Tag: COVID-19

How Lawyers and Other Professionals Can Set Up Their Work-From-Home Space During COVID-19

Since the federal government’s mandated social distancing orders due to covid-19, working from home has presented new challenges for professionals at law, real estate and financial firms alike. Below are four tips on how you can get acclimated in your redefined workplace.

  1. Set Boundaries – One of the benefits of working from home is the ability to take advantage of the extra time on your hands since the work commute has vanished. However, it can be tempting to work from the most comfortable place in your home – your bed. Studies have found that working from your bed decreases productivity levels and makes it difficult to fall asleep at night because your brain associates your bed with work and stress. It is important to set boundaries between your workspace and your place of relaxation. Try setting up your space in a separate room such as the living room or guest room; in a smaller or studio apartment, you can set up a divider wall to establish designated spaces for work and play.
  2. Lights, Camera, Action! – Having your workspace near a window where natural lighting can seep through is an energy booster and stress reliever. According to medical professionals, the rays from the sun improve the communication between the regions of the temporal lobe which control emotions such as anxiety and stress. Sunlight also produces endorphins and serotonin hormones – “happy” hormones – that enhance our moods throughout the day.
  3. Minimize Distractions – While this is a challenge if your home has turned into a school and entertainment center, there are ways to avoid daily distractions. One example is limiting cell phone usage by using the “Screen Time’s Downtime” feature available on all Apple iPhone devices and many Android devices. Try setting it up during your work hours to avoid spending unnecessary time on social media. Wall calendars, daily to-do lists and designated browsers for personal and business activities can also keep your mind focused throughout the day. If you live with loved ones and/or roommates, establish “quiet hours” so everyone is on board and aware of your allocated time to focus.
  4. Create a Routine – When adapting to this new reality, creating a routine is key to maintaining your mental wellness and productivity. Shower at the same time you normally would, wear what you would normally wear to the office (although loungewear may be tempting!) and prepare your preferred type of coffee, tea or infused water to start your day. Most notably, make sure you go outside and remain active to improve blood circulation to the brain. When it’s time to return to business as usual, you won’t feel sluggish and your mind will feel ready more than ever to tackle the day.

© 2020 Berbay Marketing & Public Relations

For more on working from home, see the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

A Virtual Discussion Series | Part I: Labor, Employment and OSHA Developments and Strategies for Companies and PE Investors Navigating COVID-19 Hurdles

In this webinar, Partners in the Private Equity/Mergers and Acquisitions Practice Group, Heather Rahilly and Andrew Ritter, moderate a discussion with Partners in the Labor, Employment and OSHA Practice Group, Michael Miller and Lawrence Peikes, to discuss developments and strategies in labor, employment and OSHA for companies and investors navigating COVID-19 hurdles.

Key takeaways from this webinar include:

  • New developments and trends in labor and employment laws
  • Summary of current changes to OSHA regulations and standards
  • New litigation and regulatory concerns and how to mitigate risk
  • How legal developments in OSHA, labor and employment may affect current and future deal practice

© 1998-2020 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more on OSHA labor regulation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

EEOC: What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, today updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.” This Technical Assistance is intended to help employers address practical issues that may arise in their day-to-day operations and oversight of their employees as they return to work in the context of COVID-19. The EEOC has consistently reminded employers that the federal anti-discrimination laws continue to apply during the pandemic and that these laws do not interfere with the guidance issued by public health authorities, including the CDC.

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

The EEOC’s previously issued Technical Assistance discussed critical issues such as disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, confidentiality of medical information, and hiring and onboarding during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the EEOC provided detailed guidance on handling reasonable accommodations during the pandemic. In this newly issued Technical Assistance, the EEOC focuses in even further on these and related issues, and provides an analysis of common topics that many employers have been or will be facing as employees are preparing to return to work.

The updated questions and answers include topics such as: whether an employee is entitled to an accommodation under the ADA to avoid exposing a family member who is at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19; whether reasonable accommodations are required during the process of screening employees before they enter the worksite; whether employees age 65 or older, who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, can be involuntarily excluded from the workplace based on their age; whether pregnant employees can be involuntarily excluded from the workplace due to their pregnancy and, relatedly, whether there is a right to accommodation based on pregnancy during the pandemic. In addition, the updated Technical Assistance discusses steps employers can take to prevent and address possible harassment and discrimination that may arise related to the pandemic, particularly as against employees who are or perceived to be Asian.

EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers

Employers should review this newly issued Technical Assistance from the EEOC so that they are prepared to address these issues if they arise as businesses are re-opening and employees are returning to the workplace.

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

For more on EEOC COVID-19 guidance, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

The Federal Government Is Taking Action Against COVID-19 Fraud

The federal government has responded to the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic with legislation to aid individuals and struggling businesses. One of the many laws created was the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), a $2 trillion federal appropriation addressing the economic fallout caused by COVID-19. Many are rightfully concerned about individuals aiming to take advantage of the vulnerability, panic, and available federal dollars during this time. In response, the federal government has vowed to aggressively take action against COVID-19 related fraud.

Fraud Committed Against Individuals

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced its first enforcement action against COVID-19 fraud in March 2020. A website, coronavirusmedicalkit.com, was offering access to World Health Organization (“WHO”) vaccine kits for a shipping cost of $4.95. However, no vaccine currently exists nor is a vaccine currently being distributed by the WHO. Once alerted of the website’s existence, U.S. District Judge, Robert Pitman immediately issued an injunction preventing any further public access to the site. The site operators are currently facing federal prosecution.

Fraud Committed Against the Federal Government

Opportunists are not only acting to deceive the public but are also acting to defraud the federal government. Recently, Samuel Yates, a Texas native attempted to defraud $5 million in federal funds. The Small Business Association (“SBA”) is providing loans to businesses through a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). The PPP allows employers to continue paying their employees during the pandemic. Yates applied for two loans. In one loan application, he sought $5 million claiming to have 400 employees with a $2 million monthly payroll expense. In another application, he claimed to have only 100 employees. Each application was submitted with a falsified list of employees created by an online name generator, and forged tax records. Yates was able to obtain $500,000 in loan proceeds before his scheme was uncovered. He is currently facing federal prosecution for bank fraud, wire fraud, false statements to a financial institution, and false statements to the SBA.

Christopher Parris, a Georgia resident, also attempted to defraud the federal government by selling millions of non-existent respirator masks. Unlike Yates, Parris was able to make millions on sales orders by misrepresenting himself as a supplier who could quickly obtain scarce protective equipment. His plan was uncovered just a few weeks ago after attempting to sell masks to the Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”). The VA became suspicious of the price—which was about 15 times what it was paying amid the shortage, and alerted their Inspector General who brought in Homeland Security. Over $3.2 million was seized from Parris’ bank account related to this scheme, and he is currently facing federal prosecution for wire fraud.

Although enforcement action has been taken against individuals, companies should take note that fraud is being prioritized and aggressively prosecuted against businesses as well. Just last month, the Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) charged two companies with issuing misleading claims to the public. The first represented that it could slow the transmission of COVID-19 through thermal scanning equipment that could quickly detect individuals with fevers and would be immediately released in each state. The other offered a finger-prick test kit that could be used from home to detect whether someone was COVID-19 positive. Both claims were untrue and each company is facing federal charges for violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.

These federal efforts mark the beginning of a shift, holding both individuals and companies accountable for COVID-19 related fraud. The Department of Homeland Security has noted that those taking advantage during this vulnerable time will inevitably increase. Inter-agency efforts, swift enforcement, and emerging legislation will likely follow in an effort to protect the public against all levels of COVID-19 related fraud. As they have during previous economic crises, whistleblowers will play a critical role in aiding these enforcement efforts.

Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP

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

A Word About Business Interruption Claims From Vandalism, Riot and Civil Commotion

The death of George Floyd is a national tragedy that should never have happened.  The winds of change are in the air and we can only hope that peace, understanding, justice and fairness for all will prevail.  What happened to George Floyd and the cries to end racial injustice, however, have been overshadowed in the eyes of many by the vandalism, looting and rioting that followed.  That brings us to insurance.

There have been many articles discussing whether and how the business losses arising from the vandalism and looting will be covered under insurance policies.  Because these losses took place during the novel coronavirus pandemic, the insurance coverage issues have become more complex.  This is particularly true for business interruption claims.

There are three issues that I thought were worth highlighting.  The first concerns the confluence of the existing COVID-19 stay-home orders and the vandalism and looting.  The second is the necessary nexus between direct physical damage and civil orders under coverage for civil authority.  Finally, the effect of anti-concurrent cause clauses in property policies.

First, some of the business interruption claims now being brought by businesses that had to shut down because of the protests or because of the curfew orders have been complicated by overlapping civil authority stay-home orders because of the novel coronavirus.  Where a business was closed because of COVID-19 stay-home orders or was open only to provide curbside pickup or delivery services, how is its loss of income and extra expense calculated if the business had to close because of the civil unrest?  Analyzing this issue requires much more space than this blog post can provide.  It is a complicated issue that depends on exactly what coverage is provided and how loss of income is calculated under the relevant business interruption coverage grant.

Just as an example, under a common business income and extra expense coverage form, the amount of business income loss is determined based upon the net income of the business “before the direct physical loss or damage occurred,” the likely net income of the business “if no physical loss or damage has occurred . . . ” and “the operating expenses, including payroll expenses, necessary to resume operations with the same quality of service that existed just before the direct physical loss or damage.”  When applied to the recent vandalism and looting business interruption losses, the net income before the vandalism and looting may have been much less than in months or years past because of the COVID-19 stay-home orders.  If no vandalism and looting had occurred, the likely net income would have been the same as under the existing COVID-19 stay-home orders; that is to say, most likely diminished from prior periods.  Yet some are pushing for the COVID-19 effect not to be considered at all in the calculation of net income in the context of business interruption losses due to vandalism and looting.

Second, civil orders that prevented ingress and egress to and from businesses because of the threat of violence from possible protests likely will not be sufficient to trigger coverage under business interruption civil order provisions.  The common form requires a nexus between direct physical damage and the civil order.  For example, the action of civil authority must be “taken in response to dangerous physical conditions resulting from the damage or continuation of the Covered Cause of Loss that caused the damage. . . .”  If a local government shuts down a business district in advance of a protest and before there is any physical damage to property, that civil order should not trigger coverage under the business interruption coverage grant.  A civil order that shuts down a business district after vandalism because the area is dangerous likely would result in some coverage under the business interruption coverage grant depending on other policy factors.

Finally, some property policies limit coverage to covered causes of loss and preclude coverage if the loss was caused in part by a non-covered cause of loss.  For example,

We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly by any of the following. Such loss or damage is excluded regardless of any other cause of event that contributes concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.  These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.

If an insurance policy excludes a cause like looting, but covers vandalism, even if the loss was caused in part by looting, the anti-concurrent causation clause would preclude coverage.  So too, if part of the loss claimed was caused by the novel coronavirus and the policy has a virus exclusion, that would preclude the loss even if part of it was caused by vandalism.

As always, it is most important to read the complete policy because not all insurance policies are the same.  Nevertheless, there is no doubt that business interruption losses arising from the recent civil unrest have been complicated by existing governmental orders covering the novel coronavirus.  It will take patience by all parties and careful analysis to work through these claims.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on business interruption claims, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance and Surety law section.

President Trump Orders Expanded Use of Emergency Powers to Streamline Infrastructure

On Thursday, June 4, 2020, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.” Relying on the COVID-19 declared national emergency, the EO directs federal agencies to invoke their existing emergency authorities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and other laws to expedite economic recovery, including taking “all reasonable measures” to speed infrastructure and public works projects. While consistent with prior administrative directives to expedite project permitting, this latest EO likely will have little practical effect on individual projects and generate increased litigation for projects that rely on it.

The EO aspires to expedite a variety of projects that fall under the jurisdiction of several specific federal agencies:

  • All authorized and appropriated highway and other infrastructure projects within the authority of the U.S. Department of Transportation;
  • All authorized and appropriated civil works projects under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
  • All authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on federal lands managed by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Agriculture.

The EO’s main action item is periodic reporting by affected federal agencies to the White House. Agency heads must provide a summary report listing all projects expedited under their emergency authorities no later than July 4th (30 days after the EO’s issuance date), and provide status reports every 30 days thereafter. The EO specifies no end date for the national emergency or use of emergency authorities.

The EO principally relies on the government-wide NEPA regulation for emergency situations.  40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. It also invokes the ESA implementing regulation on Section 7 consultations in emergencies (50 C.F.R. § 402.05 2) and the CWA Section 404 regulations and nationwide permits addressing emergency circumstances. Lastly, the EO directs agencies to review “other authorities” potentially applicable to emergencies, including “all statutes, regulations, and guidance documents that may provide for emergency or expedited treatment (including waivers, exemptions, or other streamlining).”  Overall, the EO intends to allow critical infrastructure and public works projects to move forward more quickly, by abbreviating or waiving legally required environmental reviews, interagency consultation, and public comment.

While the goals of reducing time and paperwork are laudable, the EO will likely be less impactful than other recent efforts (such as One Federal Decision). The emergency exemptions available under NEPA, the ESA, the CWA, and other laws are quite limited pursuant to regulations and case law. They are meant for very narrow or discrete circumstances, not for indefinite national conditions. Moreover, they do not entirely or permanently waive environmental requirements, but rather allow for deferred or alternative procedures that achieve statutory aims. For example, the NEPA emergency regulation provides that when emergency circumstances make it necessary to take actions with significant environmental impacts without observing the typical NEPA process, agencies may consult with the Council on Environmental Quality to make “alternative arrangements” to take such actions. The effort and resources required to develop such “alternative arrangements” may not save time in the overall NEPA review. Nor can an EO legally displace regulations or case law.

Predictably, environmental organizations have already indicated a likely forthcoming challenge to the EO. Though a direct challenge may face jurisdictional obstacles, individual project approvals relying on the EO may be more vulnerable to lawsuits. And given the EO’s focus on timing, preliminary injunction motions at the commencement of lawsuits likely would be a centerpiece of those lawsuits, which likely would offset any advantage that may have been gained from relying on the EO.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC

Beware the COVID-19 Cure: The FTC Issues Warnings to Products Making COVID-19 Treatment Claims

With no approved vaccine, the world waits for the next big breakthrough in 2020’s medical emergency. Some companies already claim to have found it – and subsequently received warning letters from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for misbranding. The FTC is targeting companies promoting products with supposed COVID-19 cures, treatment or prevention for making illegal, unsubstantiated claims.

One of the FTC’s objectives is eliminating false and misleading information from the marketplace. The FTC Act defines false advertising as misleading in a “material respect,” which includes both affirmative statements and failure to “reveal facts material in the light of [the product’s] representations[.]” See 15 USC 55(a)(1).

The FTC accomplishes its goal by sending warning letters. Under the FTC Act, a product may be misbranded if it is promoted as a prevention, cure or treatment for COVID-19 – when in fact it has not been approved for such use by the Food and Drug Administration. Since March 2020, the FTC has issued more than 200 warning letters to various businesses that advertise wellness products and other services that allegedly address COVID-19.

In some instances, the claims involved a gross exaggeration of the product’s effectiveness. For example, the website “NothingsIncurable.com” advertised products alleged to “literally make you invulnerable.” The FTC concluded those claims constituted misbranding. But even when promotional statements do not include an explicit falsehood, overpromotion still can cross into misbranding. For example, businesses that claimed, “[this product] will target and increase your immunity to help ward off the COVID-19 virus” or that recommended their products as “scientifically proven to support healthy immune function” also were found to be misbranded.

In another example, a company included “Coronavirus” in the website navigation menu that led consumers to therapy kits intended to provide “specific nutrition” to “balance the terrain of the body to make it conducive to” its particular function. Although the product description did not reference COVID-19, the FTC concluded that the website navigation menu was suggestive enough to warrant a warning for misbranding.

Summary

The FTC warning letters advise businesses that “under the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 41 et seq.,” they are prohibited from advertising “that a product or service can prevent, treat, or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable scientific evidence, including, when appropriate, well-controlled human clinical studies, substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.” In addition, products that claim or imply the ability to mitigate, prevent, treat, diagnose or cure COVID-19 must be approved drugs under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In each case, the FTC required a response from the business within 48 hours, detailing the actions taken to address the FTC’s concerns.

During this unprecedented health crisis, companies that sell consumer products should exercise caution when mentioning COVID-19 in advertising or promotional statements. Mentioning COVID-19 in relation to a product, even if the product is intended to address more routine health issues, could be misleading.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

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

HHS Laboratory Data Reporting Guidance for COVID-19 Testing

On June 4, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued new Laboratory Data Reporting Guidance for COVID-19 Testing (Guidance) and related Frequently Asked Questions. Under the Guidance, in addition to providing the results of COVID-19 testing, laboratories will be required to report demographic information, including the patient’s age, race, ethnicity, sex, residence zip code, and county. The Guidance further recommends reporting the patient’s name, street address, date of birth, ordering provider address, and ordering provider phone number to state and/or local public health departments, although this data would not be collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or HHS. Data for each test completed must be submitted within 24 hours of the results being known or determined, providing public health officials with “nearly real-time data.

Reporting is required for both diagnostic and serologic testing, and the Guidance specifically includes laboratory testing that relies on home-based sample collection. Laboratories, defined to include “laboratories, non-laboratory testing locations, and other facilities or locations offering point-of-care testing or in-home testing related to SARS-CoV-2,” must comply with the new requirements by Aug. 1, 2020. The Guidance specifies that reporting should be made through existing channels to state or local public health departments that will, in turn, submit de-identified data to the CDC.

According to HHS, “[t]he new reporting requirements will provide information needed to better monitor disease incidence and trends by initiating epidemiologic case investigations, assisting with contact tracing, assessing availability and use of testing resources, and anticipating potential supply chain issues.” HHS also indicated that the requirements may help officials understand and address disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on certain demographic groups and ensure equitable access to testing.

Although this reporting requirement is being imposed by HHS, it is unclear what impact the new data may have at a national level. Under HHS’s COVID-19 Strategic Testing Plan issued on May 24, 2020, states are largely responsible for developing and implementing their own COVID-19 testing strategies.

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.

For more on COVID-19 testing, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Mama Always Said, ‘Tell the Truth,’ Especially When It Comes to COVID-19

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic earlier this year, employers have been placed in the position of having to deal with numerous conflicting legal and moral obligations.  Prior to the pandemic, by virtue of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state and local laws, employers were greatly limited in the questions they could ask perspective and current employees about their individual health conditions.  Similarly, unless they were seeking a workplace accommodation, employees did not have to disclose their personal health conditions to their employer.

In the battle to quell the pandemic, the rules have changed significantly.  Employers have greater leeway to ask questions related to the pandemic and employees who may have medical conditions previously unknown to the employer are disclosing them because of their concerns about increased susceptibility to becoming infected by the virus.  At the same time, getting quick and reliable information about an employee’s COVID-19 status may be difficult.  Frequently, an employee will only receive an initial verbal confirmation of a positive test and have to wait days for the written report.  Complicating matters are reports in the media of employees who have falsely told their employer they tested positive.  In some of the reported cases, upon hearing of a positive test, the employer shut down its entire operation for a deep cleaning only to later have the employee retract their statement they were positive.  In some of these falsification incidents, employees are now facing criminal prosecution.  What is an employer to do?

Trust but Verify

The vast majority of employees are honest and deeply concerned about their employer’s response to COVID-19. Therefore, if an employee reports they have tested positive, the employer should not wait for written verification and immediately begin to follow the Centers for Disease Control or local health authority protocols.  At the same time, employers should take all possible steps to verify the accuracy of what the employee is reporting.

In cases of suspected fraud, here are some steps an employer can and should take:

  1. Require the employee to provide written confirmation.  As noted above, employers should understand that a written confirmation of a positive COVID-19 test may not be immediately available to the employee.  Many test sites provide only a verbal response with the written verification following days later.  Employers should still require written confirmation of the verbal positive result.
  2. While waiting for written confirmation of test results, ask the employee specifically where and when they went for testing and verify the accuracy of that information.  In one case reported in the media, a suspicious HR manager determined that the hospital where the employee claimed to have been tested was not even performing COVID-19 tests.
  3. Carefully examine any written documentation provided by the employee.  Doctor’s notes and other non-detailed information can be verified by a Google search to determine that the practitioner is real.  A phone call to that practitioner should be able to easily confirm the truth of the matter on the documentation.
  4. Communicate to employees in advance that falsification of employee records and information, especially something as critical as a positive COVID-19 test, can be grounds for discipline, including termination of employment.

© 2020 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more on employer’ COVID-19 considerations, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

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

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

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

This advisory will explore:

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

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

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

The April 2 IFR and Subsequent SBA Rules and Guidance

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Sixth Circuit Case

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

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

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

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

Cases in Other Circuits

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

Implications

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Id. at 2.

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

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

9 Id. at 45.

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

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

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

13 Id.

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

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

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

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

18 Id.

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

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

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

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

©2020 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

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