Tag: COVID-19

Chinese Rail System for Restaurant Meal Delivery Patent Infringed

Perhaps showing the future of restaurants in times of social distancing, defendant Xuansu Company (炫速公司) implemented a restaurant meal delivery system to deliver food to customers using rails from kitchen to customers’ tables thereby avoiding the need for any interaction between customers and restaurant staff.  However, unfortunately for Xuansu, according to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court , the installed system infringed Chinese patent no. 101282669B and therefore awarded the exclusive licensee, Yunxiao Company (云霄公司), 1 million RMB.

Xuansu’s meal delivery system in operation

The plaintiff argued that the spiral track system installed in the SpaceLab Weightless Restaurant (Space lab失重餐厅) infringed its licensed patent and requested an injunction as well as 8 million RMB.  The defendant countered it was not infringing and used existing technology.

The Court held “Claims 1, 8, 20, 27, 58, and 59 of the patent in question include “the conveyor system transports meals and / or beverages from the back kitchen work area to the customer dining area”, auxiliary transportation devices, rail lines and customer dining areas. The infringing system has all the limitations of the claims including at least one connected dining table, a circular track, and an ordering system,  and therefore falls within the scope of protection of the plaintiff ’s patent rights.”

With respect to the defendant’s existing technology defense, the defendant claimed  US Patent No. 2216357 was prior art. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the patent publication date was October 1, 1940, which was earlier than the filing date of the patent in question, and it was prior art relative to the patent in question. After comparing the accused infringing technical solution with the prior patent, the Court found that the prior patent does not disclose the technical structure of the parallel track in the accused infringing technical solution, the circular carousel for transferring food to the table, and the guide assembly of the auxiliary conveying device. There are certain differences in the technical structure of the defendant’s system, so the defendant’s defense based on the existing technology cannot be established.

 

A static view of the restaurant meal rail system.
A static view of the restaurant meal rail system in the dining area.
Fig. 35 of the patent at issue owned by HeineMack GmbH and licensed to Yunxiao.

© 2020 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

For more Chinese and other nations patent laws, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property law section.

Chicago City Council Introduces COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance, Reflecting Growing Trend

On April 22, 2020, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, with the backing of several Aldermen, introduced the COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which, if enacted, would prohibit Chicago employers from retaliating against employees for obeying a public health order requiring an employee to remain at home as a consequence of COVID-19.  This reflects a growing trend among states and local governments in enacting protections against retaliation amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ordinance would prohibit employers from demoting or terminating a “Covered Employee”[1] for obeying an order issued by the Mayor, the Governor of Illinois or the Chicago Department of Public Health requiring the Covered Employee to:

(1) Stay at home to minimize the transmission of COVID-19;

(2) Remain at home while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or sick with COVID-19;

(3) Obey a quarantine order issued to the Covered Employee;

(4) Obey an isolation order issued to the Covered Employee; or

(5) Obey an order issued by the Commissioner of Health regarding the duties of hospitals and other congregate facilities.

An employer would also be prohibited from retaliating against a Covered Employee for obeying an order issued by the employees’ treating healthcare provider relating to subsections (2), (3) and (4) above.

Finally, the anti-retaliation protections would extend to Covered Employees who are caring for an individual who is subject to subsections (1)-(3) above, and would apply even if workers have exhausted any earned sick-leave time available pursuant to Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.

Affirmative Defense

The Ordinance would allow an employer to assert an affirmative defense if it relied upon a reasonable interpretation of the public health order at-issue and, upon learning of the violation of the Ordinance, cured the violation within 30 days.

Penalties/Damages

The Ordinance has teeth:  violations can lead to fines of up to $1,000 per offense per day, and Covered Employees who have been retaliated against may pursue the following recovery in a civil action: (i) reinstatement; (ii) damages equal to three times the full amount of wages that would have been owed had the retaliatory action not taken place; (iii) actual damages caused directly by the retaliatory action; and (iv) costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Next Steps

The Ordinance has been referred to the Chicago Committee on Workforce Development for further deliberation.

A Growing Trend

The protections the Ordinance would afford to employees are consistent with a growing trend among state and local governments in response to the COVID-19 crisis.  Similar protections have been established through emergency orders or rules in New Jersey, Michigan and Washington which prohibit employers from disciplining or terminating employees for requesting or taking time off after contracting or, in some circumstances, being exposed to COVID-19.  Other states, such as New York and California, have issued guidance applying existing federal, state, and local anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws to prohibit employers from discriminating against or refusing to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who contract or are otherwise impacted by the virus. As state legislative and executive responses continue to rapidly evolve, employers should ensure that they are familiar with the latest guidance in each state where their employees are located.

[1] “Covered Employee” generally means any employee who, in any particular two-week period, performs at least two hours of work for an employer while physically present within the geographic boundaries of the City of Chicago.  Chicago, Ill., Mun. Code § 1-24-010.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on COVID-19 related employment ordinances, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19 Update: Don’t Be a Target: What Business Should Know about State Attorney General Reactions to COVID-19

In any time of crisis, there is heightened risk for fraud and scams. While United States Attorney General Barr has warned of scams and other illegal acts on the federal level,1 it is with the state Attorneys General (“AGs”) where the rubber hits the road in enforcing social distancing orders, investigating companies for alleged price gouging, continuing ongoing investigations, and overseeing lending relief efforts. As the economy begins to reopen on a state-by-state and sector-by-sector basis, companies must be vigilant in protecting themselves from the next wave of scrutiny by state AGs.

During normal times, state AGs rely upon their state’s Consumer Protection Act and Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) statutes to fight against perceived fraud. During the COVID-19 crisis, state AGs have taken the additional step of issuing Civil Investigative Demands, mostly focused on the issue of price gouging, or an instance in which a company allegedly inflates prices above a perceived acceptable level based not solely on supply and demand, but also on leveraging, in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic to the detriment of the consumer. Allegations of price gouging often appear during or immediately following natural disasters, an example of which would be heightened prices for essential products such as generators and flashlights in historically hard-hit areas such as Florida or New Orleans during the Atlantic hurricane season. In the current environment, state AGs across the country are each receiving literally hundreds of consumer complaints alleging that companies are similarly raising prices on necessities.2 Online platforms for third-party sellers are particularly vulnerable to state AGs in this environment, with most people sheltering in place and fulfilling the majority of their purchasing needs through online retail. In fact, 33 state AGs sent a letter to Amazon.com, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Craigslist, Inc. and eBay Inc. to request enhanced procedures to protect against price gouging on their respective platforms.3 Ironically, companies such as Facebook, Google, Navient, and others that have been targeted by state AGs, often on extremely flimsy legal grounds, are now being asked by those same regulators to continue their efforts to step up to assist in this pandemic. And those companies, and so many others, are doing just that.

However, there are indeed some bad actors. In one well-publicized example, two Tennessee men hoarded over 17,000 bottles of hand sanitizer with the intent to sell them for up to $70 per bottle and was immediately met by an expedited investigation by Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery.4 Other examples have abounded: Massachusetts AG Maura Healey unilaterally expanded her state’s price gouging regulations, which had previously been limited to gasoline and petroleum products, to include “all goods or services necessary for the health, safety or welfare of the public”;5 New York AG Letitia James sent cease and desist letters to merchants that were allegedly engaging in price gouging related to the sale of hand sanitizer and disinfectant;6 New Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal has sent over 80 cease and desist letters after receiving more than 600 complaints of COVID-19-related price gouging and other related consumer protection violations;7 Florida AG Ashley Moody activated a “Price gouging Hotline” and opened an investigation into third-party sellers accused of price gouging on essential goods through accounts on Amazon;8 and finally, 20 state AGs have implored 3M Company to create a database and accounting of the distribution and pricing of 3M’s N95 respirator masks, including urging 3M to publish its policies prohibiting price gouging.

Businesses that remain open should be mindful of the additional steps taken to ensure compliance with social distancing regulations. For example, Vermont AG T.J. Donovan issued a directive for law enforcement outlining guidance for the enforcement of the state’s COVID-19 Executive Order that, among other things, extended authority to the state Department of Public Safety to inspect the premises and records of any employer to ensure compliance with the Executive Order.9 Other state AGs are enforcing their states’ Executive Orders with similar diligence: New York AG James ordered over 70 medical transportation companies to stop providing group rides;10 Michigan AG Dana Nessel sent a letter to home improvement store Menards in the wake of reports that the retailer had engaged in business practices that would endanger consumers and employees contrary to the Executive Order issued by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer;11 and Delaware law enforcement officials even issued cease and desist orders to a barber shop and a tobacco shop.12

As the economy begins to incrementally ‘reopen’ in the weeks and months to come, companies should document every step taken to protect their customers and employees as well as the rationale underlying those measures. The far-reaching effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are unlikely to subside until a vaccine becomes publicly available. Thus, state AGs are likely to continue to probe companies aggressively about safety measures taken to protect their customers and employees; adherence to government policies and interpretative guidance; their definition of essential employees; and whether the company contributed to the spread of the virus.

State AGs are the top law enforcement officers in their states and will continue to act to protect their citizens during, and long after, the COVID-19 crisis is over. Industry should be on the lookout for measures taken by state AGs to identify and prosecute fraud and perceived price gouging during the COVID-19 pandemic, and should comply with laws and Executive Orders as diligently as possible. What constitutes the requisite compliance with social distancing – both now and as the economy begins to reopen – and what constitutes an essential service are often somewhat subjective and may require the consult of counsel. Cadwalader’s state AG practice is regularly in close communication with state AG offices and is well-positioned to provide guidance to clients that may be in receipt of an inquiry from a state AG, and we stand ready to continue to assist clients as they navigate the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

1   https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-william-p-barr-urges-american-public-report-covid-19-fraud

2 https://www.cadwalader.com/state-attorney-general-insider/index.php?nid=6&eid=34

3  https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03_25_2020_Multistate-letter.pdf

4   On April 21, 2020, Tennessee AG Slatery announced that a settlement had been reached with the two men to resolve allegations of price gouging; all supplies were surrendered to a nonprofit organization in Tennessee and a portion of the supplies were distributed to officials in Kentucky, and the two men were prohibited from selling emergency or medical supplies grossly in excess of the price generally charged during any declared state of abnormal economic disruption related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

5  https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-healey-issues-emergency-regulation-prohibiting-price gouging-of-critical-goods-and-services

6  https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/ag-james-price gouging-will-not-be-tolerated

7  https://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/News/Pages/03172020.aspx

8   http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/A32615BF3942B33E8525854300514289?Open&

9  https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/03_25_2020_Multistate-letter.pdf

10  https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/attorney-general-james-orders-78-transport-providers-immediately-stop-endangering

11  https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98158-523976–,00.html

12 https://www.delawarepublic.org/post/delaware-flagging-non-essential-businesses-open-during-shutdown

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more on AG’s Enforcement Activities around COVID-19 Fraud see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

What Should You Do About D&I Efforts During a Pandemic? Exactly What You Were Doing Before

The tremendous economic uncertainty emerging in the wake of COVID-19 is forcing law firm leaders to contend with challenges they’ve never faced before. People are scared, and for good reason. Given the enormous financial pressure firms feel, it’s understandable that leaders may opt to push diversity and inclusion efforts to the back burner for a while — or is it?

Let’s review what we know about the business case for creating more diverse firms.

In other words, improving law firm diversity is an imperative for any firm hoping to compete in the marketplace. That was true before the pandemic, and it’s still true today, despite how much more difficult it may be to achieve this goal.

Here’s the good news: expensive, outward-facing diversity and inclusion initiatives that are more about marketing than substance probably are not the best use of constrained law firm resources. Instead, firm leaders should consider simple, effective interventions that will protect the progress they have made in elevating more women and minority attorneys to power, and make it possible for that work to continue:

Help women and minority partners build their profiles remotely. Now that all in-person avenues to developing business are closed, firms are thinking strategically about how their attorneys should move those efforts online. But top-down orders to “leverage LinkedIn” or “keep up with your contacts virtually” are not useful to attorneys who didn’t have robust “old boy” networks to begin with. Online networking is a skill, just like other business development techniques. If your firm was providing coaching support to high-potential attorneys to help them with business development in the real world, that same support is needed now for new kinds of marketing efforts. Attorneys are going to need tutorials that walk them through best practices and provide support by phone or email. Marketing departments can create these resources or contract outside support to do this training work. Then they must oversee the execution to ensure attorneys stay part of the online conversation in their target industries. Is it possible to assign marketing department staff to this task, particular those who typically staff events and may have extra capacity?

Keep the content coming. Social media profiles are only as strong as the content attorneys have to share there. We know that implicit bias can make it more difficult for women and minority attorneys to demonstrate their subject-matter expertise and be considered for the same opportunities as less experienced white men. This makes thought leadership articles and opportunities to be featured as an “expert source” in key media outlets all the more important for building these attorneys’ reputation with prospects. When putting your firm’s experts forward on webinars, thought leadership articles and media pitches, consider who’s being included — and who’s not. If the faces of your firm’s most important expertise are all white men, you’re sending the message that your other attorneys are somehow less qualified to lead in a crisis.

Bear equity in mind when handling award nominations. The earliest and most chaotic weeks of the COVID crisis happened to coincide with an already busy time on many legal marketers’ calendars: award season. Nominations for “rising star” and other programs are typically due in spring, and gathering client testimonials, case examples and other supporting materials can be time consuming and logistically challenging under normal circumstances. And we know that the required effort (which of course comes on top of keeping up with billable work), combined with the often-gendered tendency to be more reticent about self-promotion, means that award nominees can be less than representative of a firm’s diversity anyway. This year, women bearing the brunt of new childcare and homeschooling responsibilities, along with those who care for extended family members, had even less bandwidth and energy to put themselves forward for industry honors. What can your team do to ensure that your award nominees reflect the true diversity of your emerging lawyers, rather than an oversampling of those privileged enough to have more spare time on their hands?

Make evaluations more transparent and consider what “fairness” means right now. In addition to thinking about the intersection of inclusion and business development, firm leaders will need to consider how to evaluate the work attorneys do under these extraordinary circumstances. Obviously it would not be fair to hold attorneys to the standards for billable hours that they would during a normal year, but what should revised standards look like? As noted, women are taking on a greater share of the childcare, homeschooling and household duties under lockdown, which makes it more difficult for them to bill the same number of hours or develop as much new business as men. How can you make sure they won’t be penalized for this when it comes time to make decisions about compensation and promotion? Questions about how to fairly and holistically evaluate attorneys’ work long predate the current crisis, and they are going to become more urgent in the months to come. The current system continues to reward white men above other demographic groups. It’s time for reform.

No question this is a frightening time for firm leaders, and they will want to focus their limited attention on what matters most for the survival of the firm. That shortlist should include a continued commitment to diversity and inclusion. The business case is clear, and hard-won gains for women and minorities are hanging in the balance.

© 2020 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Debra Pickett of Page 2 Communications.
For more on continuing normal business operations amid COVID-19, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

CARES Act Provider Relief Fund – Acceptance of Funds Comes with Conditions

Healthcare providers are among those financially adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A survey conducted by the Medical Group Managers Association (“MGMA”) on April 7 and 8, 2020, found that 97% of medical practices have experienced a negative financial impact directly or indirectly related to COVID-19.  MGMA also indicates that, on average, practices report a 55% decrease in revenue and a 60% decrease in patient volume since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis.

In response to the financial impact on healthcare providers, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, appropriated $100 billion in relief funds to hospitals and other healthcare providers under the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, also called the “CARES Act Provider Relief Fund.” On April 10, 2020, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) released the initial terms and conditions related to the distribution of the initial $30 billion of the $100 billion.  Rather than await the submission of applications by healthcare providers, HHS has begun a rapid delivery of relief funding to healthcare providers and suppliers that are enrolled in Medicare and received Medicare fee-for-service reimbursement in 2019.  These eligible healthcare providers are being allotted a portion of the initial $30 billion distribution based upon their proportionate share of the approximately $484 billion of Medicare fee-for-service reimbursements made in 2019.

Healthcare providers identified as eligible to receive funds from this first distribution should have received an email to that effect.  Eligible healthcare providers have begun receiving payments via the Automated Clearing House account information on file used for reimbursements from The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”).  Healthcare providers that normally receive a paper check for reimbursement from CMS will receive a paper check in the mail.

These payments are not loans and, if used consistent with the applicable terms and conditions, will not need to be repaid.  Healthcare providers must sign an attestation confirming receipt of the funds and agreeing to the terms and conditions of payment within 30 days via the online payment portal.  Should a healthcare provider choose to reject the funds, the healthcare provider within 30 days of receipt of payment must complete the attestation to indicate this and remit the full payment to HHS.  The portal will guide the healthcare provider through the attestation process to accept or reject the funds.

The healthcare provider is required to certify, among other things, that it provides or provided after January 31, 2020 diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.  In a recent update, HHS clarified that to meet this requirement, care does not have to be specific to treating COVID-19, as “HHS broadly views every patient as a possible case of COVID-19.” HHS also clarified that a healthcare provider’s eligibility is not adversely affected if it ceased operations as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, so long as the healthcare provider provided diagnoses, testing, or care for individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.

In addition to imposing use restrictions for the funds and recordkeeping requirements, the CARES Act authorizes the HHS Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) to audit both interim and final payments made under the program.  Healthcare providers that elect to accept the funds must be prepared to submit to these OIG audits.  Because the funds are limited to necessary expenses or lost revenues due to the pandemic not otherwise reimbursable from other sources, there may be differences in OIG’s interpretation of whether the funds were used for an appropriate purpose.  At a minimum, this may necessitate returning certain disallowed funds following an audit.

Failure to abide by the terms and conditions could result in False Claims Act liability for healthcare providers that do not make proper use of the funds.  Thus, recipients of the funds should carefully consider their ability to comply with the terms and conditions and should ensure that proper controls are in place for proper use of the funds.

© 2020 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

For more on CARES Act funding, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Practical Tips for Tribal Organization Access to the SBA Paycheck Protection Program

Even with news that the initial appropriation for the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), an extension of the Small Business Administration’s 7(a) loan program, has been fully allocated, there are many strategies tribal organizations need to put in place to ensure that the full benefits of the program are realized.  Putting these few practical tips to work – even midway through the PPP process – will give tribal business a better chance of having pending applications accepted and funded, the maximum amount of loan forgiveness achieved later this year, and any new applications accepted with the next Congressional appropriation are quickly funded.

Initial applications for these loans – up to $10 million in debt that may be largely forgivable – have been heavy, and banks are reporting overwhelming demand and challenging delays in pushing out loan funding.  With the promise of more funding (perhaps more than another $200 billion) for this program looming first on Congress’ agenda over the next few weeks – even tribal organizations that have not fully explored the PPP program should consider these practical business insider tips to prepare for success:

  • Understand that there is minimal bank underwriting. The model loan application, the interim program rule, and other SBA guidance documents make abundantly clear that banks are “held harmless” for the vast majority of decisions on PPP loans.  Information requested on the application is minimal and the list of items that must be submitted as supporting documentation is modest (and limited to relevant payroll, benefit, rent, and utility cost information).  This was a policy choice by legislators and rule makers to facilitate the fast deployment of funds under the program.  The implication of light underwriting, however, is that the normal “give and take” process with loan officers to ensure the application is well-balanced and complete is not really happening.  The burden on the banks right now is to loan money fast.
  • Be aware of the heavy borrower burden to “certify” data and key eligibility criteria. The burden of accurate information and fulsome disclosures is entirely on tribal organizations.  Tribal officials or business leaders signing the loan application should personally review the certifications required before submitting the loan (they are on the application) and should not be afraid to question staff or legal counsel on implications in detail.  In a time of crisis, there is not much emphasis on the future oversight, investigation, and enforcement matters that can arise when agencies do an after-the-fact “government accountability” examination of the program.  Given that many tribal organizations and Alaska Native Corporations depend on health relationships with the SBA, great care should be exercised that your application does not subject you to unwanted future scrutiny.
  • Engage early with key contacts at your primary bank.  Banks are under water with demand for funds under the PPP right now.  There are numerous reports that banks are sending small business clients with multiple banking relationships (accounts and/or bank branded credit cards in more than one place) away, claiming another institution is their “primary bank” for application purposes.  A key to any tribal organization’s success in a PPP application is to have person-to-person contact with your banking relationship manager or the designated PPP coordinator. The application is online and completed through a bank portal.  Getting questions resolved and placing your organization on the radar of the PPP loan staff can ensure fewer delays and a smoother application process.
  • Accurate record keeping of use of funds is critical.  One of the most attractive features of the PPP program is that the loan can be largely, if not entirely, forgiven. The banks will be backstopped by funds appropriated to the SBA and by a facility recently approved the Federal Reserve.  Whether your loan is fully forgiven depends on your accurate record keeping and timely submission to the bank later this summer.  The burdens of weathering this pandemic are significant enough that achieving maximum loan forgiveness could be make-or-break for some tribal organization budgets.
  • Public disclosure implications.  Please be aware that submissions made to any government program under the CARES Act may be discoverable by third parties through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).  While it is unlikely that any proprietary data on payroll or employees (with privacy concerns) would be released, information about the officers of the business, what it does, and how much its loan was will likely be released from SBA files if a proper FOIA request is submitted in the future.
  • Traditional SBA eligible business rules apply.  With the exception of non-profit businesses (which are now eligible), all of the businesses listed in the SBA rules (at 13 CFR 120.110) are still ineligible for SBA business loans.  Please consult these rules and your legal counsel to assess whether you are eligible for a PPP loan under these rules.

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more on the SBA Paycheck Protection Program, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News Section.

New Revenue Ruling 2020-8 Helps Taxpayers Seek COVID-19 Tax Refund Claims

Recently, in Revenue Ruling 2020-8, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that it was suspending Revenue Ruling 71-533, which had addressed the interaction of two Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provisions regarding limitations periods on refund claims, pending reconsideration of the holding of the earlier Revenue Ruling.

Under IRC section 6511(d)(2)(A), a taxpayer generally must make a refund claim relating to an overpayment attributable to a net operating loss (NOL) carryback no later than three years after the taxable year in which the NOL was generated. Under IRC section 6511(d)(3)(A), a taxpayer generally must make a refund claim relating to an overpayment attributable to a foreign tax credit carryback no later than ten years after the taxable year in which the foreign taxes were paid.

Revenue Ruling 71-533 had addressed a situation that implicated both of these provisions. Specifically, the taxpayer at issue in the ruling had incurred a NOL in 1969, which it carried back to 1966. After application of the NOL, the taxpayer had excess foreign tax credits available for 1966, which it then carried back to 1964. The ruling held that the ten-year limitations period in IRC section 6511(d)(3)(A) applied to claims for refund with respect to the 1964 overpayment.

In Revenue Ruling 2020-8, the IRS noted that, even though the fact pattern in Revenue Ruling 71-533 involved both a NOL carryback and a foreign tax credit carryback, the ruling did not consider whether IRC section 6511(d)(2)(A) should apply in lieu of IRC section 6511(d)(3)(A). Therefore, the IRS stated that it was suspending Revenue Ruling 71-533 pending reconsideration of its ruling. However, the IRS also stated that this suspension would not be applied adversely to refund claims properly filed within the IRC section 6511(d)(3)(A) limitations period in accordance with Revenue Ruling 71-533 during the period in which the ruling’s holding is being reconsidered.

Practice Point: Revenue Ruling 2020-8 is particularly important to taxpayers seeking refunds under the special COVID-19 rules. We discussed those refunds here. The IRS is trying to do everything it can to facilitate getting relief to taxpayers.

© 2020 McDermott Will & Emery

For more on IRS COVID-19 Guidance, see the National Law Review Tax Law section.

Connecticut Further Revises “Safe Workplace Rules for Essential Employers,” Requiring All Employees to Wear Face Masks or Face Coverings At All Times

On April 17, 2020, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development materially revised its previously issued “Safe Workplace Rules for Essential Employers.” Now, all employees working at every workplace that remains open during the COVID-19 pandemic must wear a face mask or face cloth covering at all times.

Employers are required to provide masks or face coverings to employees and, if infeasible because of supply-chain shortages, employers must provide materials for employees to make their own masks or face coverings. Employers must provide these materials, along with the Centers for Disease Control tutorial showing how to make masks and face coverings or, alternatively, compensate employees for reasonable and necessary costs to make their own masks and face coverings.

The new requirements do not apply to employees whose health or safety would be negatively impacted by wearing a mask or face covering due to a medical condition.  And employees are not required to produce medical documentation to verify the stated condition.

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more on states’ COVID-19 legislation, see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

Sole Proprietors, Independent Contractors and Self-Employed Individuals Addressed in Latest Paycheck Protection Program Guidance

On April 14, 2020, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued its interim final rules regarding the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), a $350 billion part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (“CARES Act”), to sole proprietors, independent contractors and self-employed individuals. Four days earlier the PPP loan application process opened for this group of applicants. These interim rules provide information for sole proprietors, independent contractors and self-employed individuals who are seeking a PPP loan.

Eligibility

Self-employed individuals are eligible to apply for a PPP loan provided certain eligibility requirements are met. To be eligible for a PPP loan, the individual must: (1) have filed a Form 1040 Schedule C for 2019; (2) have been in operation as of February 15, 2020; and (3) have a principal place of residence in the United States. The interim rules clarify that partnerships, instead of partners, are eligible to apply for a PPP loan. The partnership should file the application and claim each partner’s share of self-employment income from the partnership as “Payroll Costs” (see below).

Maximum Loan Amount

“Payroll Costs” are the base for determining the maximum loan amount for self-employed applicants. Payroll Costs for a self-employed applicant include wages, commissions, income or other similar compensation paid to employees, and net earnings from self-employment. Net earnings from self-employment are indicated on Schedule C of Form 1040 as net profit. Self-employment earnings in excess of $100,000 are excluded from the calculation of Payroll Costs. Payroll Costs also include health insurance, retirement benefits and unemployment benefits. The maximum amount of a PPP loan for a self-employed applicant is the lesser of $10,000,000 or 2.5 times the average monthly Payroll Costs.

Allowable Uses and Loan Forgiveness

Self-employed applicants are subject to the same limitations on allowable uses of PPP loan proceeds and loan forgiveness as business concerns. The amount of loan forgiveness will depend on the amount of loan proceeds spent by the self-employed applicant during the 8-week period following the first disbursement of PPP loan proceeds. A self-employed applicant must have claimed, or be entitled to a claim, a deduction for business expenses on Form 1040 Schedule C for those expenses to be considered for forgiveness. Those expenses must also qualify as allowable uses of PPP loan funds.

©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

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

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

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

Regulatory Streamlining Changes That Have Been Recently Adopted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] 26 U.S.C. §1102.

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

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

[4] 26 U.S.C. §4013.

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

[6] 26 U.S.C. §4014.

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

[8] 26 U.S.C. §4012.

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

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

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

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

[13] Id.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

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