Tag: COVID-19

COVID-19 Daily Self Screening Video

Daily self-screening is one of the simplest ways to help stop the spread of COVID-19. Designed to educate employees, COVID-19 Daily Self-Screening video provides an overview of symptoms and steps a staff member can take to help break the chain of transmission, if they do get sick. Part of a series aimed at supporting a “Work Together, Healthy Together” workplace health and safety program, our videos are intended to be shared with you workforce. In connection with Polsinelli’s efforts to provide resources and support to businesses in our own communities and beyond, we hope you and your team find this valuable.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

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.

Do You Need to WARN Your Employees?

The swift onset of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic caused lost revenue and financial hardship for many employers. Some quickly instituted layoffs as a cost-saving measure. Others went out of business altogether.

Regardless of whether employees suffered job losses as a result of layoffs or business shutdowns, employers may have had, or still have, a duty to provide notice of these job losses under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).

Many states also have their own so-called “mini-WARN” laws. For Wisconsin businesses, the applicable state law is the Wisconsin Business Closing and Mass Layoff Law (WI-WARN).

WHAT IS THE WARN ACT?

The WARN Act protects workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide at least 60 calendar days’ advance written notice of a plant closing or mass layoffs affecting certain numbers of employees. Under state law, if applicable, the notice period and the content of the notice may be different.

The purpose of the WARN Act is to provide workers and their families with transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain other jobs, and, if necessary, to enter skill training or re-training that will allow these workers to compete successfully in the job market.

Typically, obligations under the WARN Act arise when an employer has sufficient advance knowledge of the need for a plant shutdown or mass layoff such that the employer would be able to give employees the required 60 days’ advance notice. The plant closings and layoffs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, however, were anything but typical. Many employers felt the need to act quickly and, as such, failed to issue WARN Act notices.

DOES THE WARN ACT APPLY TO YOUR BUSINESS?

Coverage under the WARN Act and similar state laws depends on the size of your workforce. Coverage under the WARN Act is triggered by having 100 or more employees in the U.S. In contrast, WI-WARN covers Wisconsin employers with 50 or more employees in the state. Who is considered an employee for purposes of coverage is dictated by statute and generally excludes new and low-hour employees.

DOES THE WARN ACT APPLY TO YOUR LAYOFFS?

The duty to provide WARN Act notice is triggered by either a plant closing or mass layoff, which are defined as:

  • A plant closing (referred to as a business closing under Wisconsin law) is a permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site of employment, or of a facility or operating unit at a single site, that results in an employment loss for 50 or more full-time employees. This threshold is lowered under WI-WARN to 25 or more full-time employees within a single municipality.
  • A mass layoff is defined as any workforce reduction that:
    1. Does not result from a plant closing, and
    2. Creates an employment loss affecting either 50 or more employees and at least 33 percent or more of the employers’ total active workforce at a single site of employment or, alternatively, 500 or more employees. Under WI-WARN this threshold is lowered to 25 employees or 25 percent of the workforce, whichever is greater.

Before jumping to the conclusion that there is a duty to provide WARN Act notice, an employer should carefully analyze whether they are covered under the law and, if so, whether the actions taken meet the plant closing or mass layoff definitions.

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF THE WARN ACT?

There are many exceptions and nuances under the WARN Act and state law. Two pertinent exceptions in light of the current pandemic are:

  1. Layoffs of less than six months: If a temporary layoff lasts less than six months, an employer is not obligated to comply with the 60-day notice requirements of the WARN Act.
  2. Unforeseeable business circumstances: The WARN Act allows an employer to order a plant closing or mass layoff before the conclusion of the 60-day notice period if the closing or layoff is caused by “business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required.” A government-ordered closing of an employment site that occurs without prior notice also may be considered an unforeseeable business circumstance.

To date, the U.S. Department of Labor and, in Wisconsin, the Department of Workforce Development, have provided no guidance on whether the business circumstances exception would apply to shutdowns and layoffs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some attorneys and commentators believe that the exception could apply to certain industry sectors such as restaurants, bars and other service-sector employers who were subject to state government-mandated shutdowns.

However, for the majority of employers who have continued to operate as an essential business or are receiving government relief funding such as Paycheck Protection Program funds, the answer is far less clear. It remains to be seen how the state and federal governments will accept this exception in circumstances where operations have continued in some capacity, mass layoffs were contemplated prior to the COVID-19 pandemic or where an employer knows now that it will need to do a mass layoff as soon as federal funding ceases.

WHAT, IF ANYTHING, SHOULD AN EMPLOYER DO?

Employers should consider these six actions:

  1. Determine if you have enough employees to be covered by the WARN Act or state-specific mini-WARN laws.
  2. Calculate whether the employment losses occasioned by a business shutdown or layoff would meet the coverage numbers set forth under applicable law.
  3. In the case of a temporary layoff, determine, to the extent possible, whether it will exceed six months (if not, the WARN Act does not apply).
  4. Because a layoff that lasts more than six months could trigger coverage, it is important to monitor the expected length of any current temporary layoffs. If a layoff is extended beyond 6 months due to business circumstances, notice is required when it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the extension is required.
  5. Even if the unforeseeable business circumstances exception applies, an employer still must provide as much notice as possible under the circumstances. The notice must provide a brief description of why the employer could not provide the full notice period.
  6. Consider whether it makes sense to play it safe and send notices even if the employer hopes to rehire workers within six months. A possible downside to this approach is that it could result in the laid-off workforce being motivated to find other jobs.

The bottom line is that the application of the WARN Act can be complicated. This complication is exacerbated by the fact that the law, while well-intentioned, did not anticipate how it should be applied in the face of a pandemic. If you think you may need to WARN your employees, seek legal counsel to help navigate these complicated laws.

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

For more on the WARN Act, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Legal Industry Highlights: Law Firm Hires, Awards, and COVID-19 Innovation in May 2020

While the world has been hunkered down at home, participating in Zoom calls and getting jobs done from kitchen tables and home offices across the country, the legal industry has continued to innovate, respond and move forward, even during these troubled times.

Read on for a sampling of legal industry changes from May 2020.

Hiring and Law Firm Moves

Last week, Perkins Coie announced that Jill Louis joined the Corporate & Securities practice as a partner in the Dallas office, in a move that further augments their capabilities in the Lone Star state. Randy Bridgeman, the co-chair of Perkins Coie’s Corporate & Securities practice praised Louis’s entrepreneurial spirit and her in house and leadership experience.  He says, “Jill’s background in M&A and representing private equity-backed healthcare, infrastructure, and technology companies will be highly valuable to our clients across Texas and beyond.”

Jill Louis Corporate Lawyer
Jill B. Louis Perkins Coie

Louis has experience working with public and private companies in mergers and acquisitions, franchise transactions, corporate governance matters and working in industries including retail, technology and healthcare.  She has worked with large and small companies, from startups to Fortune 50 corporations, and has worked both in house and in private practice during her career. Dean Harvey, the Dallas office managing partner, says, “Jill’s arrival aligns with our ongoing strategy of expanding our corporate offering in Dallas to support our growing technology and privacy capabilities.”

Up in the northeast, Pierce Atwood added bankruptcy and creditors’ rights attorney Alex F. Mattera to the firm’s Boston office. Mattera focuses his practice on creditor and debtor rights, commercial bankruptcy, bankruptcy litigation and insolvency. He represents secured creditors, focusing on the collection and workouts of defaulted and troubled loans, creditors’ committees, debtors, trustees and other parties involved in bankruptcy.

“Alex’s expertise in bankruptcy and creditors’ rights matters, particularly his loan workout experience, will really help us serve our lending and business clients. This is the third major recession Alex has been through,” said Pierce Atwood Business Practice Group Chair Keith J. Cunningham. “That kind of experience is so valuable in times like these. We couldn’t be happier to welcome him to the firm.”

Mattera has presented and sat on panels for the American Bankruptcy Institute, as well as Massachusetts Continuing Education and the Boston Bar Association.

 “Alex’s expertise in workouts and collections will provide the firm even greater depth on the backend of loan transactions as we continue to provide a comprehensive suite of services to creditors and banks,” said Bruce I. Miller, Pierce Atwood’s real estate lending partner.

Devon Williams Named Managing Partner Elect
Devon Williams Ward and Smith

With an eye to the future and succession planning, North Carolina firm Ward and Smith elected labor and employment attorney Devon Williams as the firm’s co-managing director elect. Williams will assume the new role at the end of 2020. She will serve alongside Brad Evans, who has served as the Ward and Smith’s managing director since 2017. Williams is preceded in the co-managing director position by Ken Wooten, who is retiring from Ward and Smith at the end of this year.

“Succession planning is essential to all businesses, including our own, and choosing a strong leader enables seamless continuity in client service, and maintains stability within the firm,” Wooten said. “I think it says a lot about our firm that we’re selecting a millennial leader to take us into the next decade. Devon will bring a unique, and much needed perspective to the perennial concerns of a fully-engaged law firm.”

Since joining Ward and Smith in 2012, Williams has led the firm’s Labor and Employment Section and co-chaired the Raleigh Geographic Team.

“I’m grateful for and enthusiastic about the opportunity to build upon the legacy the firm has experienced under Ken’s leadership while working in tandem with Brad to continue our efforts to innovate efficient legal solutions for our clients, and attract and retain top-tier talent,” Williams said.

As co-managing director of Ward and Smith, Williams will maintain her labor and employment practice, where she advises employers on wage and hour issues, federal contractor compliance, prevention of employment discrimination, employee discipline and retaliation and harassment claims.

Life sciences attorney Frank Rahmani joined Sidley Austin as a partner in the firm’s Palo Alto, Calif., corporate practice, and will be a member of the Global Life Sciences practice. Ramani counsels CEOs, boards of directors, founders and investors on financings and public offerings, strategic collaborations, licensing matters, technology acquisition and spin-off transactions.

“Frank has a well-earned reputation as a trusted adviser, which is built on enduring relationships and breadth of experience representing high-growth, cutting edge life sciences and technology companies and investors at all stages,” said Martin Wellington, managing partner of Sidley Austin’s Palo Alto office. “He has great energy, a high-quality practice and a clear vision for growth that aligns with ours. Frank’s arrival signifies our strategy to build out Sidley’s presence in Northern California.”

Womble Bond Dickinson retired partner and North Carolina trial lawyer Allan R. Gitter passed away May 17 at the age of 83.

Allan Gitter Womble Bond Dickinson
Alan Gitter

Gitter joined Womble Bond Dickinson in 1962, when Womble had about a dozen attorneys.  Gitter was the lead attorney in over one thousand cases filed in North Carolina state and federal courts between 1964 and 2009. Many lawyers who are now partners with the firm tried their first cases with Gitter, including Gemma Saluta, Murray Greason, Rachel Keen, Jim Morgan, Rick Rice, Bill Raper, Ellen Gregg, Alison Bost, Brad Wood and Chris Geis.

Gitter was inducted as a fellow in the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1982, and served as an Advocate in the American Board of Trial Advocates. He loved legal research and the law, but his interests also included coaching the Tiny Demons Pop Warner football team and his work at the Children’s Center, a facility devoted to the education and care of children with chronic health issues.  He put himself through law school in part with his work as a night radio deejay on the campus radio station, employing his trademark sign-off at the end of the night:  “Remember never to buy bad dreams.”

Gitter is survived by his wife of 32 years, Sandy; three children, Alison, Kent, and Ryne; two step-children, Wendy and Rob; multiple grandchildren and one great-grandchild.

Law Firm Innovation, Awards and Accomplishments

Redgrave LLP, a law firm focused on information governance and eDiscovery law,  formed a Restructuring Discovery Team, working closely with law firms and advisors on litigation readiness and discovery for all types of restructurings. The Redgrave team handles data collection, preservation and review efforts during pre-petition and after a bankruptcy has been filed.

“We are proud to be the nation’s leading eDiscovery law firm, and we are very excited to formalize our experience in restructuring discovery,” said Redgrave partner Christine Payne, head of the firm’s restructuring team. “Many people do not realize how different discovery can be in the restructuring and bankruptcy contexts, as opposed to typical civil litigation. There is significant client need in this area, and we want to support that.”

Managing Intellectual Property named three Texas Bracewell partners as IP Stars. Albert B. Kimball, was recognized for patents and trademarks, and Constance Gall Rhebergen and Douglas W. Rommelmann were recognized for patents.

IP Stars covers IP practice areas in over 70 jurisdictions, making it one of the most comprehensive guides in the industry.

In a decision that could provide a roadmap for local Marijuana dispensaries, A Kutak Rock team including litigation partners Andrew King and Fred Davis, and intellectual property counsel Sara Gillette representing Conway, Arkansas-based Harvest Cannabis Dispensary (“Harvest”) secured a preliminary injunction in a trademark dispute.  Natural State Wellness Dispensary, LLC (“NSW”), and Natural State Enterprises, LLC, were using the name “Harvest” in for cannabis facilities across Arkansas, something the preliminary injunction now prohibits.

After an evidentiary hearing conducted over Zoom, Circuit judge Susan Weaver rejected the argument that  The NSW Entities were authorized to use the name “Harvest” through their connection with Arizona-based Harvest Health & Recreation, Inc, a company using the Harvest mark in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Florida prior to the opening of the Arkansas Harvest dispensary.   The court looked at precedent set by the USPTO and other federal courts, indicating products containing more than 0.3% THC are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act and therefore do not enjoy Trademark rights under the Lanham Act. Furthermore, Harvest adopted its name in 2017 and opened its facility in October of 2019, providing the dispensary with state-law trademark rights in Arkansas.

Kutak Rock partner Andrew King: “The Faulkner County outcome is the first of its kind, where a local cannabis dispensary prevailed under state trademark law against a multi-state operator for which federal trademark protection is unavailable. This outcome could provide a road map for local cannabis companies in states where cannabis has been legalized.”

Law Firm and Legal industry Response to COVID-19: A Sampling

COVID-19 has upended business as usual across the country; injecting terms like “flatten the curve”; “PPE” and “Contract Tracing” into everyday conversation.  The National Law Review has covered some of the steps firms and other legal industry groups have taken to have a positive impact during these challenging times.  For example, DLA Piper has signed on to the Ascend’s Five Point Action program, demonstrating a dedication to mitigating the disparate impact of COVID-19 on minority communities.  Additionally, to broaden the reach of Coronavirus information and regulatory developments, Cornerstone Research worked with Stanford University to provide a database of legal articles and memos.  Below are some more instances of law firms and other legal industry groups taking steps to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19.

Health Care Contact TracingMintz Law Firm provided pro bono counsel to Partners in Health (“PIH”), a Boston global health nonprofit, helping with the development of the Massachusetts COVID-19 Community Tracing Collaborative (“CTC”). The CTC is an initiative that works with PIH, the Massachusetts COVID-19 Command Center, Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority and Massachusetts Department of Public Health to train, hire and deploy workers who will work with individuals exposed to Coronavirus.  This veritable army of “contact tracers” will provide individuals with information about the virus, social support to facilitate self-isolation or quarantine, and provide appropriate next steps so individuals can stay healthy and protect their families; ultimately enhancing the Commonwealth’s ability to respond to COVID-19.  Dr. Joia Mukherjee, PIH’s chief medical officer, says on contact tracing:

Access to this information helps contacts to know how to protect their loved ones, and to get tested or cared for themselves,” she said. “Without knowing our own status, without being able to specifically protect our loved ones, we are all living in the dark. (And) we know that there is significant anxiety in this darkness.

An interdisciplinary group of Mintz attorneys worked with PIH to facilitate this partnership on a pro-bono basis, helping this critical work get off the ground.  Attorneys involved were Dianne Bourque and Ellen Janos, Members in Mintz’s Health Practice,  Elissa Flynn-Poppey, Chair of the Government Law Practice, Julie Korostoff Chair of the firm’s IT Transactions & Outsourcing Practice, Andrew Matzkin, a Member in the firm’s Employment practice, and Corporate Associate Daniel Marden.

“Mintz is pleased to have been able to assist PIH in its efforts to change the course of COVID-19 in the Commonwealth,” said Mintz Member Ellen Janos. “It has been deeply rewarding to work on such a critically important project.”

Another group working to mitigate the negative impact of COVID-19 is the Diverse Attorney Pipeline Program (“DAPP”), a group with a mission to diversify the legal profession by expanding opportunities for women of color law students to secure summer positions at law firms and corporations following their first year of law school, an activity that greatly increases the likelihood of an offer of paid employment after graduation.  DAPP was founded by Tiffany Harper and Chastity Boyce, both women of color who graduated from law school during the previous recession, and are passionate about mitigating the negative effects on women attorneys of color.

Recognizing the disruption that COVID-19 has had on everyone, and specifically law firm internships, DAPP is launching a fund and fellowship for students who are unable to complete their law firm internships this year.  Started with seed money from the organization, DAPP has a goal of 100,000 to fund this program, and is requesting support from law firms, corporations, bar associations, and other nonprofit organizations in the form of earmarked donations.

“As law firms and businesses are forced to cut their summer internship programs, we hope they’ll consider contributing to this fund to support our work of infusing the pipeline to the legal profession with talented, highly qualified women of color in order to address the dismal statistics surrounding the number of women of color who are hired, retained and promoted at large law firms across the nation,” said Harper.

Students who receive the stipend will receive financial support as well as intensive professional development; involving volunteer legal work to facilitate skill development and meaningful training for participants.  Additionally, the awardees will be matched with lawyer mentors, be provided with professional development and coaching.

“This is not a time to give up on diversity and inclusion efforts; it’s a time to refocus our efforts on preparing the next generation of lawyers for the challenges they’ll face in a diverse, global marketplace,” added Boyce.

Copyright ©2020 National Law Forum, LLC

For more Law Firm News updates, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

You Streamed What? Copyright Infringement Pitfalls During COVID-19

In the sudden transition from in-person to online presentation of content precipitated by the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders, some educators and other presenters have run headlong into the digital world without a thought to the application of copyright law to their online presentations.  Scrambling to provide content, did some consider the sufficiency of their internet bandwidth and the security of their video-conferencing platform while overlooking copyright infringement issues?  Caution.  Those office webinars, college lectures, music lessons, and club meetings can be fraught with legal pitfalls.

Although we are slowly emerging from our bunkers and cautiously lifting our masks while maintaining social distance, some have predicted that online meetings and classes are here to stay—at least in some form.  Thus, these copyright infringement pitfalls merit consideration.  Granted, any attempt to treat this matter comprehensively in a 1500 word article is a fool’s errand.  And when it comes to these highly fact-specific matters, there’s no substitute for an attorney’s legal advice.  But some basic education on copyright law and some understanding of the distinctions between copyright as applied to education versus other areas might assist those unaccustomed to the online stage from stumbling into a battle over copyright infringement.

What is Protected by Copyright?

A copyright is a collection of rights that protect original works of authorship.  These works can include literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.  A copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.  In general, a copyright exists from the moment the work is created and fixed in tangible form.  Registering does not create the copyright; but registering the copyright allows the owner to bring a lawsuit to enforce it and bears on the recovery that a copyright owner can obtain in the lawsuit.  Similarly, under the current law, neither the “©” symbol nor any other marking on an original work of authorship creates the copyright; but the copyright symbol or other marking can put the public on notice that the copyright owner claims his copyright.

What is in the Public Domain?

Works in the “public domain” can be copied.  These fall generally into three categories.

  • Works deliberately dedicated to the public without copyright protection.
  • Works for which the copyright has expired.
  • Works for which the copyright was not renewed.

The changes in the copyright legislation over the course of the past 40 years have made the rules about copyright expiration and renewal somewhat complex.  As of 2020, however, works published before January 1, 1925, entered the public domain.

What About Fair Use?

Most educators and presenters have some familiarity with the “fair use doctrine,” a defense to what is indisputably copying of an original work.  While some librarians have signed the “Public Statement:  Fair Use & Emergency Remote Teaching & Research” in which they boldly state that “making materials available and accessible to students in this time of crisis will almost always be a fair use”, as yet no legislature or court has carved out a “COVID-19” addendum or even a “public health emergency” addendum to the fair use doctrine.  Nevertheless, the fair use doctrine can provide a defense to presenters who exercise a modicum of discretion.

In considering an infringer’s reliance on the fair use doctrine as a defense to copyright infringement, courts consider the use made of the work in light of four factors:

1)   the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is commercial or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2)   the nature of the copyrighted work;

3)   the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4)   the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Consideration of these factors is highly subjective and fact-sensitive.  The first factor, besides asking whether the use is commercial or educational, looks at the purpose of the use.  Educational as opposed to commercial uses are favored.  But contrary to popular belief, educational use alone will not suffice as a defense to copyright infringement.  Generally, whether the use is commercial or educational, there must be something “transformative” about the use.  In other words, is there something new created?  Does the new work offer a new expression, meaning or message?  Is it serving as raw material for a new expression or insight?  In the education context, is the instructor adding something new such as commentary?  Is he tying the work into his own lesson or is he just using the work to replace his lesson?

While the first factor is often considered the “heart” of the fair use analysis, the other factors matter too.  Consider the second factor.  Is the original work creative or just an arrangement of facts?  Fair use has a broader scope where the original work is factual or informational.  Is it published or unpublished?  Greater latitude is afforded the alleged infringer claiming fair use where the work is published.

But even if the work is published, the third factor considers the portion used—in a quantitative as well as a qualitative sense.  Is the portion used a paragraph or several chapters?  The fair use defense will more likely shield copying a small portion of a work than a large section.  Despite efforts by advocates, courts have refused to specifically quantify how much is too much.  Furthermore, if a copier carves out the most memorable portion of the work, the “heart” of the work, no matter how small, fair use will offer no sanctuary—except in parody.  Where the new work is a parody of the original, the court has recognized that it is the heart of the work at which the parody takes aim.

Finally, how does the copied work impact the potential market for the original? If the copied work undermines the current or potential market for the original work, then this will undermine the use of the fair use doctrine as a defense.

In the education context, Congress has carved out some specific ways in which instructors can circumvent infringement.  House Report No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976) includes the Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-For-Profit Educational Institutions (p.6).  Single copying of a chapter from a book or an article from a periodical, a chart or cartoon for use in teaching or preparing to teach, for example is considered fair use under the guidelines.  Multiple copying for the use of pupils in a class is similarly fair use where the copying meets tests of brevity and spontaneity (as defined in the guidelines), meets the cumulative effect test (as defined in the guidelines), and each copy includes a notice of copyright.  But copying cannot be used to replace anthologies or to replace books intended to be “consumable.”  Specific guidelines apply to music.  While there may be instances in which copying does not fall within the protection of the guidelines but nevertheless is permitted under the fair use criteria, compliance with the guidelines offers a safe harbor for educators.

Outside of this safe harbor, presenters employing copied works must navigate the more uncertain waters of fair use and consider other ways to avoid infringement.  But be forewarned that mere acknowledgement of the source material, while perhaps one factor to be considered in a fair use determination, will not absolve a copier for infringement.  Likewise, a disclaimer—effectively a “No Infringement Intended” notice—won’t work.

How Does the TEACH Act Apply in the Online Classroom?

Addressing more specifically the online environment for education, the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, better known as the TEACH Act, addresses digital teaching materials used in both the classroom and in distance learning settings in 17 USC § 110(2).  This exempts from infringement certain performances and displays of works in an online classroom transmission under certain conditions.

What can be transmitted?

  • Performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work.
  • Performance of reasonable and limited portions of any other work.
  • Display of a work in an amount comparable to what would typically be displayed in the course of a live classroom session.

Under what conditions?

  • The transmission is under the actual supervision of an instructor.
  • The transmission is part of the instructional activities of the institution.
  • The work is related to the teaching content of the transmission.
  • The transmission is made solely for and is limited to the students officially enrolled in the course (as much as is technologically feasible).

What is not authorized?

  • Use of pirated copies.
  • Use of works normally marketed primarily for performance or display as part of online instructional activities.
  • Conversion of print versions of works to digital formats unless there is no digital version available, and even then, conversion is limited to the portions authorized by the size restrictions in the Act.

In order for an instructor to rely on the provisions of the Act, the institution must comply with certain requirements regarding policies and education of faculty and students and application of technological measures to reasonably prevent retention of the works by recipients of the transmission or further dissemination.  Posting class lectures that include copyrighted works on YouTube won’t qualify.

What about showing films?  In the face-to-face environment of a brick and mortar classroom, showing an entire film, video or TV program for educational purposes is allowed (17 U.S.C. § 110(1)), but not when the classroom goes virtual.  Showing portions of a film in an online classroom, may be considered fair use depending on how much of the film is shown and for what purpose.  If fair use does not apply and if the film is not in the public domain, however, students should view the film through a licensed streaming film provider.

What About Licenses and Releases?

Obtaining an author’s permission to use his work obviates the need to engage in the fair use or other analyses described above.  Whether the permission takes the form of a license (permission to use the work) or a release (promise not to sue for unauthorized use), however, many licenses and releases are limited to in-person presentation or distribution and do not extend to online presentation or distribution.  Presenters must carefully consider the scope of permission granted by a license or permission.

In the COVID-19 world, some publishers are offering educators temporary expanded permissions.  The key words here are “educators” and “temporary.”  These permissions do not extend to non-educators, and they are provisional.  Once the days of stay-at-home orders end, educators cannot assume that they can use the same works in the same way online.  In addition, the use of these expanded permissions comes with strings attached.  There are certain requirements that the publishers impose on the user.

Some creators offer their work through Creative Commons licenses.  These give creators standardized ways to grant the public permission to use their work.  Again, however, a user of a work offered under a Creative Commons license should carefully consider the scope of the permission granted.  Not all Creative Commons licenses allow the same types of use.

Obtaining permission to use works may seem daunting, but there are various organizations available online that streamline the process.  The Copyright Alliance offers a list of resources to assist those seeking licenses for works such as literary publications, music, photographs, software and motion pictures.

Conclusion

When it comes to copyright and online meetings, many well-meaning and well-educated people don’t know what they don’t know—until they do.  Unfortunately, that epiphany sometimes comes in the form of a takedown notice or a demand letter.  Thus, presenters would be well advised to evaluate their use of another’s work before posting, streaming, sharing or tweeting.

Copyright 2020 Summa PLLC All Rights Reserved

Once COVID-19 is Contained– Visioning What’s Next For Offices and White Collar Businesses

When you push a pause button on a computer, it shuts down. When you push a pause button on a human, as is occurring now in the midst of the Coronavirus pandemic gripping most of the world, we do not rest. We think, refresh, imagine, and try to adapt to a new world order once the pandemic abates. Darwin surmised that it is not necessarily the strongest or smartest that survive. Rather, the survivors succeed in being flexible and adapting to new environments. Zhou Enlai, when asked by Henry Kissinger what impact the French Revolution had on China, reflected “it’s too soon to tell.”  Given the pressing necessity to re-connect our lives and economies, while at the same time staying healthy and safe, we do not have the luxury to reflect. Rather, we must plan for a future that is being quickly thrust upon us, or existing trends accelerated, at warp speed. This article imagines how that new world order might impact our office’s finance department. The survivors will successfully be flexible and adapt.

A recent paper on fifteen major pandemics and armed conflicts since the thirteenth century postulated that the major after-effects of those events lasted over forty years. Real rates of return were more substantially depressed during the period ravaged by pandemics, more so than due to wars, due to the significant precautions and adjustments business and society took after pandemics but not after wars. The postulate is that after wars, most countries just rebuild and, while they may have changed institutional frameworks, do not reassess ways of doing business and conducting their day to day lives.

This article offers possible post-Coronavirus changes to our office environment. While many alterations such as modifications to social relationships, office structure, technology, marketing, and the role of government are inevitable, this article will focus on new approaches to financial management and legal focus. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I hope these thoughts may help us not waste this crisis and prepare for a brighter future.

Financial Management in Companies After COVID-19

The monetary seismic aftershocks of the pandemic will reverberate our financial management in many ways, some of which are noted below.

More Cash on Hand

The social disruption caused by abruptly coasting at full employment one moment and, in a flash, jolting to a 14.5% unemployment rate profoundly alters the loyalty workers have to their employer (or former employer). While most intellectually always recognized that the office was a business and not a true social and family organization, no one could have foreseen the sudden radical separation of workers from either their jobs or office environments or both.  Repairing that emotional and physical trauma will take time.  One way to gradually restore the pre-pandemic security workers felt in their office environments is to provide a better sense of community overpay as a lure to attract and retain employees. Alternatively, businesses could set aside a “rainy day reserve fund”, on top of the usual 401(k) and other retirement plans, where a portion of an employee’s pay, or company profits, could be placed in a fund to which it is used only to retain employees in situations where mass layoffs were warranted. An employee would receive his or her share of the funds upon retirement or being terminated in such a circumstance if they were not used before then.

Obviously, these funds are not a panacea but a means to dedicate some resources and provide some comfort to workers concerned for their employers and their own financial security. Moreover, businesses might manage their finances more conservatively and always agree to have some minimum level of cash, say a three months reserve, to assuage employees that it can stay afloat for some reasonable period of time in case another disaster strikes.  Further, businesses may consider not living too close to the edge and consider keeping on hand at least two to three months’ reserve to pay rent, payroll, utilities, and other critical fixed costs. This might be prudent fiscal discipline even in good times and a munificent marketing tool to give employees some comfort that they will not be reflexively jettisoned at the first sign of a downturn.

Focus on Higher Level of Health, Cleanliness, and Safety

Office environments may soon stress their focus on and sensitivity to health, cleanliness, and safety.  This necessity will significantly increase employer costs.  Return on investment on intensifying the cleanliness and sanitization of the office is not quantifiable.

These attributes, always taken for granted and never really promoted in attracting and keeping workers, may now catapult to the forefront to comfort workers’ anxieties. For example, disinfectant wipes and hand soap can become omnipresent.  Coffee machines, soda machines, food dispensers, and other purveyors of sustenance as well as countertops, printers, copiers, file cabinets will be wiped after every use. The issue of how to open the washroom door without touching the doorknob may be solved by replacing doorknobs, counter space, copier buttons, coffee put handles with virus-free coatings. We might increase the scope of services our cleaning services providers to enhance disinfecting.  A CFO will just have to bite the bullet and sign off on these vital necessities heretofore considered excessive.

Office Design and Use

Costs will increase to reconfigure office space design so workers feel safer. For example, office pools or closely clustered desks may be rethought or need to be reconfigured to assured proper ventilation. Plexiglas dividers between office pool carrels and facing the open halls should be considered. Chairs for visitors in offices may need to be spaced out or removed to discourage proximity. Conference rooms, cafeterias, and other gathering spaces may also need to be redesigned so people keep at an appropriate distance while at the same time enjoy some social interaction and forge some sort of community.  HVAC and other ventilation systems may change to assure more optimal air circulation and toxin filtration. Meetings may be limited to a few attendees in person, spaced appropriately apart, with the other participants connecting by video. Just as we submit ourselves to baggage searches at airports, perhaps there could be random, or even routine, temperature checks either at building security or random tests at the office. Further, just as we pass a scanner to gain entrance to our elevator banks, perhaps we will all pass heat detectors to gauge whether we have a fever.  All this comes at a cost, again, unquantifiable to gauge the impact on return on investment.

Higher Level of Fee Earners in Relation to Assistants

The pandemic may finally accelerate the trend toward converting labor to capital.  Fee earners’ embrace of producing documents and other ways to become more self-sufficient have already increased the ratio of fee earners to assistants from maybe 1.5 or 2 to 1 ten years ago to 3 to 3.5 to 1 now. Needing to physically space assistants out more, perhaps alternate those working from home and at the office, combined with increasing proficiency of at office and at home fee earners suggest the trend is likely to accelerate to maybe 5 to 1 in the not too distant future. Some of the replaced assistants could become retooled to fee earning work, such as quasi paralegal work, especially as legal fees continue to increase with apparent inelasticity.

Office Space

The cost of office space will be another financial aspect under greater elasticity and change. The cumulative effect of more people working remotely and less office staff suggests the need for less overall office space and thus less cost.  The size of offices has trended toward the small size in recent years, with an average size of around 140 square feet. Some are suggesting the downward trends will continue unabated, perhaps to 125 square feet per office. A countervailing offset to that trend, however, may be the requirement for more space due to the need for greater distance between and among workers and conferees and perhaps fewer employees out of the office by virtue of not traveling as much.  Even if office sizes are smaller or the same, the trend toward office hotels and using more conference rooms where proper distancing is desired is likely to continue.

Wellness Programs

This will be yet another unquantifiable but necessary cost of the new office environment. Taking an interest in the health of the office environment is but one component of health and safety. Another is the employee’s personal health. Wellness programs have proliferated in recent years, as well as access to gyms and health clubs. These trends will only accelerate, provided that gyms and health clubs can provide sufficient comfort regarding cleanliness and social distance.

Technology Costs

Expenditures for technology are likely to increase but consider that technology pricing usually declines over time with scale and adoption so perhaps that will not be as dramatic. The crucial need for workers to be connected all the time everywhere and possibly need to be remote for long periods of time underscores the recognition that it is not prudent to be miserly with tech spending. The need for broadband, cabling, wi-fi, bandwidth, data storage, data compression, backhaul, caching, routers, hubs, processing power, internet of things, bits and bytes will be the lubricant to this generation reducing if not replacing the role of oil in previous generations. Remote working will increase the risk of hacking and the heightened need for secured networks fortified against cyber theft and introductions of malware. Further, the adoption of more sophisticated applications of technology such as AI and machine learning will accelerate. AI and machine learning will enable corporate and litigation document review more efficiently and conducted at remote locations. The need will intensify to support the seemingly insatiable demand for video and broadband service.

Decreased Travel and Entertainment Costs

Greater technology use may decrease other costs such as travel and ultimately the need for office space as more people regularly and systematically work remotely. Business trips, tradeshows, and even meals and entertainment are Petri dishes for breeding microbes. Sitting in a crowded basketball arena, constantly passing beers down the twenty seat row and then passing the germ-ridden money back to the vendor, or standing up at a theatre every time a patron wants to brush by you to get to her seat conjures up frightful images of too little social distancing. Recent income tax code revisions diminished deductions for some of these items and, unless reassessed, will only contribute to this declining tactic.

Higher Insurance Premiums

The cost of providing health care, not just to pay for all the Coronavirus cases but to underwrite future pandemics, will undoubtedly lead to higher insurance premiums. How employers share these increased costs with their employees is not only a financial matter but also a policy choice of the type of “safe” workplace image the employer desires to portray. Further, insurance premiums for business interruption coverage may also increase, even if the policyholder does not purchase pandemic coverage.

Higher Levels of Inventory

The 2000s introduced a virtual revolution in the efficiency of supply chains and improved just in time inventory management.  Purchasing managers could keep inventory lean and mean, knowing that replacements were just an order refill click away. Not anymore.  The confluence of trade wars, increased nationalism and now the pandemic have shattered the smooth functioning of inventory replenishment and certainty of seamless restocking. Not having to keep several months’ supply of Lysol wipes and other cleaning supplies, not to mention other basic necessities like copy paper and printer ink, saves countless dollars in working capital.  Concerns for delays and shortages have the opposite effect on working capital management and increases the cost of capital as well as decreases the businesses’ cash flow which is allocated to building inventory.

Migration to More Certain and Fixed Revenue Streams

To mitigate, if not avoid, the vicissitudes of hourly billing, professional service firms may consider more monthly fixed retainer models. This steady income, in good times and bad, could soften the slings and arrows of unpredictable cataclysms (assuming the clients stay solvent or do not renegotiate). The willingness of clients to pay fixed monthly retainers, however, may be problematic and, even if it is agreed to, may be reassessed at the first whiff of a downturn anyway. Ironically, many clients who had previously suggested a fixed cost arrangement with flat monthly retainers have recently started to see the benefits of a variable cost structure, which frees up monthly burdens during challenging times.

Possibly Lower Rent Costs

With more workers working remotely, less space will be needed. Of course, that need for lesser space may be offset by the required spreading out of personnel in the workspace, so maybe this will equalize itself.

More Zealous Monitoring of Cash Collection Cycle

Liquidity in the form of prompt receipts from clients and moderately stretched payments to vendors is essential to keep a business afloat and well-capitalized. Certainly, during any challenging economic set of circumstances, the cycle becomes elongated. The experience during the pandemic reinforced slavish devotion to the basic principles that Cash is King or Queen. I would expect businesses to pursue this truism more slavishly to avoid defaults or delayed payments from customers. Prudent financial management will require retainers, staying replenished, as well as security deposits and not permit advancing significant costs. Interest for late payments, late payment fees, early pay discounts, retainers, good relations, friendly but prompt reminder calls and follow-ups, credit card auto-pay, and abrupt cessation of work are some tactics a business could be quicker to pursue to avoid being used by their customers as a bank.

Increased Taxes

While the author is not an economist, the trillions of dollars of government stimulus, amounting to over 14% of our GDP, should be inflationary (although TARP and other excessive stimulus in 2007-08 did not lead to inflation). Increased taxes are a conventional tonic to drown deficit spending. This could both lead to great use of the multitude of income and estate tax planning services but at the same time decrease business activity. Financial managers will need to deal with greater tax claims on owners’ income and creative ways to minimize the bite.

Increased Regulation

The pandemic has unleashed a torrent of legislation addressing crucial pillars of our economy and business. These include lending, labor, employment, and executive compensation. Most of the legislation was written hurriedly to deal with the impending political and fiscal crisis and the need for interpretation and well as compliance creates work for the service industry.  Regulation always imposes cost, whether in the form of taxes or personnel or advisors to address the rules.

More Downtime Due to Pandemic Alerts

This pandemic will scar the psyche of many for decades to come and with the inevitable passing of stories down to the succeeding generations. Given the great disruptions a pandemic inflicts, the memories of which may become exaggerated and shibboleths as the years progress, and given the perceived slow and the less than energetic response the federal government provided, future leaders will view the efficient, competent and rapid response to even a whiff of a pandemic to be the prism through which their competence is judged. Therefore, the government will be expected to react with alacrity, not panic, and competence. Just as governors of states in hurricane regions lead efforts to warn citizens in advance of an impending hurricane and exhort them to board up their houses and head for higher ground, future national leaders, and even some state leaders, may closely monitor outbreaks of illnesses in faraway lands, just as we now monitor the formation of tropical depressions in the Caribbean, and perhaps prepare citizens and businesses well in advance. This may result in more precautionary business closures, some warranted and some like the putative hurricane that thankfully never develops or veers off course. Very few will blame a government for shutting down the office too soon rather than keeping it open too long. While we as a society balance economic health against physical health, this pandemic has slightly tilted the balance toward the latter. Therefore, business and financial models will need to add a closure cost and downtime “vacancy rate” lost revenue expense to prudently and conservatively prepare for this eventuality.

Some might say that all the talk of major transformational shifts due to the COVID-19 pandemic is an overreaction. After all, pandemics are rare black swan events.  Ideally, there will soon be a vaccine.  In theory,  there may already be a treatment. Many die every year during the flu season. Society has to balance health and safety against a booming productive economy. All of this is true. However, in the past twenty years, we have had several worldwide pandemics, like SARS, MERS, H1N1, avian flu, Ebola, to name a few. We have also had societal and business altering events like 9/11 and the financial pandemic in 2007-8. Some might even observe that these “black swans”, being not so rare, are more like “black ducks”.

Ignoring the trends of spreading diseases in a rapidly globalized world, as well as the likely occurrence of other truly unforeseeable occurrences, is to ignore the need to properly address the ramifications of these events and perhaps recognize ways to improve our ability to mitigate disruption in the future. While no one has a crystal ball, the possible responses to the pandemic may lead to profound changes or accelerate existing trends in our office environment in a broad panoply of areas, not the least of which includes those discussed above. Our future office and work environment, particularly in how we model our financial responses, will be as profoundly different in the future as was our country before and after the last world war. Once the Genie is out of the bottle, it is difficult to put back in.

The opinions and views stated herein are the sole opinions of the author and do not reflect the views or opinions of the National Law Review or any of its affiliates.

© The National Law Forum. LLC
ARTICLE BY Fred Tannenbaum Partner at Gould Ratner and The National Law Review’s Guest Contributors.
For more on COVID-19 recovery, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

The CDC Warns Against Using Antibody Testing Results to Make Workplace Decisions

This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the “CDC”) released interim guidelines addressing COVID-19 antibody testing. The CDC expressed concerns about the current accuracy of antibody testing and advised businesses against using the results of antibody testing (also known as serologic testing) to make any decisions about returning workers to the workplace.

Although the guidance notes that antibodies may offer some protection from reinfection and may decrease the likelihood that an individual infects others, the CDC has determined that there are myriad issues with the effectiveness of current antibody testing, including widespread false positive results. The CDC guidance states that “additional data are needed before modifying public health recommendations based on [antibody] test results, including decisions on discontinuing physical distancing and using personal protective equipment.” The CDC also recommends that even if individuals have tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies, they should continue to take precautionary measures (such as wearing facemasks) to prevent the spread of infection.

As the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has not weighed in on this issue to date, it is still unclear whether employers’ use of antibody testing to inform workplace return decisions might implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or other discrimination laws.  But given the direct affirmative guidance from the CDC, employers should continue to refrain from using antibody or serologic testing results to determine which workers may return to the workplace.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Corbin Carter at Mintz.
For more CDC Guidance, 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

Guide to Federal Reserve Main Street Loan Facilities and Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility

The Federal Reserve has created a number of programs to provide loans and other credit facilities to support the economy in response to COVID-19.  Several of these programs provide for new extensions of credit for small, medium and large businesses, including the Main Street Lending Program and the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility.  The Main Street Lending Program creates three separate facilities (“MSLFs”):  (1) the Main Street New Loan Facility, (2) the Main Street Expanded Loan Facility and (3) the Main Street Priority Loan Facility.  Each of these facilities contemplates banks and other financial institutions making “new money” loans to eligible borrowers, and in turn selling participation interests in the loans to a Fed / Treasury special purpose vehicle.  The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (“PMCCF”) i contemplates a Fed / Treasury special purpose vehicle that will make new money extensions of credit to eligible borrowers by directly purchasing bonds issued by them, or by making loans to such eligible borrowers, whether as a direct lender or by purchasing loans to such borrowers under syndicated loan facilities.

The Federal Reserve released and then updated term sheets for the MSLFs and PMCCF in March and April 2020 and circulated an FAQ for the MSLFs in April 2020, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released and circulated FAQs for the PMCCF in April and May 2020.  The term sheets and FAQs provide a number of material terms and conditions for the facilities, but many questions and issues remain in terms of structuring and implementing these facilities generally and for agents, lenders, trustees, borrowers, issuers and other parties satisfying eligibility requirements for and participating in transactions under these facilities.

The MSLFs and PMCCF, which collectively represent hundreds of billions of dollars of new money financing for borrowers and issuers, are expected to launch by the end of May 2020.

A comprehensive summary of the MSLFs and PMCCF based on the term sheets and FAQs issued to date, market reconnaissance and strategic planning and considerations around these facilities can be accessed here.  We will periodically update and supplement the MSLF/PMCCF summary and separately provide additional alerts and guidance regarding these facilities generally and the parties qualifying for and participating in transactions under these facilities.

© 2020 Bracewell LLP

For more on Federal Reserve Main Street Loans, see the National Law Review Financial Institutions and Banking law section.

COVID-19: IRS Extends Production Tax Credit/Investment Tax Credit Safe Harbors

On May 27, 2020, the IRS issued Notice 2020-41, which responds to industry-wide supply chain disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic by giving renewable energy developers additional time to complete their projects. Most importantly, the Notice extends two safe harbors applicable to the renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) and investment tax credit (ITC).

First, the “Continuity Safe Harbor” is extended from four years to five years for projects that began construction in 2016 or 2017. Developers that put the project in service by the end of the fifth calendar year after the year construction began will be deemed to meet the continuous construction requirement.

Second, relief is provided for developers that intend to meet the beginning construction requirement by incurring 5% of project costs, i.e., by making payments for services or property they reasonably expected to receive within 3½ months (a/k/a the 3½ Month Rule). Developers that pay for services or property on or after September 16, 2019 and actually receive the services or property by October 15, 2020, will be deemed to satisfy the 3½ Month Rule.

This relief is available to developers of wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, trash, hydropower, fuel cells, microturbines, and combined heat and power systems.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

For more on IRS Safe Harbors, see the National Law Review Tax Law section.