As previously discussed, on October 2, 2020, the SBA published Procedural Notice 5000-20057 addressing Paycheck Protection Program Loans and Changes of Ownership. Based on a review of memos on the subject by other law firms and accounting firms, four items stood out as not being regularly addressed (in addition to some expressing the mistaken belief that buyers have to assume the PPP loan in any asset transaction).

1. Any Merger Triggers the Procedural Notice. 

The definition of a change of ownership includes any merger of the PPP borrower with or into another entity.  Even if the PPP borrower is the surviving entity and there is no change in shareholder ownership, it would appear to be pulled into the SBA Procedural Notice. Accordingly, either internal reorganizations or acquisitions could trigger the obligations of the Procedural Notice if structured as a merger.

2. Stock Transfers Between Existing Shareholders Can Trigger Procedural Notice. 

Stock transfers to affiliates and existing owners are covered, not just sales to new owners. Any change in shareholder composition that results in a greater than 50% change since the receipt of the PPP loan triggers a change of ownership of ownership under the Procedural Notice.

No.

On October 2, the Small Business Administration published a procedural notice on changes of ownership for PPP borrowers. One specific area where we’ve seen confusion is whether the procedural notice requires a Buyer to assume all of the PPP Borrower’s obligations in an asset sale transaction. As discussed below, while the procedural notice does require the Buyer to assume the PPP loan obligations in an asset sale in order to obtain the SBA’s prior approval, so long as the SBA’s prior approval is not required, then the parties remain free to structure the asset transaction in whatever manner makes economic sense for the parties, including leaving the PPP loan obligations with the Seller.

Section 2.b. of the procedural notice indicates that, in connection with obtaining SBA pre-approval for a change of ownership, that SBA approval “will be conditioned on the purchasing entity assuming all of the PPP borrower’s obligations under the PPP loan, including responsibility for compliance with the PPP loan terms.” The procedural notice goes on to indicate that the purchase or sale agreement “must include appropriate language regarding the assumption of the PPP borrower’s obligations under the PPP loan by the purchasing person or entity, or a separate assumption agreement must be submitted to the SBA.” Accordingly, if SBA pre-approval is required in connection with a change of control structured as an asset sale, then it would be necessary to have the Buyer assume the PPP loan. However, this obligation is limited to circumstances in which SBA pre-approval is required.

On October 7, 2020, the Small Business Administration and Treasury Department updated their Frequently Asked Questions on the Paycheck Protection Program with FAQ 52. As reflected in the question, the PPP Flexibility Act made certain changes to the terms of loans made under the Paycheck Protection Program, including an extension of the deferral period before any payments would be required. FAQ 52 confirms that these changes automatically applied to all outstanding PPP loans, and that lenders are required to give immediate effect to the statutory extension. While no formal modification of the promissory note is required (thus avoiding any need to re-execute the promissory note or an amendment), the FAQ provides that lenders “should” give notice to borrowers of the changes caused by the PPP Flexibility Act.

As the changes of the PPP Flexibility Act were 100% in the favor of the borrower, this is consistent with the approach that Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP recommended to PPP lenders in advance of the publication of the new FAQ. In addition to the extension of the deferral period, the PPP Flexibility Act also provided for a permissible extension of the covered period for potential forgiveness from 8-weeks to 24-weeks, and a reduction in the percentage of forgiveness that must be used for payroll expenses.

On October 2, 2020, the SBA Office of Capital Access published Procedural Notice 5000-20057, which provides a framework to address whether SBA pre-approval is required for various changes of ownership under the Paycheck Protection Program, as well as the process for seeking that approval if needed. Any Paycheck Protection Program borrower looking at a potential change in control, whether via actions of the shareholders or direct action by the PPP borrower needs to be familiar with this guidance. In addition, anyone looking to acquire control of a PPP borrower should also review the guidance. While the guidance makes clear the possibility of preserving the potential for forgiveness of the PPP loan through a change of ownership, the Procedural Notice sets forth various approaches to obtain SBA pre-approval for the transaction (or to avoid the need for SBA pre-approval.)

Before outlining the key elements of the SBA guidance, we must note that this guidance is being published almost six months after the first PPP loans were issued, and two months after the SBA advised that guidance on changes of ownership would be issued “soon.” While one might hope that such delay at least allowed for clear and complete guidance to be published, I’m afraid the guidance may result in more questions than answers.

General Rule

Without expressing a basis for such obligation, SBA Procedural Notice provides that prior to the closing of any “Change of Ownership” transaction, the “PPP borrower must notify the PPP Lender in writing of the contemplated transaction and provide the PPP Lender with a copy of the proposed agreements or other documents that would effectuate the proposed transaction.”

While only specifically requiring notification (as opposed to application or consent), this requirement would seem inconsistent with the SBA’s Frequently Asked Questions and Interim Final Rule permitting lenders to use their own promissory note and to include any terms not inconsistent with Sections 1102 and 1106 of the Cares Act, the PPP Interim Final Rules and Guidance, and SBA Form 2484. While the SBA general form of promissory note does require lender’s prior consent if a borrower “reorganizes, merges, consolidates, or otherwise changes ownership or business structure,” these terms were not defined and lender’s were expressly permitted to use other forms of note.

Changes of Ownership Defined

For purposes of the SBA Procedural Notice, “Changes of Ownership” are defined to consist of the following transactions:

• an aggregate change in 20% or more of the ownership interests in the Borrower since date of SBA approval of the SBA loan (but for public companies, only need to include sales or transfers resulting in one person owning at least 20%) (stock transfers);
• sale or transfers of 50% or more of the fair market value of the assets of the Borrower (asset sales); and
• mergers with or into another entity (mergers).

On September 21st (do you remember?), the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report on the Federal Government’s COVID-19 response, including with respect to the Paycheck Protection Program. The GAO report provides additional statistical breakdown of the PPP loans, addresses some of the SBA’s oversight plans, and then addresses the need for further guidance on the PPP forgiveness process.

Updated Statistics

The GAO Report notes that most of the largest PPP loans (those over $2 million), were made during the first phase of the program, between April 3rd and April 26th. 75% of the loans for more than $2 million were approved in the first phase, with the report noting that this may have been due to increased scrutiny from the public, Treasury and SBA.

The vast majority of PPP loans were made to borrowers with 10 or fewer employees (73.6% of the loans) while the majority of PPP loan dollars went to businesses with 100 or fewer employees (67.6%). While borrowers with more than 500 employees were granted limited access to participate in the program, less than 0.1% of borrowers had more than 500 employees.

On September 15, 2020, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) announced the launch of a new program intended to streamline the exam process required by state regulatory agencies for the nation’s payments firms and money transmitters.  Known as the MSB Networked Supervision, the state-initiated program seeks to make the examination process more predictable and consistent for the nation’s largest payments and cryptocurrency companies—whose transactions total more than $1 trillion each year.  The initiative was an outcome of the CSBS Fintech Industry Advisory Panel, which fielded suggestions from those in the industry who collectively called for multistate examination coordination of the nation’s payment firms and money transmitters.    

By making the exam protocol consistent among the more than forty member states, regulators will be able to better understand the risks associated in each company’s payments model and address compliance issues as they arise.  Increased state cooperation will decrease the likelihood of perpetual compliance pitfalls, as all regulators will be kept apprised of a payment firm’s regulatory status.  The single exam will be led by one state that will oversee a group of examiners sourced from regulatory bodies across the country. 

Nothing in the CARES Act, Interim Final Rules, or Frequently Asked Questions currently requires Lender’s Consent in connection with a change in control transaction. However, the specific terms of the PPP Note signed by the borrower may require the Lender’s consent in a variety of situation.

(Note: This is one post in a series of posts regarding questions about the Paycheck Protection Program and Loan Forgiveness. A list of questions addressed so far is also available on our PPP Resources page. These questions and our answers are based on discussions with colleagues and clients, both lenders and borrowers. Our intention is to cover issues that, while potentially frequently asked, are not explicitly addressed in official FAQs or directly in Interim Final Rules. Our answers may ultimately be subject to change as additional guidance is provided, but reflect our view of the regulations at the time of posting.)

Update October 4, 2020: The SBA has published a Procedural Notice outlining when and how SBA pre-approval of a Change of Ownership is required. The Procedural Notice provides, among other things, that a PPP borrower must notify its Lender in writing of any contemplated change of ownership transaction and provide the Lender with copies of the transaction documents. The Procedural Notice provides certain situations where the PPP Lender may approve the Change of Ownership without SBA pre-approval, and other situations where the PPP Lender may not unilaterally approve the Change of Ownership. Read our summary of the SBA Procedural Notice on Changes of Ownership under the Paycheck Protection Program.

Consistent with SBA PPP FAQ #19, no specific form of PPP note was required to be used by lenders. Each lender was authorized to use their own promissory note or an SBA form of promissory note. Many, but by no means all, PPP lenders ultimately used the SBA Standard Loan Note on Form 147 as the base of their PPP promissory notes.

Self-employed Schedule C (and Schedule F) filers, general partners, and other PPP borrowers that utilized 2019 IRS Form 1040 Schedule C line 31 net profit amount in calculating the amount of their PPP loan are clearly subject to these limitations. However, the SBA guidance also indicates that owner-employees of C-Corporations, S-Corporations and LLCs are subject to the owner-employee compensation limits, and the SBA guidance is silent on limited partners.

Update (8/24/20): The Treasury and SBA published a new Interim Final Rule that confirms the initial guidance did not include any exception based on the owner-employee’s percentage of ownership. However, the new rule also provides that “an owner-employee in a C- or S-Corporation who has less than a 5 percent ownership stake will not be subject to the owner-employee compensation rule.” While limited partners are not addressed in the new rule, we note the original Interim Final Rule which limited owner-employees only referenced general partners; accordingly presumably no formal exception for limited partners is necessary. This would also be consistent with the reasoning for less than 5% shareholders, as limited partners would generally “have no meaningful ability to influence decisions over how loan proceeds are allocated.”

(Note: This is the third in what we anticipate to be a series of posts regarding questions about the Paycheck Protection Program and Loan Forgiveness. A list of questions addressed so far is also available on our PPP Resources page. These questions and our answers are based on discussions with colleagues and clients, both lenders and borrowers. Our intention is to cover issues that, while potentially frequently asked, are not explicitly addressed in official FAQs or directly in Interim Final Rules. Our answers may ultimately be subject to change as additional guidance is provided, but reflect our view of the regulations at the time of posting.)

The current Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Application asks all borrowers to certify as follows:

• if a 24-week Covered Period applies, the forgiveness amount requested  does not exceed 2.5 months’ worth of 2019 compensation for any owner-employee or self-employed individual/general partner, capped at $20,833 per individual; and
• if the Borrower has elected an 8-week Covered Period, the forgiveness amount requested 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.

While the concept of owner-employee compensation was initially used by the SBA to calculate the amount that a small business with no employees was eligible for, with the expansion of the eligible covered period, the Treasury and SBA have also added restrictions on the use of compensation to “owner-employees” in calculation of the amount of payroll costs eligible for forgiveness. See, for example, the “Interim Final Rule on Revisions to Loan Forgiveness Interim Final Rule and SBA Loan Review Procedures Interim Final Rule” and the Frequently Asked Questions about Loan Forgiveness.

Unfortunately, to date, neither the Treasury nor the SBA has meaningfully defined what constitutes an “owner-employee” or provided any guidance as to whether borrowers need to limit W-2 compensation paid to an employee that happens to have an ownership interest (however small) in the borrower. The Frequently Asked Questions “defines” an owner-employee as “an owner who is also an employee.”

No. PPP borrowers of any size may use Form 3508EZ, assuming they otherwise meet the eligibility requirements of that form.

(Note: This is the second in what we anticipate to be a series of posts regarding questions about the Paycheck Protection Program and Loan Forgiveness. A list of questions addressed so far is also available on our PPP Resources page. These questions and our answers are based on discussions with colleagues and clients, both lenders and borrowers. Our intention is to cover issues that, while potentially frequently asked, are not explicitly addressed in official FAQs or directly in Interim Final Rules. Our answers may ultimately be subject to change as additional guidance is provided, but reflect our view of the regulations at the time of posting.)

The U.S. Treasury Department and Small Business Administration have provided two forms for applying for forgiveness from Paycheck Protection Loans, and lenders have the further ability to develop their own comparable forms. Both the standard form, Form 3508, and the “simplified” form, Form 3508EZ, are available on the Treasury’s website, along with instructions.

Note: At this time, there appears to be bipartisan support in Congress for additional forgiveness relief for borrowers of $150,000 or less, potentially indicating a pathway for seeking forgiveness without completing Form 3508 or Form 3508EZ. While action on such relief appears tied up in the debate on other issues, there is no current urgency to seek forgiveness, as all payments under the PPP loan are deferred until the earlier of the SBA reimbursing the lender the amount of loan forgiveness or 10 months after the end of the relevant covered period if no forgiveness application is filed. Accordingly, smaller PPP borrowers may desire to delay filing any forgiveness application at this time.

Form 3508 and From 3508EZ are very similar, but are different in two ways: eligibility and the support information required. Notably, one area in which they are different is that both forms require a borrower to indicate if they, along with any affiliates, received PPP loans in excess of $2 million. This question would appear to flag the loan for further SBA review, consistent with FAQ 39, which indicated that the SBA would review all such loans independently. Accordingly, filing using Form 3508EZ will not avoid such review, and is presumably permitted for borrowers with loans in excess of $2 million. However, in connection with such a review, the borrower may be required to submit additional information.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Treasury Department recently issued clarifications of requirements for Customer Due Diligence (CDD) under the Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions (CDD Rule) and related Bank Secrecy Act regulations. The guidance, FIN-2020-G002, was issued August 3, 2020 and includes three Frequently Asked Questions. These new FAQs supplement prior comprehensive FAQs issued in advance of the May 2018 CDD Rule compliance effective date. April 2018 and July 2016 FAQs answered 37 and 26 questions respectively (See FIN-2018-G001 and FIN-2016-G003).

The CDD Rule requires that, among other things, covered institutions identify information about customers to assess potential financial crime risks, including identifying the beneficial owners (natural persons) of legal entity customers who own, control or profit from companies’ accounts. Both 25% entity owners and entity controlling persons must be identified, subject to certain limited exceptions. In addition to requiring effective written policies and procedures to identify and verify customers and beneficial owners, the CDD Rule requires covered institutions to develop customer risk profiles and to monitor and report on suspicious transactions.  Earlier this year in April 2020, the FFIEC released updates to a number of sections of the Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) Examination Manual clarifying mandatory requirements or supervisory expectations, including highlighting customer risk profile development and testing relating to potential customer money laundering, terrorist financing and other illicit financial activities. (SR 2011).