laid off due to financial hardships related to COVID-19.  The money is available through a Small Business Administration (SBA) loan program that allows businesses to keep the loan proceeds as a grant for eligible expenses, including payroll, for the period between February 15 and June 30, 2020.

This program, called the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), is a powerful tool for businesses with fewer than 500 employees to get immediate assistance with meeting operating expenses, with the prospect of not having to repay some or all of the loan.  It’s also available for nonprofits.

Here are the highlights of the program:

Maximum Loan Amount

  • The PPP raises the maximum amount for an SBA loan by 2.5x the average total monthly payroll cost, or up to $10 million.  The interest rate may not exceed 4%.

Qualified Costs

  • Payroll costs

  • Continuation of health care benefits

  • Employee compensation (for those making less than $100,000)

  • Mortgage interest obligations

  • Rent on any lease in force prior to February 15, 2020

  • Utilities

  • Interest on debt incurred before the covered period

Businesses Eligible to Obtain These Loans

  • Businesses with fewer than 500 employees.

  • Small businesses as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards at 13 C.F.R. 121.201.

  • 501(c)(3) nonprofits, 501(c)(19) veteran’s organization, and Tribal business concern described in section 31(b)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act with not more than 500 employees.

  • Hotels, motels, restaurants, and franchises with fewer than 500 employees at each physical location without regard to affiliation under 13 C.F.R. 121.103.

  • Businesses that receive financial assistance from Small Business Investment Act Companies licensed under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 without regard to affiliation under 13 C.F.R. 121.10.

  • Sole proprietors and independent contractors.

Loan Forgiveness

All or a portion of the loan may be forgivable, and debt service payments may be deferred for up to one year.  The amount forgiven will be reduced proportionally by any reduction in employees retained compared to the prior year and reduced by the reduction in pay of any employee beyond 25% of their prior year compensation. To encourage employers to rehire any employees who have already been laid off due to the COVID-19 crisis, borrowers that rehire workers previously laid off will not be penalized for having a reduced payroll at the beginning of the period.

Application Process

Current lenders through the Small Business Administration 7(a) are authorized to make determinations on borrower eligibility and creditworthiness without going through the SBA.  These lenders can be found here. For eligibility purposes, lenders will not be determining eligibility based on repayment ability, but rather whether the business was operational on February 15, 2020, and had employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes, or a paid independent contractor.

Timeline

The SBA is required to issue implementing regulations within 15 days, and the U.S. Department of Treasury will be approving new lenders.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

COVID-19 Insurance Impacts

In the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses have been significantly impacted and, whenever possible, should turn to their insurance carriers for coverage to mitigate the fallout from this virus.  As an initial step, policyholders should consider the insurance coverages listed below that may be triggered by COVID-19 losses or claims:

  • Business Interruption Coverage
  • General Liability Coverage
  • Workers Compensation Coverage
  • Directors and Officers Coverage

Policyholders should keep in mind that each situation is unique, based on the policy language, factual circumstances and applicable state law. As a starting point, policyholders should examine their policy language carefully to determine whether coverage may exist for COVID-19 related losses or claims.

Property Policies-Business Interruption Coverage

Business interruption coverage in general

Some policyholders might benefit from claims under business interruption coverage in their Property Policy in the wake of COVID-19, even though this kind of coverage is generally triggered where there is physical loss or damage. Courts vary on whether contamination rendering a building uninhabitable or unusable constitutes physical damage. Given that COVID-19 rendered buildings uninhabitable and unusable, the issue that may arise is whether COVID-19 contamination constitutes physical damage. We are aware of at least one case where a policyholder is suing its insurance carrier for business interruption coverage arguing that COVID-19 constitutes physical damage because the virus contaminates surfaces.

Policy exclusions must also be taken into consideration when determining coverage. After epidemics such as SARS, MERS, Zika, and Ebola, many insurance companies wrote in exclusions for infectious diseases. However, state legislatures might intervene and forbid these types of exclusions as a matter of public policy. For example, recently the New Jersey state legislature introduced a bill that would require insurance companies to cover business interruption losses as a result of COVID-19 despite the presence of these types of exclusions.

Given the level of uncertainty resulting from the pandemic, and the significant adverse financial impacts many businesses are facing as a result, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYSDFS) issued a letter instructing insurance companies to provide policyholders and NYSDFS with an explanation of benefits letter to provide clarity around business interruption coverage under the policies at issue.

Contingent business interruption coverage

Some policyholders might benefit from contingent business interruption coverage in their Property policy, which is triggered when someone in your supply chain cannot perform due to a covered loss which in turn interrupts your business. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses have certainly been impacted as a result of supply chain interruptions of third parties. Whether contingent business interruption coverage is available depends on policy language.

Off-premises business interruption coverage

This type of coverage is triggered where a service, such as electricity, water, sewage, communications, or gas, is disrupted leading to business interruption. We may see these essential services heavily challenged by COVID-19 impacts on the workforce and there may be adverse effects that have not yet reached businesses, but may be coming soon.

“Civil Authority” coverage

Some Property policies include “civil authority” coverage which covers losses as a result of a government or civil authority restricting access to the policyholder’s premises. Policies differ as to the terms of coverage including duration of coverage, whether the premises has to be damaged by a covered cause, and whether coverage extends broadly, such as when the civil authority restricts, hinders, impairs access, or narrowly, such as when the civil authority “prohibits” or “denies” access. Generally, civil authority coverage applies when there is a direct link between the civil authority’s order and the policyholder’s loss. For policy holders in localities where the state or local government has ordered a shutdown or curtailment of businesses to curb the spread of COVID-19 policyholders might recover under civil authority coverage.

General Liability Coverage

Businesses with general liability policies might be covered against third-party claims arising out of COVID-19. General liability policies typically cover third-party claims for “bodily injury” and “property damage” under “Coverage A,” and personal injuries, such as false imprisonment, under “Coverage B.” “Property Damage” is typically defined to include both physical injury to tangible property and loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.

Under Coverage A, businesses may be at risk for claims alleging that the business did not take proper precautions to mitigate the spread of COVID-19, thus resulting in bodily injuries. Princess Cruise Lines recently was sued by two of its passengers after the ship was quarantined because of a COVID-19 outbreak, alleging that the company did not take proper precautions to prevent the spread of the virus despite knowing that some passengers were infected. The occurrence giving rise to the claim must be “accidental” and there may ultimately be an inquiry whether companies knew and ignored risks, or whether the circumstances amount to an accident. Coverage claims will also have to address any potentially applicable exclusions to coverage under general liability policies.

In terms of liability under Coverage B, companies may be sued for false imprisonment as a result of improper or unwarranted quarantines.

Workers Compensation Coverage

Businesses that face claims from their employees who contracted COVID-19 in the course of employment should turn to workers compensation policies for coverage. Generally, workers compensation provides coverage for employees who were injured by accident or contracted a disease in the course of their employment. Many state statutes carve out coverage exceptions for “ordinary diseases of life,” meaning diseases that can be contracted by the general public. Whether insurers cover workers compensation claims for employees who contract COVID-19 through the course of employment is yet to be determined.

Directors and Officers Coverage

Businesses are also at risk of shareholder and securities suits, particularly in the context of disclosing the impacts of COVID-19 on business. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been active in monitoring the impact of COVID-19 on publicly-traded companies, investors, and the market. On March 4, 2020, the SEC issued a press release, through which the SEC Chairman encouraged companies to provide investors with as much information as possible regarding COVID-19 impacts, plans, and risks. A class action lawsuit has already been filed against Norwegian Cruise Line alleging deceptive practices by the company in hiding the impacts of COVID-19 on the business, and subsequent stock losses.

If you have paid your premiums, you are entitled to all of the benefits your policies provide. In these challenging times, be sure to check all of your insurance policies for potential coverage.

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

Economic Relief for Businesses Impacted by Coronavirus (COVID-19)

In response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the federal government and many states have developed paths towards economic relief for small businesses. Below is a summary of such programs at the federal level and in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

I. Federal – U.S. Small Business Administration (the “SBA”)

In response to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, the SBA has made Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EID Loans”) available for qualifying businesses that have suffered economic injury as a result of the epidemic.  Below is a summary of the SBA’s eligibility requirements, application procedures, and general loan terms for the EID Loans.

SBA EID Loan Eligibility

In order to be eligible for an EID Loan a business must first be located in a geographic area that is a declared disaster area recognized by the SBA.  Recognized Declared Disaster Areas are listed on the SBA’s website. As of March 17, 2020, the following areas are approved for disaster loan assistance due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19): California, Connecticut, Idaho,  Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington. The entire State of Connecticut was declared a federal state of disaster due to the Coronavirus outbreak effective as of January 31, 2020. Many other states are currently in the process of submitting requests to the SBA for an economic injury disaster declaration as a result of the virus and should be eligible for EID loans in the coming days and weeks.

The SBA further requires that a business qualify as a small business to be eligible for an EID Loan. The definition of a “small business” varies by industry but generally is based on the number of employees a business has or the amount of revenue a business generates annually. The SBA has an interactive website to help companies determine whether or not they qualify as a “small business” under the SBA’s regulations. Generally, a full-service restaurant qualifies as a “small business” so long as it has less than $8,000,000 in annual revenue. Private and nonprofit organizations may also qualify for EID Loans.

Finally, a business must demonstrate that it has suffered “substantial economic injury” as a direct result of the disaster, in this case the Coronavirus outbreak, in order to qualify for an EID Loan. For the SBA’s purposes a “substantial economic injury” generally means a decrease in income from operations or working capital with the result that the business is unable to meet its obligations and pay ordinary and necessary operating expenses in the normal course of business.

Ultimately, an applicant’s eligibility for an EID Loan will be determined by the SBA based on the applicant’s type of business, available financial resources, and its demonstration of substantial economic injury.

EID Loan Application Process

An EID Loan, and all other SBA disaster assistance loans, can be applied for by an (1) online application or (2) by a paper form, using SBA Form 5. The SBA has suggested that online applications will be processed more quickly than applications submitted on a physical form.

In addition to the EID Loan application form, an applicant must submit the following documentation to the SBA –

  1. Tax Information Authorization (IRS Form 4506T), completed and signed by each principal owning 20% or more of applicant business, general partner, general manager or owner who has 50% ownership interest in affiliate business. (Affiliates include, but are not limited to business parents, subsidiaries, and/or other businesses with common ownership or management with applicant business.)
  2. Complete copies, including all schedules, of the most recent Federal income tax returns for the applicant business; if unavailable a written explanation must be submitted in lieu
  3. Personal Financial Statement (SBA Form 413) completed, signed, and dated by the applicant and each principal, general partner or managing member.
  4. Schedule of Liabilities listing all fixed debts (SBA Form 2202)

Following the submission of a complete loan application, the SBA will conduct a credit check of the applicant and verify the business’ financial information. The SBA may request additional financial information including tax returns for principals, general partners and managing members of the business, as well as a current profit-and-loss statements, and balance sheets for the business. The SBA’s stated goal is to review an application and decide on a business’ eligibility for the EID loan program within 2-3 weeks. Given the anticipated high volume of applications to this program as a result of the Coronavirus, it is likely that the application and review process will take longer. Once an application is fully accepted and approved, the applicant will need to sign the applicable EID Loan documents and return them to the SBA. The applicant can expect to receive a disbursement of the EID Loan funds within one week from the SBA’s receipt of the fully executed loan documents.

The EID loan amount awarded by the SBA will be based off an applicant’s actual economic injury and the business’ financial needs, as determined by the SBA. The SBA will factor in the availability of other potential sources of financial contribution and business interruption insurance when determining an EID loan amount to be awarded to a small business.

EID Loan Use and General Terms

The funds from an EID loan may be used by the small business to pay fixed debts, payroll, accounts payable and other bills that can’t be paid because of the disaster’s impact. The terms of an EID Loan shall be determined by the SBA on a case-by-case basis, based upon each applicant’s needs and ability to repay. Generally, the maximum amount of an EID loan for the Coronavirus disaster is $2 million with an interest rate of 3.75% for small businesses or 2.75% for non-profits. The maximum repayment term of an EID loan is 30 years. There are no pre-payment penalties imposed by the SBA on an EID loan.

Alternatives to EID Loans

Small businesses that do not qualify for EID loans or have alternative needs may still be eligible for financial assistance from one of the SBA’s alternative loan programs.

The SBA has an 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program involves loans for small businesses in an amount up to $5,000,000 made by private lenders that are guaranteed by the SBA (“SBA 7(a) Loan”). An SBA 7(a) Loan is made directly by a private lender, who also handles the application and loan process, but is subject to the SBA’s terms and guidelines. To encourage private lenders to make these loans, the SBA guarantees a certain percentage of the SBA 7(a) Loan amount.  Small businesses looking for an acceptable lender for a SBA 7(a) Loan can use the SBA’s lender matching tool or contact their local SBA office for recommendations. The local Connecticut SBA office can be reached at 860-240-4700. The general timeline for the approval of an SBA 7(a) Loan application is 5 to 10 business days.

In order for a business to qualify for a SBA 7(a) Loan, it must qualify as a “small business” under the SBA’s regulations, operate for profit, be engaged in, or propose to do business in, the U.S., have reasonable owner equity and resources to invest in business, and be for a sound business purposes. The acceptable use of the 7(a) Loan funds is generally less restrictive than that of the EID loans and permissible uses include use for working capital, expansion or renovations, new construction, the purchase of land or buildings, the purchase of equipment or fixtures, lease-hold improvements, the refinancing of existing debt for compelling reasons,  seasonal line of credit, inventory, or starting a business. The proceeds from an SBA 7(a) Loan may not be used for the reimbursement of an owner for previous personal investments toward the business, the repayment of any delinquent withholding taxes, or anything not deemed a “sound business purpose” as determined by the SBA. Interest rates for SBA 7(a) Loans are determined by the private lender and generally based off the prime rate or LIBOR rate at the time of the loan but are subject to interest rate caps set by the SBA.

For businesses that need loan funds in a shorter period of time, the SBA offers a SBAExpress loan program which provides term loans and line of credits in amounts up to $350,000. The approval process for an SBAExpress loan is generally completed within 36 hours of receipt of an application.  A SBAExpress loan must also be obtained through a private lender and may be used for the same general purposes as an SBA 7(a) Loan.

II. New Federal Legislation

Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act

On March 18, the United States Senate approved a relief package to provide sick leave, unemployment benefits, free coronavirus testing, and food and medical aid to people impacted by the pandemic. The legislation was passed by the House on March 14, and was signed by President Trump on the evening of March 18. The legislation contains provisions that require immediate review and action for employers with fewer than 500 employees.

Both the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act will take effect 15 days after enactment, i.e. April 2, 2020. These provisions expire on December 31, 2020.

Covered employers (i.e., private employers with fewer than 500 employees) will be provided payroll tax credits to cover the wages and health care contributions paid to employees under the sick leave and family medical leave programs, up to the specified caps.

III. New York

New York State is currently assessing options to mitigate hardships to NYS businesses. As of March 19, 2020, the following orders and programs have been established in New York State in response to the COVID-19 outbreak:

Work From Home

On March 18, Governor Cuomo announced he will issue an executive order directing non-essential businesses to implement work-from-home policies effective Friday, March 20, to help reduce density as a social responsibility to protect their workforce. He also announced that businesses that rely on in-office personnel must decrease their in-office workforce by 50%. Exceptions will be made for essential service industries, including shipping, warehousing, grocery and food production, pharmacies, healthcare providers, utilities, media, banks and related financial institutions and other businesses that are essential to the supply chain.

Paid Sick Leave

On March 18, Governor Cuomo signed legislation to provide the following:

  • Employers with 10 or fewer employees and a net income less than $1 million will provide job protection for the duration of the quarantine order and guarantee their workers access to Paid Family Leave and disability benefits (short-term disability) for the period of quarantine including wage replacement for their salaries up to $150,000.
  • Employers with 11-99 employees and employers with 10 or fewer employees and a net income greater than $1 million will provide at least 5 days of paid sick leave, job protection for the duration of the quarantine order, and guarantee their workers access to Paid Family Leave and disability benefits (short-term disability) for the period of quarantine including wage replacement for their salaries up to $150,000.
  • Employers with 100 or more employees, as well as all public employers (regardless of number of employees), will provide at least 14 days of paid sick leave and guarantee job protection for the duration of the quarantine order.

Shared Work Program

The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) Shared Work Program allows businesses to manage business cycles and seasonal adjustments while retaining trained staff and avoiding layoffs. Employees can receive partial Unemployment Insurance benefits while working reduced hours. Full-time, part-time and seasonal employees are eligible.

IV. Connecticut

Connecticut has provided a number of resources, in addition to the SBA, for Connecticut businesses including the following:

DECD’s COVID-19 Business Emergency Response Unit

The Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development has created a COVID-19 Business Emergency Response Unit dedicated to assisting businesses navigate resources and develop new resources. A dedicated phone line is has been set up at 860-500-2333 to provide assistance to Connecticut’s small businesses for this purpose.

Unemployment Assistance

Workers directly impacted by the coronavirus pandemic no longer must be actively searching for work to qualify for unemployment assistance. And employers who are furloughing workers can use the Department of Labor’s shared work program, which allows businesses to reduce working hours and have those wages supplemented with unemployment insurance. Further information can be found here.

Tax Filing Extensions

The Department of Revenue Services has extended deadlines for filing and payments associated with certain state business tax returns. Effective immediately, the filing deadlines for certain annual tax returns due on or after March 15, 2020, and before June 1, 2020, are extended by at least 30 days. In addition, the payments associated with these returns are also extended to the corresponding due date in June.

The impacted returns and the associated filing dates and payment deadlines are set forth below:

  • 2019 Form CT-1065/CT-1120 SI Connecticut Pass-Though Entity Tax Return: Filing date extended to April 15, 2020; payment deadline extended to June 15, 2020
  • 2019 Form CT-990T Connecticut Unrelated Business Income Tax Return: Filing date extended to June 15, 2020; payment deadline extended to June 15, 2020
  • 2019 Form CT-1120 and CT-1120CU Connecticut Corporation Business Return: Filing date extended to June 15, 2020; payment deadline extended to June 15, 2020

Business Interruption Insurance

A business interruption insurance policy should list or describe the types of events it covers. Events that are not described in the policy are typically not covered. It is important to review the policy exclusions, coverage limits, and applicable deductibles with your agent, broker or insurer. The Connecticut Insurance Department has an FAQ that provides more information.

V. New Jersey

New Jersey has not yet released any official assistance programs for businesses impacted by COVID-19. Several State agencies are currently engaging with local business leaders, local financial institutions, and business advocacy groups to better understand what supports would be most impactful to ensure business and employment continuity. While businesses await direction, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority (NJEDA) has a portfolio of loan, financing, and technical assistance programs available to support small and medium-sized businesses.

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

Can the Government Really Shut Down My Business and Make Me Stay Home? Questions Answered Relating to Declarations of Emergency Due to Coronavirus

As companies face shutdowns and citizens are encouraged to stay home due to the coronavirus (COVID-19), businesses and people may be asking questions, such as can the government really do that? Those who followed China’s response to the outbreak—which involved using martial law to keep millions of citizens in their home—would have seen references in those stories western democracies being unable to use such extreme measures. Yet, it may now seem to some that our own democratic leaders are doing just that (and should be). Can they?

The short answer is yes, they can.

But fear not, because you are not likely to see tanks rolling down the streets enforcing martial law. There remain strong protections for citizens, even in times like these, preventing arbitrary government action. Unlike the famous Dunder Mifflin manager Michael Scott “declaring” bankruptcy in a building parking lot, when Governor Murphy declared a state of emergency in New Jersey he did not simply open the window of his office, shout “this is an emergency!” and then start issuing a list of edicts. His authority, and that of any executive, is restricted by the laws authorizing such a declaration.

A brief review from civics class:

To prevent abuse, the power to make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws are separated into three branches, i.e., the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. That means the governor cannot simply do what he wants (like a king or dictator), even if he feels those actions are best for the people. He must do only those things which comply with the laws enacted by the legislature (as interpreted by judges). So upon declaring a state of emergency, Governor Murphy—and any other executive declaring an emergency—issued a series of executive orders invoking specific New Jersey legislative enactments. Those statutes pre-authorized the executive branch (which the Governor heads) to take certain, specific actions when the state is facing an emergency.

Most declarations of emergency in recent memory pertain to snowstorms or hurricanes. In those instances, the State invoked more familiar provisions of the statutes governing declarations of emergency, including freeing up money earmarked for emergency use; calling on the national guard to help with the effects of the storm; and allowing the police to redirect traffic. But the Governor’s statutory powers during an emergency are broad, flexible, and include the ability to “make such orders. . . as may be necessary adequately to meet the various problems presented by any emergency,” including “[t]he designation of vehicles and persons permitted to move during. . . emergency,” “[t]he conduct of the civilian population during the threat of and imminence of danger or any emergency,” and “[o]n any matter that may be necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. . . .”  N.J. S.A. App. A:9-45.  Violations of these orders are considered a disorderly person offense and may be punished by up to 6 months imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, or both.

In response to coronavirus questions:

Governor Murphy also invoked a provision of New Jersey law not implicated by other types of natural disaster called the “Emergency Health Powers Act,” which provided additional authorization for control over medical facilities, the distributions of medical resources, and authority to “identify areas that are or may be dangerous to the public health” and cause “movement of persons within that area to be restricted, if such action is reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency.” N.J.S.A. § 26:13-9. The same law allows the State to “[r]equire the vaccination of persons as protection against infectious disease;” and although the vaccine cannot be “administered without obtaining the informed consent of the person to be vaccinated,” the state may require quarantine for “persons who are unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination. . . .” N.J.S.A. § 26:13-14. And the same law states that no public entity or its agents are “liable for an injury caused by any act or omission in connection with a public health emergency, or preparatory activities. . . .” N.J.S.A. § 26:13-19

So, can the government shut down your business and make you stay home?

Yes. And they can vaccinate you, quarantine you, and are immune from suit for doing any of those things.

There are, however, other avenues and considerations of which businesses and employees should be aware during these times. Many contracts contain force majeure clauses, which businesses should analyze to determine if they apply to coronavirus-related shutdowns, especially those mandated by the Governor’s recent executive order. Others may consider whether they have insurance coverage for a business interruption caused by the government-mandated shutdown. Employees and employers alike should keep abreast of the changing legal landscape surrounding paid sick leave.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved