BCLP Banking Blog

Main Content

Tax Effects on Paycheck Protection Program Borrowers

April 6, 2020

Categories

With regard to the interplay of various tax provisions of the CARES Act and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), we note the following:

  • If a borrower takes a PPP loan, they are restricted from claiming the employee retention credit, even if the PPP loan is not forgiven.
  • If any portion of a borrower’s PPP loan is forgiven, the borrower is restricted from taking advantage of the deferred payment of the employer portion of Social Security tax obligations.
  • If all or a portion of borrower’s PPP loan is forgiven, the statute provides that such forgiven amount shall be excluded from gross income.

Employee retention credit. The CARES Act provides certain eligible employers a refundable credit with respect to the employer’s share of Social Security tax for due in an amount equal to 50% of qualified wages paid after March 12, 2020 and before January 1, 2021 (up to $10,000 per employee for all calendar quarters). Eligible employers generally include those required to fully or partially suspend operations due to a COVID-19 related government order or that have a 50% decrease in gross receipts for a calendar quarter when compared to the same quarter in 2019.  Generally, all employee wages paid by employers with up to 100 full-time employees in 2019 are eligible for the credit. However, if an employer had more than 100 full-time employees in 2019, only wages paid to employees who are not providing services due to the suspension of operations or significant decrease in gross receipts are credit-eligible. If an employer takes a PPP loan, they are not eligible to take advantage of the employee retention credit.

Read More

Lender Obligations under Paycheck Protection Program

April 2, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

Pursuant to the Interim Final Rule published this evening, the SBA has confirmed that banks participating as lenders will have limited liability for the bad acts of their borrowers. This assumes, however that Form 2484, when ultimately published by the SBA, will not contain additional problematic certifications required to be made by the lender.

“SBA will allow lenders to rely on certifications of the borrower in order to determine eligibility of the borrower and use of loan proceeds and to rely on specified documents provided by the borrower to determine qualifying loan amount and eligibility for loan forgiveness. Lenders must comply with the applicable lender obligations set forth in this interim final rule, but will be held harmless for borrowers’ failure to comply with program criteria; remedies for borrower violations or fraud are separately addressed in this interim final rule.”

Read More

Community Banks Should be Encouraged to Participate (as Borrowers) in the SBA Paycheck Protection Program

April 2, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

Community Banks should not only be permitted, they should be encouraged, to participate as borrowers in the CARES Act SBA Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Both the Small Business Administration and each of the federal and state banking regulators should expressly acknowledge that community banks with less than 500 employees are both permitted and encouraged to participate, as borrowers, in the PPP. 

[Update, Evening of April 2, 2020. The SBA has now published the interim final rule for the PPP. Although the guidance published under either “2(a) Am I eligible?” or “2(b) Could I be ineligible even if I meet the eligibility requirements in (a) above?” make no mention of banks being ineligible, provision 2(c) provides 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.” Banks are included as non-eligible borrowers under both provisions. As discussed below, this remains in apparent disagreement with the CARES Act, but unless the SBA changes its mind, it appears we’re missing an opportunity to further expand credit for small businesses.]

[Update #2, Still Evening of April 2, 2020. The Interim Final Rule clearly contemplates that the PPP is not otherwise subject to SBA rules as it provides “The program requirements of the PPP identified in this rule temporarily supersede any conflicting Loan Program Requirement.” So, to be clear, the SBA and Treasury chose not to allow community banks to participate.]

Without this encouragement, community banks risk regulatory criticism and reputational concerns that participating in the PPP represents a warning regarding the bank’s safety and soundness.   I would argue that the truth is far different.  Participating in the PPP would demonstrate that bank management, notwithstanding the economic uncertainty, wants to fortify the bank’s safety and soundness while extending its ability to provide credit to households and business throughout the United States.

In the last week, the federal banking agencies have announced a number of regulatory actions intended to “increase banking organizations’ ability to provide credit to households and businesses,” including modifications to the supplementary leverage ratio.  These changes are both reasonable and appropriate, but only affect the largest banking institutions.  Like the aims of the Small Business Administration and the Paycheck Protection Program more broadly, efforts should also be taken to support community banks in their efforts to continue to provide credit to households and businesses as we all work through the impacts of the coronavirus.  Banking regulators could directly “increase community banking organizations’ ability to provide credit to households and businesses” by encouraging their participation in the PPP.  

The text of the CARES Act provides that “any business concern … shall be eligible to receive a covered loan” if the business concern meets the employee thresholds set forth in the CARES Act.  If law school taught me anything, it was that any should mean any. Neither the Borrower nor Lender Information Sheet on the program published by the U.S. Treasury Department discuss any additional limitations based on type of business.  In fact, the Borrowers Information sheet states that “All businesses – including nonprofits, veterans organizations, Tribal business concerns, sole proprietorships, self-employed individuals, and independent contractors – with 500 or fewer employees can apply.”  If law school taught me anything else, it was that all should mean all. Similarly, the initial application provided by the U.S. Treasury does not contemplate or provide for any collection of the type of business engaged in by the borrower.

Read More

COVID-19 and Economic Stabilization Act, Foreclosures, Disaster Assistance Loans, and Consumer Class Actions

March 29, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

The devastating impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) needs no introduction.  BCLP has consolidated all of its client alerts regarding Coronavirus (COVID-19) as one page of resources. On that page, you can also limit by topic area, jurisdiction and areas of practice.

In this post, which is the second of many, we have highlighted some of the client alerts that we believe may be of specific importance to our community bank clients.

Economic Stimulus under the U.S. Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act of 2020

The Coronavirus Economic Stabilization Act of 2020, Title IV of the CARES Act provides, among other things, $500 billion to the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund to provide loans, loan guarantees, and other investments in support of eligible businesses, States and municipalities and subsidies necessary for such loans, loan guarantees and other investments. This alert summarizes what impact the Stabilization Act may have on businesses and whether those businesses may be eligible for assistance.

Foreclosure and Receiver Issues in the United States during COVID-19

This alert provides an overview of the responses of courts and local and state governments of certain jurisdictions, as well as of the federal government, to the COVID-19 outbreak. The analysis has a particular focus on mortgage foreclosures and evictions, particularly in the commercial context, although information and guidance remains limited. Effects on residential foreclosures and evictions have been included as governments have tended to provide protection to residential properties first. Eventually, more state and local governments may provide guidance as to commercial foreclosures and evictions

Read More

COVID-19 and Mortgage Lenders and Services, MAC Clauses in Loan Agreements, Fair Credit Reporting Act Changes, and Employee Benefit Considerations

March 28, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

The devastating impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) needs no introduction.  Community banks across the country are feeling the impact, both as small business themselves, and as providers of credit to so many other small businesses. The impacts of COVID-19 and the legislative responses to COVID-19 are increasingly broad, and affecting almost every aspect of American life. The lawyers of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) are working to address those issues for companies of all sizes and industries, throughout the word.

As we collectively respond to the developing COVID-19 outbreak, the well-being of our clients and colleagues remains our paramount concern. We continue to closely monitor governmental, CDC, and WHO guidelines on travel, exposure and preventative measures and our firm has instituted a number of internal measures to ensure that BCLP is able to continue to consistently serve our clients’ business needs.  You can read more about the steps we have taken here.

In addition, BCLP has consolidated all of its client alerts regarding Coronavirus (COVID-19) as one page of resources. On that page, you can also limit by topic area, jurisdiction and areas of practice.

In this post, which is the first of many, we have highlighted some of the client alerts that we believe may be of specific importance to our community bank clients.

COVID-19: The New Frontier for Mortgage Lenders and Servicers in the U.S.

Most mortgage lenders and servicers already have business continuity plans in place, but those plans may not fully address the dynamics of the COVID-19 crisis.  Typical contingency plans ensure operational effectiveness following events like natural disasters, cyberattacks, and the like.  They do not, in many respects, account for widespread quarantines, extended business closures, and mass job borrower job loss and income disruption, among other things.  Beyond business continuity, lenders and servicers must grapple with evolving regulatory requirements, the risk of downstream regulatory and litigation scrutiny for actions taken today, and management of reputational risk.  This alert details the key regulatory developments, issues and risk mitigation strategies lenders and servicers should consider.

Enforcement of MAC Clauses in Loan Agreements in Light Of COVID-19 and Related Business Disruption

Material adverse change clauses in loan agreements present important issues that borrowers and lenders alike need to consider carefully in this environment.  There are very few published decisions on enforcement of MAC clauses in the lending context and no published cases addressing a pandemic-type situation like the one we are currently facing. A lender that invokes a MAC clause may seek to declare a default under the loan as a prelude to an enforcement action or to avoid funding, or further funding, its loan to the borrower.  Lenders are often confronted with extreme time pressure when a funding request is involved, which makes these situations even more challenging. This alert addresses whether COVID-19 and the resulting business disruption may be reasonably considered a MAC in a typical commercial loan. 

Read More

Bank Regulatory Provisions in the CARES Act

March 25, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

On March 25, 2020, senators released an updated draft of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (a.k.a the “CARES Act”) (the acronym is so much better than EGRRCPA!) to provide emergency assistance and health care response for individuals, families, and businesses.  Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner’s initial review of the overall Act is available here.

The current draft contains a number of bank regulatory provisions of potential interest to financial institutions of all sizes.

Section 4008 – Debt Guaranty Authority.  Authorizes FDIC to re-implement transaction account guarantee program, subject to cap on amounts insured.  In the 2008 financial crisis, the FDIC provided unlimited insurance for amounts held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (i.e. checking accounts that don’t pay interest).  Dodd-Frank prohibited the FDIC from every doing that again.  The CARES Act authorizes the FDIC to provide the program again through December 31, 2020.  Current draft of legislation limits coverage to “a maximum amount” without specifying the amount.  Effectiveness will require FDIC action.  Current draft of legislation also allows the NCUA to provide comparable insurance for credit unions, and permits the NCUA to provide insurance on an unlimited amount in such accounts.  Since its formation, no depositor has ever lost a penny of FDIC-insured funds.

Section 4014 – Optional Temporary Relief from Current Expected Credit Losses.  No financial institution or holding company shall be required to comply with FASB’s current expected credit loss methodology (i.e. CECL) (which otherwise is scheduled to become effective for the largest public bank holding companies for Q1 2020).  Effective from adoption of the Act and ending on the earlier of December 31, 2020 or the termination date of the national emergency. 

Read More

Banking Regulators Clarify TDR Relief for COVID-19 Modifications

March 22, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

On March 18, 2020, the FDIC issued guidance in its Frequently Asked Questions for Financial Institutions Affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 indicating the potential for relief from the Troubled Debt Restructuring (TDR) reporting requirements.

Financial institutions should determine whether loans with payment accommodations made to borrowers affected by COVID-19 should separately be reported as TDRs in separate memoranda items for such loans in regulatory reports. A TDR is a loan restructuring in which an institution, for economic or legal reasons related to a borrower’s financial difficulties, grants a concession to the borrower that it would not otherwise consider. However, a loan deferred, extended, or renewed at a stated interest rate equal to the current interest rate for new debt with similar risk is not reported as a TDR.

FDIC FAQ published March 18, 2020

While appreciated, that guidance left a lot of discretion to the regulators to second guess the interpretations by financial institutions and essentially just repeated existing guidance. On Sunday, March 22, 2020, the federal banking regulators collectively issued an Interagency Statement on Loan Modifications and Reporting for Financial Institutions Working with Customers Affected by the Coronavirus. This new Interagency Statement fortunately goes further.

Read More

In Memory of Walt: Beware the False Assumptions!

March 4, 2020

Authored by:

Categories

One year ago today, on March 4, 2019, we lost our patriarch, colleague and friend, Walt Moeling.  I don’t know that any client situation, much less a working day, goes by without each of us thinking about how Walt would have handled it.

On one hand, that makes the writing of this blog post one of the more difficult assignments.  On the other hand, I have the good fortune of knowing exactly what Walt thinks about this post (albeit in a wholly different context).  I wrote the first draft of this post almost five years ago.  After sharing with Walt, he commented that he liked the concept, but didn’t want it to be “all about him.”  The post then got added to my ever-growing “blog post ideas” folder, potentially never to be seen again.

But this post is supposed to be all about Walt, so I’m happy to publish it now.

One advantage of Bryan Cave Leighton Pasiner’s banking practice is our depth and camaraderie.  Based on what Walt Moeling and Kathryn Knudson have built over the last 40+ years, we have a breadth of experience that few can match.

Read More

Happy Holidays

December 23, 2019

Authored by:

Categories

Happy Holidays

December 23, 2019

Authored by: Robert Klingler

Happy Holidays to all clients, referral sources and potential clients.

Instead of sending printed holiday cards, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner is making donations to a number of our charity partners.

Read More

11+ Years of TARP

November 6, 2019

Authored by:

Categories

11+ Years of TARP

November 6, 2019

Authored by: Robert Klingler

As I have repeatedly written on this site, without regard to other benefits associated with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (such as avoiding a further collapse of the global financial system), the TARP program, and particularly the Capital Purchase Program, was profitable for the U.S. Taxpayer. As a banking lawyer and son and grandson of community bank presidents, I’ll concede that I’m biased. But the numbers speak for themselves.

Even ProPublica acknowledges that TARP was profitable.

Overall, the TARP remains in the black, though just barely.

What does ProPublica means by “barely” profitable? Apparently, “a narrow profit of about $1 billion.”

I hate it when I only have a billion dollars in profit. That’s $1,000,000,000.00 to put it in context.

Read More
The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.