Tag: PPP

Acting U.S. Attorney Levy Forecasts False Claims Act COVID Cases Targeting Private Lenders Of CARES Act Loans That Failed In Their Obligation To Safeguard Government Funds

Acting U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy discussed the enforcement priorities for the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) during a Q&A session on May 29, 2024, and made clear that the historical focus of the office remains the top priority: detecting and combating health care fraud, waste, and abuse. In particular, both Levy and Chief of the USAO’s Civil Division, Abraham George, have recently indicated that the government will pursue large dollar COVID fraud cases both criminally and civilly. As we have discussed previously, we expect False Claims Act (FCA) COVID cases to materialize in the coming years as the government zeroes in on wrongdoers via enhanced data analytics and AI tools as well as via traditional investigative methods and the forthcoming Whistleblower Rewards Program.

Recent COVID FinTech Lender, Kabbage, $120 MM False Claims Act Settlement

The recent Kabbage settlement is illustrative of the types of COVID cases the office is looking to bring pursuant to the FCA. Acting U.S. Attorney Levy discussed the settlement, publicized in May, with now-bankrupt online lender, Kabbage Inc. Kabbage allegedly knowingly processed and submitted thousands of false claims for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan forgiveness, loan guarantees, and processing fees. The PPP – a loan program for small businesses created via the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act – was administered the federal Small Business Administration (SBA). The CARES Act authorized private lenders to approve PPP loans for eligible borrowers who could later seek forgiveness for the loans if borrowers used the loans for eligible expenses, including employee payroll.

Among other things, participating PPP lenders were obligated to 1) confirm borrowers’ average monthly payroll costs by PPP loan documentation; and 2) follow applicable Bank Secrecy Act/Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) requirements. SBA guaranteed any unforgiven or defaulted PPP loans as long as the private lender adhered to PPP requirements.

Private lenders received a fixed fee calculated as a percentage of the loan amount. Here, U.S. Attorney Levy’s office alleged that Kabbage awarded inflated and fraudulent loans to maximize its profits, then sold its assets and left the remaining company financially depleted, leading to bankruptcy. Kabbage was allegedly aware of the following errors as of April 2020, failed to correct them, and continued to make improper loan disbursements after learning of the issues:

  1. double-counting state and local taxes paid by employees when calculating gross wages;
  2. failing to exclude annual compensation above $100,000 per employee; and
  3. improperly calculating employee leave and severance payments.

Kabbage also allegedly failed to implement appropriate fraud controls to comply with the PPP, BSA, and AML by knowingly:

  1. removing underwriting steps to facilitate processing a high volume of loan applications and maximizing loan processing fees;
  2. setting substandard fraud check thresholds;
  3. relying on automated tools that were inadequate in identifying fraud;
  4. devoting insufficient personnel to conduct fraud reviews;
  5. discouraging its fraud reviewers from requesting information from borrowers to substantiate their loan requests; and
  6. submitting to the SBA thousands of dubious PPP loan applications that were fraudulent or highly suspicious.

The settlement, which will result in the U.S. securing up to $120 million pursuant to bankruptcy proceedings, resolves qui tam complaints brought by two separate whistleblowers: an accountant who submitted PPP loan applications to multiple lenders and a former analyst in Kabbage’s collection department.

Predictions for Future COVID Fraud Enforcement

Acting U.S. Attorney Levy’s comments make clear that we can expect to see FCA COVID cases targeting private lenders of CARES Act loans that failed in their obligation to safeguard government funds. To date, COVID fraud prosecution has largely targeted “low-hanging fruit” criminal cases, such as those involving submission of false information to obtain COVID relief funding that the recipient spends on luxury items. We discussed in April that the COVID Fraud Enforcement Task Force (CFETF) and a bipartisan group of Senators had, via a report and draft legislation, pleaded with Congress to increase funding to prosecute COVID fraud. Investigations such as those involving Kabbage require a large investment of resources and, as U.S. Attorney Levy commented, his office must prioritize large-dollar COVID fraud cases most likely to result in specific and general fraud deterrence.

As we have written previously, the government is playing a long game tracking COVID fraud. The Justice Department’s CFETF reported in April that to date, the DOJ had seized or forfeited $1.4 billion in stolen relief funds as well as bringing criminal charges against 3,500 defendants and 400 civil settlements. With a ten-year statute of limitations and increasingly more accurate data analytics tools, we expect the DOJ will continue to identify and recover misappropriated funds from large and lower dollar fraudsters. So long as COVID fraud enforcement remains a well-funded priority of the government, we anticipate a steady stream of FCA COVID settlements involving lenders and borrowers. The government is casting a wide net to recoup the nearly $300 billion in COVID fraud estimates. We will continue to monitor and report on developments.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
For more on COVID, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Restaurant Businesses Entitled to Favorable Employee Retention Credit Treatment

Restaurant businesses have a new opportunity to take advantage of the employee retention tax credit under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, even though Congress terminated the credit Sept. 30, 2021, three months earlier than scheduled. Certain restaurant businesses that thought they were ineligible for this tax credit may be entitled to take advantage of it for wages paid up until this COVID-19 economic incentive ended. Such potential opportunity is a result of IRS guidance that was published in August 2021, the month before the credit ended.

The employee retention credit initially allowed a 50% credit for wages paid for the second through fourth quarters of 2020, and then a 70% credit for wages paid for the first through third quarters of 2021, if the business either had its operations suspended due to COVID-19-related government orders or had a significant decline in gross receipts. Wages paid with a loan under the Paycheck Protection Program were not eligible for the credit. The credit was limited to a maximum of $5,000 per employee for 2020, but this cap was increased to $7,000 per employee per quarter for the first through third quarters of 2021 (total maximum credit of $21,000 per employee for 2021). The credit is applied against the employer’s share of payroll taxes, and to the extent the credit exceeded the employer’s share of payroll taxes, the IRS refunds the difference to the employer.

Impact of PPP Loans and Restaurant Revitalization Grants on Gross Receipts

For 2020, a business satisfied the significant decline in gross receipts requirement for credit eligibility if it experienced a greater than 50% reduction in gross receipts compared to the same quarter in 2019. This test was eased for 2021 quarters to include reductions in gross receipts greater than 20%. When the IRS published its initial guidance, it said gross receipts included tax-exempt income. The assumption was that a PPP loan forgiven or a grant under the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), both treated as tax-exempt revenue, would nevertheless be treated as gross receipts for determining whether a restaurant business had a significant decline in gross receipts for credit eligibility. Therefore, it would have been understandable if a restaurant owner who had a PPP loan forgiven or received an RRF grant assumed that the amount of the forgiven loan or grant needed to be included in the restaurant’s gross receipts calculation, which may have resulted in not satisfying the decline in gross receipts test. However, the IRS published Revenue Procedure 2021-33 in August 2021, which provides that for purposes of determining whether a business has had a significant decline in gross receipts for a quarter, the business may exclude forgiven PPP loans and RRF grants from its gross receipts. This will increase the likelihood that a restaurant business can pass the decline in gross receipts test to allow the business to claim the credit. Even though this credit ended in September 2021, a company can still claim the credit for prior quarters by filing an amended payroll tax return.

Part-Time Employees

Another important factor in claiming the credit deals with the number of average full-time employees a company had in 2019. The critical thresholds to qualify as a “Small Employer” are 100 or fewer average full-time employees in 2019 for determining the credit for 2020 quarters, and 500 or fewer average full-time employees for 2021 quarters. If the conditions to claim the credit are satisfied – either because business operations were suspended by a government order or the company had a decline in gross receipts – a Small Employer gets the credit for wages paid even though the business is open and the employees are working. On the other hand, larger businesses that surpassed these 100- or 500-employee thresholds could take the credit only if it paid its employees even though they were not working. Note that these 100/500 employee thresholds are determined on a company-wide basis, not on a per-location basis that tested eligibility for PPP loan rules.

In August 2021, the IRS published Notice 2021-49, which states full-time equivalents in 2019 are not counted in determining this 100/500 employee threshold. Some restaurant businesses may have thought they were not eligible to claim the credit because their part-time workers, when aggregated into full-time equivalents, caused the businesses to exceed the 100/500 average full-time employee threshold. However, as a result of this IRS notice, they now may be eligible to file an amended quarterly payroll tax returns to claim the credit.

Better yet, Notice 2021-49 states that wages paid to part-time employees are eligible for the credit – even though part-time employees are not counted toward the 100/500 employee threshold. Some restaurant businesses may have assumed the wages paid to part-time workers were not eligible for the credit, and may be able to file amended payroll tax returns to claim the credit for part-time worker wages.

Cash Tips

Finally, Notice 2021-49 also states that an employee’s cash tips of more than $20 per month are wages eligible for the credit. Some restaurant businesses may have assumed that tips paid by customers were not eligible for the credit, and did not include tips in their claim for the credit. If so, they could file amended payroll tax returns to claim the credit. Of course, to claim the credit for cash tips received by employees, a restaurant business must report the tips as income on the employee’s Form W-2.

In summary, restaurant businesses should revisit their employee retention credit analysis with their legal and tax advisors in light of Notice 2021-49. The benefits could be substantial.

This article was written by Riley Lagesen, Landes Taylor and Marvin Kirsner of Greenberg Traurig law firm. For more articles about employee retention credits, please click here.

Confusion in Bankruptcy Courts Regarding Debtor Eligibility for PPP Loans

The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) rules and regulations concerning the eligibility of businesses for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans when the business is involved in bankruptcy have recently been a source of substantial uncertainty, with the nationwide split of authority in bankruptcy courts. While these cases deal with a very small minority of PPP recipients and are a relative novelty in that regard, these decisions could foretell future issues for companies who have received PPP loans but are later forced to file Chapter 11, specifically regarding their eligibility for loan forgiveness.

The SBA is enabled with emergency rulemaking authority to adopt rules and regulations to manage application and qualifications for PPP loans under the CARES Act. Pursuant to this authority, the SBA publishes Interim Final Rules (IFR). The SBA’s April 28, 2020 IFR expressly disqualified applicants who are debtors in a bankruptcy proceeding at any time between the date of application and when the loan is disbursed.[1] Several companies in bankruptcy proceedings, whose loans have been denied, have challenged the SBA’s rulemaking authority in this regard, leading to a nationwide split on this issue in bankruptcy courts.

Specifically, these courts have rendered opinions to decide whether the SBA can impose a policy disqualifying a business in bankruptcy proceedings from participating in the PPP and whether the SBA violates other laws for doing so.[2] More than a dozen cases have been decided in the last two months, with the recent decisions highlighting the confusion that bankruptcy courts face in discerning the intent of Congress and the purpose of the CARES Act.

In decisions amounting to a majority of court decisions to date, bankruptcy courts have ruled in favor of the debtor on the merits or a request for injunctive relief.[3] One decision in favor of the debtor, with detailed analysis, has been rendered in the In re Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A. bankruptcy case. In that case, the bankruptcy court concluded that excluding Chapter 11 debtors conflicts with the intent of Congress and the purpose of the CARES Act. The bankruptcy court determined that collectability was not a criterion for a qualification which Congress intended to focus on and rejected the SBA’s argument that debtors had a higher risk of misusing PPP funds for non-covered expenses.[4]

On the other hand, in a minority stance are bankruptcy courts that have found that the IFR is not in violation of the CARES Act, and that the SBA has not exceeded its statutory authority under the APA. Some of these courts point to the extreme urgency with which the CARES Act was enacted, which they say necessitated clarifying rulemaking, as well as the historical broad authority granted by Congress to the SBA which allows for such rulemaking in areas where the CARES Act is silent.[5]

Given the large number of PPP recipients and the potential for a dramatic increase in the number of companies forced to file for bankruptcy protection in the near future, the ultimate resolution of this issue may have significant implications for the future. Varnum will continue to follow the current case split, as well as their possible implications for other debtors that may have received a PPP loan pre-filing and will seek to have the loans forgiven as part of the Chapter 11 process.

[1] See Interim Final Rule, 13 C.F.R. Parts 120-21, Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program – Requirements – Promissory Notes, Authorizations, Affiliation, and Eligibility (RIN 3245-AH37), at p. 8-9.
[2] The laws invoked are under the Administrative Procedures Act (the “APA”) 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), APA 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and under the Bankruptcy Code’s antidiscrimination provision, 11 U.S.C. § 525.
[3] In re Skefos, No. 19-29718-L, 2020 WL 2893413 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. June 2, 2020) (order granting the Debtor’s motion for PI); In re Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A., No. 8:19-BK-04971-MGW, 2020 WL 3048197 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. June 8, 2020) (enjoining the SBA from disqualifying the Debtor and finding that the decision-making of the SBA was not reasoned); Diocese of Rochester v U.S. Small Bus. Admin., No. 6:20-CV-06243 EAW, 2020 WL 3071603 (W.D.N.Y. June 10, 2020).
[4] In re Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A., No. 8:19-BK-04971-MGW, 2020 WL 3048197, at *15-17.
[5] Schuessler v United States Small Bus. Admin., No. AP 20-02065-BHL, 2020 WL 2621186 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. May 22, 2020) (denying declaratory and injunctive relief and dismissing the complaints in three consolidated Chapter 12 cases); In re iThrive Health, LLC, Adv. Pro. No. 20-00151 (Bankr. D. Md. June 8, 2020) (finding Debtor would not prevail on the merits and denying preliminary injunction; but granting Debtor’s motion to dismiss the bankruptcy without disclosing if Debtor intends to move to reinstate the bankruptcy after PPP funding is approved as contemplated by Debtors in Arizona and S.D. Florida); In re Henry Anesthesia Assoc., 2020 WL 3002124 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 4, 2020).

© 2020 Varnum LLP
For more on the topic, see the National Law Review Bankruptcy & Restructuring law section.

SBA Rulemaking and Guidance Challenged in Federal Lawsuits in Connection with PPP Loan Guidance

The Coronavirus, Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was signed into law by the President on March 27, 2020. Title I of the CARES Act, named “Keeping American Workers Employed and Paid” by Congress, appropriated $659 billion for loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

Section 1114 of the CARES Act instructs the SBA to issue regulations “to carry out this title and the amendments made by this title” within fifteen days and without regard to the usual notice requirements, which the SBA did in the form of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”). 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001(1), 9012.

While ostensibly intended to clarify uncertainty in the CARES Act, two recent federal lawsuits challenge certain rulemaking and guidance promulgated by the SBA. The question before the courts is whether such rulemaking and guidance is a lawful interpretation of the CARES Act or, as the plaintiffs argue, amounts to illegal rulemaking.

Agencies are prohibited by the Administrative Procedures Act from taking action “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). The validity of an agency’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed by a court using the two-step framework outlined in the landmark case, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The first question reviewed in the Chevron analysis is, “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43.

The plaintiffs argue that certain elements of the SBA guidance did not give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress and, as a result, are unlawful and unenforceable.

DV Diamond Club of Flint v. SBA

DV Diamond Club of Flint LLC (“DV Diamond”) is a strip club in Flint, Michigan, which feared that it would be denied a PPP loan by lenders as a result of guidance from the SBA that is not consistent with the CARES Act. DV Diamond’s initial complaint, dated April 8, 2020, was amended on April 17, 2020 to add forty-one new co-plaintiffs (collectively with DV Diamond, the “Plaintiffs”), each of which claims to operate a legal sexual oriented business which meets the eligibility requirements under the CARES Act. The Plaintiffs argue that the CARES Act is unambiguous as to what businesses are eligible for PPP loans and the SBA, therefore, has no right to assert additional eligibility requirements or disqualifiers. See DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. U.S. SBA, 20-cv-10899, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82213, at *27 (E.D. Mich. May 11, 2020).

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) issued an injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, noting that Congress unambiguously stated that the SBA may not exclude from eligibility for a PPP loan guarantee a business that met the CARES Act’s size standard for eligibility. Id. at *27.

The District Court agreed with the Plaintiffs that, “under step one of Chevron that the PPP Ineligibility Rule conflicts with the PPP and is therefore invalid.” Id. at *42.

“Congress provided temporary paycheck support to all Americans employed by all small businesses that satisfied the two eligibility requirements—even businesses that may have been disfavored during normal times.” Id. at *4-5.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the SBA’s motion for a stay of the injunction, holding that the relevant factors, including the Plaintiff’s likelihood success, weighed in favor of the Plaintiff. DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. SBA, No. 20-1437, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 15822, at *8 (6th Cir. May 15, 2020).

Zumasys, Inc. v. SBA

Zumasys and two affiliated companies (collectively, “Zumasys”) received PPP loans but are concerned that they may subsequently be deemed ineligible as a result of “improper, and legally impermissible, underground regulation” promulgated by the SBA. (Zumasys, Inc. v. U.S. SBA et al., Dkt. No. 20-cv-008511, Dkt. 1 (the Zumasys Complaint) ¶ 58.)

Zumasys claims to have acted in reliance on the CARES Act by obtaining—and spending—what they expected to be forgivable PPP funds under the terms of the CARES Act rather than furloughing or terminating their employees. Subsequently, guidance set forth in questions 31 and 37 of the SBA’s Frequently Asked Questions, according to Zumasys, might require their loans to be repaid. Zumasys claims that being forced to repay their loans will place them in a worse financial position than had it never sought the PPP funds.

The SBA’s “credit elsewhere” test, which requires a borrower to demonstrate that the needed financing is not otherwise available on reasonable terms from non-governmental sources, was expressly excluded as an eligibility requirement to obtain a PPP loan by Congress. Zumasys alleges, however, that the FAQs “purport to re-impose the “credit elsewhere” requirement in contravention of” the CARES Act. (Id. ¶ 66.)

As a result, in an argument similar to that made by DV Diamond and its co-plaintiffs, Zumasys asserts that the FAQs “are not in accordance with the law and exceed Defendants’ authority under the CARES Act,” and asks that the SBA should be enjoined from enforcing them by the court. (Id.)

Subsequent to the filing of the Zumasys lawsuit, on May 13, 2020, the SBA issued guidance in question 46 in the FAQs that any borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.

While this development, on its face, would seem to alleviate the concerns of Zumasys, a great deal of uncertainty remains for borrowers in connection with the guidance that has been released by the SBA since the passing of the CARES Act into law. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that subsequent guidance from the SBA will not contradict the guidance currently being relied upon, and in FAQ 39 the SBA noted that it will review all loans in excess of $2 million and in subsequent rulemaking it noted that with respect to a PPP Loan of any size, the “SBA may undertake a review at any time in [the] SBA’s discretion.”

Conclusion

The challenges by DV Diamond, Zumasys and other plaintiffs will hinge on whether or not the applicable courts determine that the guidance issued by the SBA is inconsistent with the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.

To the extent that borrowers and applicants continue to believe that problematic discrepancies exist between the law and guidance being delivered by the SBA, and the SBA subsequently determines that a borrower is ineligible for a PPP loan or forgiveness of such loan, the courts may in the future be called upon again to apply the Chevron analysis to the SBA’s actions in connection with the PPP.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

© Copyright 2020 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
For more on SBA’s PPP loans, 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.

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

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

Summary of Key Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

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

PPP Loan – Will You Be Forgiven?

The United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) began issuing information, guidance and rules with respect to the forgiveness piece of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the loans available under it by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). These have been much anticipated, especially for those early borrowers in the PPP whose covered period is coming to an end. The SBA recently released the PPP Loan Forgiveness Application (this or the lender’s equivalent is the Application) which provides guidance and instruction on the calculation of the forgivable portion of a PPP loan. The Treasury and the SBA followed the Application up with interim rules “Loan Forgiveness” and “SBA Loan Review Procedures and Related Borrower and Lender Responsibilities” (collectively, First Forgiveness Interim Rules). The Application and the First Forgiveness Interim Rules shed light on a number of the issues surrounding the loan forgiveness process, calculations related to the same and the potential review of PPP loans by the SBA.

A. Loan Forgiveness Process

In order for a borrower to receive forgiveness on all or a portion of its loan amount, the borrower must complete the Application and submit it to its lender. After the lender has determined what portion, if any, of the borrower’s loan is entitled to forgiveness, the lender will advise the SBA of that determination. The SBA will remit the forgiveness amount to the lender (plus any accrued interest) no later than 90 days after receipt of the lender’s determination of the forgiveness amount; provided, however, that such 90 days is subject to extension if the SBA is reviewing the loan, the loan application or forgiveness calculation. The more material aspects of the submission and determination process include:

  • The lender has 60 days after its receipt of the Application to issue its determination to the SBA. That determination can be in the form of: (a) approval in whole or part; (b) denial; or (c) if directed by the SBA, a denial without prejudice due to a pending SBA review of the underlying PPP loan.
  • The SBA may review any PPP loan that it deems appropriate, and the review may include evaluation of: (i) the borrower’s eligibility (i.e., size of employees, accuracy of certifications, etc.); (ii) calculation of the loan amount and use of the proceeds; and (iii) the loan forgiveness determination.
  • The SBA may undertake a review of a PPP loan at any time, including within a 6 year period after the later of: (1) forgiveness of the loan; and (2) the date of repayment in full.  A borrower will be permitted to respond to questions raised by the SBA in its review of such borrower’s PPP loan. If the borrower fails to respond to an inquiry by the SBA, it risks being deemed ineligible for the loan in general or ineligible for forgiveness. A borrower will be able to appeal determinations of the SBA, and further rules will be issued on this process.
  • A borrower that is not eligible for a PPP loan will not receive forgiveness on any portion of the loan, and the SBA may pursue repayment of the loan and other remedies available to it.

Prior to the issuance of the First Forgiveness Interim Rules, it was unclear what role the lender would have in the forgiveness process. The lender is charged with confirming that: (A) borrower has completed the Application; (B) borrower has submitted all other required documentation (see Section C. below for more details); (C) the calculations for loan forgiveness match the supporting documentation; and (D) borrower correctly calculated what percentage of the requested loan forgiveness was used for payroll costs. The lender’s confirmations and review are to be done in good faith, and the lender may rely on the borrower’s representations and documents in conducting such review.

Key Takeaway – The SBA’s ability to review a borrower’s PPP loan will extend well past the forgiveness period process, and a borrower’s lender will be active in the review and submission of the Application. We expect many lenders to include certifications or attestations made by the borrower for the benefit of the lender with respect to the accuracy and completeness of the information and supporting documents provided with the Application.

B. Certifications

The Application requires a borrower to make additional certifications at the time of the loan forgiveness request.

Key Takeaway – The borrower is not recertifying that the economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the borrower. The certifications, however, do include:

  • The dollar amount for which forgiveness is requested (a) was used to pay costs that are eligible for forgiveness; (b) includes all applicable reductions due to decreases in the number of FTE employees and salary/hourly wage reductions; (c) does not include non-payroll costs in excess of 25% of the amount requested; and (d) does not exceed 8 weeks’ worth of 2019 compensation for any owner-employee or self-employed individual/general partner, capped at $15,385 per individual. Key Takeaway – Although “owner-employee” is not defined in the Application, this limitation comes in previously issued rules, and more specifically as set forth in 85 CFR 21747, 21749 (April 20, 2020), and we believe it is limited to those employees that are self-employed for federal income tax purposes and file Form 1040, Schedule C, and not to employees who are also shareholders of corporations taxed as C-corporations or S-corporations for federal income tax purposes.
  • If the loan proceeds were knowingly used for unauthorized purposes, the government may pursue recovery of loan amounts and/or civil or criminal fraud charges.
  • Borrower accurately verified the payments for the eligible payroll and non-payroll costs for which forgiveness is requested.
  • The documentation required to verify payrolls costs, the existence of obligations and service (as applicable) prior to February 15, 2020, and eligible business mortgage interest payments, business rent or lease payments and business utility payments were submitted to the lender.
  • The information provided in the Application and information provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and correct in all material respects. The certifying party also certifies that it understands that knowingly making a false statement to obtain forgiveness is punishable under law, including by imprisonment and/or fine.
  • The tax documents submitted to the lender are consistent with those borrower submitted or will submit to the IRS and/or state tax or workforce agency.

C. Documentation

Borrowers are required to submit certain documents and information to its lender along with the Application. This includes the loan forgiveness calculation form and the PPP Schedule A that are part of the Application. In addition, borrowers must provide the following:

  • Documentation necessary to verify the cash compensation and non-cash benefit payments for the payroll costs paid or incurred, including:
    • Bank statements or third party payroll service provider reports documenting the compensation paid to employees.
    • Tax forms (or equivalent reports from third party payroll service providers) for the periods in question, such as (a) payroll tax filings (e.g., Form 941), and (b) state quarterly business or individual employee wage reporting and unemployment insurance tax filings.
    • Payment receipts, cancelled checks or account statements documenting borrower’s contributions to employee health insurance and retirement plans that are included in the forgiveness amount.
  • Documents showing the average number of FTE employees on the payroll per month employed by borrower between either (i) February 15, 2019 and June 30, 2019, or (ii) January 1, 2020 and February 29, 2020, as selected by borrower. A borrower that is a seasonal employer will use the time period it selected, which can be different than the two options above.
  • Documents verifying that existence of the obligations or services prior to February 15, 2020, and the eligible payments of those non-payroll costs included in the forgiveness amount, including where applicable:
    • Business mortgage interest payments, such as lender amortization schedules and receipts or cancelled checks verifying payments, or lender account statements for the relevant periods of time.
    • Business rent or lease payments, such as current lease agreement and receipts or cancelled checks verifying payments.
    • Business utility payments, such as copies of invoices and receipts or cancelled checks, or account statements verifying the payments for the relevant periods of time.

Each borrower should also have available, but it is not required to submit to the lender, such borrower’s PPP Schedule A Worksheet or equivalent, along with (1) documents supporting the listing of each employee in that worksheet, whether the listing is done for salary/hourly wage reduction or exclusion of individuals receiving an annualize rate of compensation of more than $100,000, (2) documents regarding any job offers and refusal, firings for cause, voluntary resignations and written requests by employee for reduction, if applicable, (3) documents supporting the FTE Reduction Safe Harbor calculation on such worksheet. Further, all records related to the borrower’s PPP Loan, such as its application, support for its certifications, its eligibility and support for forgiveness must be retained for 6 years after the later of the date of its loan forgiveness, and its repayment of the loan.

Key Takeaway – The documentation to be submitted to the lender for forgiveness is relatively light. However, the amount of supporting documents and backup that the borrower should have at the ready for a six year plus period is quite extensive.

D. Forgivable Expenses

The Application and the First Forgiveness Interim Rules set forth in greater detail than the CARES Act itself the expenses that a borrower pays or incurs that are eligible for forgiveness. Those expenses are grouped into two categories: (1) payroll costs, and (2) non-payroll costs. In general, to be forgiven, the enumerated expenses must be paid or incurred during the applicable 8-week period.

  1. Covered Period and Paid/Incurred. In general, payroll costs and non-payroll costs are eligible for forgiveness only if they are paid or incurred in the applicable covered period. The Application and new rules provide very meaningful guidance in this area.
    1. Covered Period. First, borrowers have the option of selecting which 8-week period will be used to measure the paid or incurred payroll costs. Borrowers can seek forgiveness for payroll costs for the 8-week period beginning on either: (i) the date of disbursement of the loan proceeds (Original Covered Period); or (ii) the first day of the first payroll cycle in the 8-week period in the Original Covered Period (Alternative Payroll Period). The Alternative Payroll Period provides flexibility to a borrower and helps it align the covered period better to its payroll cycle. The Alternative Payroll Period is not available for non-payroll costs.
    2. Paid/Incurred. The CARES Act indicated that the forgivable expenses of the borrower had to be paid and incurred in the covered period. This created questions surrounding how to measure the same, and whether or not the use of “and” was intended to be conjunctive or disjunctive in nature. The Application and rules greatly simplify the analysis on this front. In short, a borrower can seek forgiveness for appropriate payroll and non-payroll expenses that are paid during the applicable covered period, and for those 5 expenses incurred during the applicable covered period that are paid on the next regular payroll date, or for non-payroll costs on the next regular billing cycle. Payroll costs are considered paid on the day that paychecks are distributed or the day borrower originates an ACH credit transaction. Payroll costs are incurred on the day the employee’s pay is earned (i.e., the day the employee worked).

Key Takeaway – A borrower can submit expenses either paid or incurred in the applicable period so long as they are not double counted. And, unless changed by supplemental rules, a borrower gets the benefit of more than 8 weeks of payroll paid or incurred during the Original Covered Period or the Alternative Payroll Period, as applicable.

  1. Payroll Costs. The new guidance reiterates that forgivable payroll costs is the compensation to employees whose principal place of residence is in the United States during the applicable 8-week period. Compensation includes (a) salary, wages, commissions or similar compensation; (b) cash tips or equivalent (based on borrower’s records of tips or, if no such records, a reasonable good-faith estimate); (c) payment for vacation, parental, family, medical or sick leave; (d) allowance of separation or dismissal; (e) payment for the provision of employee benefits consisting of group health coverage, including insurance premiums, and retirement; (f) payment of state and local taxes assessed on compensation of employees; and (g) for an independent contractor or sole proprietor, wages, commissions, income or net earnings from self-employment or similar compensation. Key Takeaway – The First Forgiveness Interim Rules clarify that compensation payments to furloughed employees in the applicable 8-week period are eligible for forgiveness (subject to the $100,000 annualized cash compensation limitation). In addition, if an employee’s total cash compensation does not exceed $100,000 on annualized basis, the employee’s hazard pay and bonuses are eligible for forgiveness. Finally, the amount of forgiveness requested for owneremployees and self-employed individuals’ payroll compensation can be no more than the lesser of 8/52 of 2019 compensation or $15,385 per individual in total across the business (see commentary in Section B. on the definition of “owneremployee”).
  2. Non-Payroll Costs. While the Application and latest rules do not define payroll costs and non-payroll costs specifically, they do shed light on a few questions surrounding the items includable in those categories. Generally, the Application and the rules reiterate that non-payroll costs that are potentially forgivable are (a) interest payments on business mortgage obligations on real or personal property that were incurred before February 25, 2020 (but not any prepayment or payment of principal); (b) payments on business rent obligations on real or personal property under a lease agreement in force before February 15, 2020; and (c) business utility payments for the distribution of electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or internet access for which service began before February 15, 2020.

Key Takeaway – Payments under rental or lease agreements for personal property are eligible for forgiveness. And, the SBA confirmed prepayment of interest is not a forgivable use of PPP loan proceeds.

E. Reduction in Forgiveness Mechanics

The SBA also addressed and answered several outstanding questions related to the reductions for forgiveness required under the CARES Act and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those for reduction in work force (including furloughs and reduction in hours) or employees’ wages. Additionally, the SBA created several borrower-friendly exemptions in the process, relying on “administrative convenience” and the statutory authority to grant de minimis exemptions. Several of the First Forgiveness Interim Rule’s questions and answers are worthy of note, but with guidance still ever-changing and regulations still to follow, we advise seeking counsel and reviewing the most up-to-date guidance before calculating whether a PPP loan is subject to a reduction in forgiveness.

  1. Order of Application. There are specific instances where the amount of forgiveness can be reduced. Those instances are when there is a reduction in employee pay level, a reduction in the number of FTEEs, and more than 25% of the amount sought to be forgiven is related to non-payroll costs. Before issuance of the Application, it was not clear in what order these potential reductions were to apply, and how they would interact. Key Takeaway – The reductions are to be applied by first addressing the reduction in employee pay level, then the reduction for any decrease in FTEEs, and finally calculation of any reduction needed because more than 25% of the amount applied for forgiveness is attributable to non-payroll costs.
  2. Employees Who Refuse to Come Back to Work. Prior guidance indicated that if a borrower offered to restore an employee to its prior wage/hours/employment status and the employee refused, that employee would not be counted against the borrower in calculating forgiveness. This was codified in the First Forgiveness Interim Rules, which also applied this exemption to situations where the borrower had previously reduced the hours of the employee and offered to restore the employee to the same salary or wages. Key Takeaway – The First Forgiveness Interim Rules provided a five-part test for borrowers to qualify for the exemption. The test includes that the borrower must make a good faith offer to rehire or restore the reduced hours to the same salary or wages and same number of hours as earned by the employee in the last pay period prior to the separation or reduction in hours. The offer must be rejected by the employee, and the offer and rejection must be documented. The borrower must inform the state unemployment office of the rejected offer within 30 days of the employee’s rejection of the offer.
  3. Effect of a Reduction in Full-Time Equivalent Employees (FTEEs). When calculating a reduction in forgiveness based on a reduction in FTEEs, the borrower is to divide the average number of FTEEs during the Original Covered Period or the Alternative Payroll Period by the average number of FTEEs during the “reference period,” with the total eligible expenses available for forgiveness reduced proportionally by the percentage of reduction in FTEEs. In prior publications, the SBA had suggested that the borrower may not be able to choose the reference period (as had initially been suggested by the language of the CARES Act) and that borrowers that were in business prior to February 15, 2019 had to use February 15 to June 30, 2019 as the reference period.  Key Takeaway –The SBA made clear that the borrower will have a choice in selecting the reference period, which should allow most borrowers to choose the reference period that minimizes any reduction to forgiveness based on a reduction in workforce. Most borrows have two choices in determining the reference period to calculate any reduction of forgiveness due to a reduction in FTEEs: (a) February 15-June 30, 2019, or (b) January 1-February 29, 2020. Seasonal employers, however, could also choose any consecutive 12-week period between May 1 and September 15, 2019.
  4. Calculating FTEEs. FTEE calculations are determined on a 40 hour work week. Any employee who works 40 hours or more is considered one FTEE. However, the SBA creates two options for calculating FTEEs when it comes to employees who work less than 40 hours per week. The borrower must apply the option it selects consistently for calculating both the reference period and the Original Covered Period (or the Alternative Payroll Period), and for all employees. The first option is to calculate the actual numbers a part-time employee was paid per week and divide that number by 40. The second, alternative option—created for administrative convenience—is to use a full-time equivalency of 0.5 for each part-time employee, without concern to the actual hours the employee worked. Key Takeaway – The second option for calculating FTEEs will be significant for certain borrowers, like those in retail and restaurant industries, who are slowly re-opening at reduced capacity, and often have a significant portion of the staff working less than 40 hours a week. While we advise seeking counsel prior to making a choice between the two options provided, the creation of the second option may allow some borrowers to mask small reductions in hours for individual employees that are likely to occur as the borrower is reopening at reduced capacity. Of note, this option does not exempt these part-time employees from calculating a reduction in forgiveness due to a reduction in salary, nor does it change the requirement that at least 75% of the forgivable amount be actually spent on payroll costs.
  5. Effect of a Reduction in Employees’ Wages on Forgiveness. The SBA made clear that the reference period for calculation in wage-reduction was January 1 through March 31, 2020 and that the reduction is based on a per employee basis (not in the aggregate). Key Takeaway – Borrowers will not be doubly penalized for a reduction in FTEEs when calculating reductions in forgiveness. If a borrower merely reduces hours but does not change the salary/wage of the employee, the SBA indicates that the borrower will not also suffer a reduction in forgiveness for a reduction in wages. Likewise, terminating an employee should not also count as a reduction in wages to that employee. 
  6. Safe Harbor for Rehiring. The CARES Act provides for a safe harbor period for any borrower who saw a reduction in FTEEs or employee wages from February 15 through April 26 (30 days after the Act was enacted), but cures those reductions by June 30, 2020. Key Takeaway – The rules provide that a borrower who saw reductions to FTEEs or wages during the safe harbor period, but cures such reduction by June 30 will suffer no reduction in forgiveness for that employee. However, even with this 8 effort for clarity, borrowers should seek counsel before calculating safe harbor exemptions to reductions in forgiveness, as, for example, an employee who was laid off on February 14 is treated differently than one laid off on February 15, and an employee who had wages reduced on April 26 is treated differently than one whose wages were reduced on April 27.
  7. Employees fired for cause or voluntarily causes reduction in hours. The First Forgiveness Interim Rules give a borrower a better understanding of what employees or former employees count in the FTEE calculations, and certain terminations of employment will not be counted against the borrower. Key Takeaway – The SBA created an exemption not contemplated by the CARES Act. Specifically, when an employee is fired for cause, voluntarily resigns, or voluntarily requests a reduction of hours during the covered period, the borrower may count such employee as the same FTEE level as before the event when calculating the FTEE penalty. This would likely include employees who abandoned positions after being offered to return to work, even if the employee did not formally reject the offer as otherwise required in Section E.2 above. However, the SBA cautioned borrowers that the borrower must maintain records (for up to six years) demonstrating the employee was fired for cause, voluntarily resigned or requested a reduced schedule, and must provide the records upon request of the SBA.

F. Questions that Remain Unanswered.

While the Application and the First Forgiveness Rules addressed several issues surrounding the forgiveness aspects of the PPP, borrowers will be waiting and watching for further issuances by the Treasury and the SBA on questions not yet addressed. Some of those items are:

  • Will lenders be able to extend the 6 month deferment on the repayment of the PPP loan so as to allow the forgiveness process to be completed, or will a borrower need to start making payments based on the lender’s determination of forgiveness?
  • If a borrower has multiple payroll cycles (e.g., bi-weekly and monthly), does it only get to use the Alternative Payroll Period once, or can it elect to change the Original Covered Period for each payroll cycle?
  • Are retirement plan contributions, which are not monthly payroll cycle matches, but instead discretionary in nature, a forgivable expense if paid during the applicable covered period?
  • Is there a deadline for a borrower to make the request for forgiveness?
  • Can PPP loan proceeds be used for permissible purposes after June 30, 2020, or if not spent by then do they need to be returned to the lender? We expect even more guidance and interim rules on the loan forgiveness aspects of the PPP to be forthcoming.

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

For more on SBA’s PPP loan see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Reporters Are Pushing to Reveal CARES Act Beneficiaries. Is Your Firm Prepared for Tough Questions?

As law firms continue to announce restructuring, furloughs and layoffs in response to the economic emergency caused by the coronavirus, CMOs and marketing directors of small to midsize firms are quickly realizing they may have to contend with a corresponding PR crisis: their firms’ financials are under increased media scrutiny.

That’s because reporters across the legal and mainstream media are pushing the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department to make public the names of companies that accepted assistance through the various programs created through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, including the Payroll Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loans.

We all saw the stories back in March of billion-dollar-plus companies whose bailouts depleted the PPP fund within days, only to be forced, sheepishly, to return the money after the public outcry. Obviously, midmarket firms are far smaller than those companies in both staff and revenue, but seeing so many powerful corporations take advantage of government support that was intended to help the little guy has made the public skeptical and even hostile toward any business larger than the corner hardware store who received government help.

Add to this inhospitable climate the lack of clear guidance for borrowers and grant recipients on how the money can be used, and all law firms who participated, even those working in good faith to stay well within the bounds of eligibility requirements, could face damage to their reputations. This is particularly true for law firms that predominantly serve small business clients. How will those clients respond if they learn their lawyers received the funding when they themselves struggled to secure it to protect their own business?

One thing we know for sure: this information eventually will be made public, whether the government releases it or it is leaked to reporters at the Washington Post or ALM. Therefore it is critical for CMOs and marketing directors to create a plan for how they will respond if their firm’s name is likely to show up on the list.

Anytime negative media coverage hits, firms have a few options:

  1. Say nothing. Hope for the best. Maybe your firm will show up so far down the list that no one will notice?
  2. Wait for the information to become public and then issue a statement confirming the barest set of facts.
  3. Confirm the facts and make a spokesperson available for interviews.
  4. Proactively disclose your participation in CARES Act programs, explaining why you did so, focusing on the jobs you’re protecting and describing your firm’s plans for weathering the coming months.

While many firms are banking on option #1 and hoping to benefit from chaotic news cycles and short attention spans, there is a risk that they could be underestimating the blowback they may face. If you remain silent while reporters write stories about your firm, your clients and prospects will tend to fill the information vacuum with their own speculation.

The smarter play is to deploy some combination of the other three options, and what that plan looks like will depend on strategic coordination with firm leadership and your answers to a few key questions, such as:

How will your most important clients react to the news that your firm received CARES Act support? Some clients will be relieved to know their law firm is on solid ground and can continue to provide uninterrupted service. Others might question the firm’s underlying financials or, as mentioned above, react with resentment that a business with revenue in the nine figures is displacing a small business. Predicting key clients’ responses to the news will allow you to create a media strategy that defuses criticism and shapes a more positive narrative about why the firm accepted the government support. Think about all the messages you’ve sent over the years about who you are and what you value as a firm. If leadership’s decision-making here was consistent with those messages and values, you’re in good shape.

Has your firm eliminated jobs, and does it plan to? One of the most important and well publicized terms of the PPP is that, in order for the loans to be forgivable, 75% of the funding must be used to cover payroll. This is intended to protect as many jobs as possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean that moving ahead with job eliminations violates the terms of the loan, which can be repaid, in full or in part, at a 1% interest rate. But taking PPP funds and cutting jobs will raise eyebrows. Timing here is key. Did your firm lay people off and then take the funding? Could that be perceived as funneling the benefits to members of the firm who already receive the highest compensation? These are the kinds of questions reporters will be asking; leaders need to be prepared to answer them.

Has your managing partner and other members of the c-suite agreed to sacrifice some of their own compensation? If your firm decides to take the most proactive course and disclose its status, it’s crucial to use that opportunity to tell the most compelling story of why you did so. Of course, every managing partner has sent out a reassuring email to the firm in the past few weeks that says some version of “We’re all in this together,” but this message is a lot more meaningful when leadership can point to actual sacrifices they’ve made to try to save people’s jobs.

One positive development around the CARES Act programs is that now, some weeks after the disastrous rollout and the better-managed second round of PPP loans, businesses are no longer in competition with each other to get needed support. The sense that this is a zero-sum game has subsided, and that’s good news for midsize law firms that may need to disclose their participation. Still, marketers must think carefully about how to engage with the media on this sensitive and still-evolving issue. Don’t wait until a reporter calls to decide what you’re going to say.

© 2020 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.

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

Small Business Administration Loan Portal Compromised

Following the devastating impact of the coronavirus on small businesses, many small businesses applied for a disaster loan through the Small Business Administration (SBA) for relief.

Small businesses that qualify for the disaster loan program, which is different than the Paycheck Protection Program offered by the SBA, can apply for the loan by uploading the application, which contains their personal information, including Social Security numbers, into the SBA portal www.sba.gov.

Unfortunately, the SBA reported last week that 7,913 small business owners who had applied for a disaster loan through the portal had their personal information, including their Social Security numbers, compromised, when other applicants could view their applications on the website on March 25, 2020. On top of the turmoil the businesses have experienced from closure, owners now have to contend with potential personal identity theft.

The SBA has notified all affected business owners and is offering them free credit monitoring for one year. The notification letter indicates that the information compromised included names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, financial information, email addresses and telephone numbers.

Copyright © 2020 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

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

Did Economic Uncertainty Make My PPP Loan Necessary?

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

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

Good Faith Certification

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

Guidance

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

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

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

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

Answer: See response to FAQ #31.

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

Suggested Steps and Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© 2007-2020 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved

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