The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued an update to its “Frequently Asked Questions for Lenders and Borrowers for the Paycheck Protection Program,” adding question #46 and the response, which is recited below. For PPP loans of less than $2 million, the borrower will be “deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of
- Calendar Year 2019 Payroll as Basis for Loan Amount (General Rule). If the borrower was in business for all of 2019, it may use the payroll costs for calendar year 2019 or the last 12 months prior to application (e.g., 4/1/19 – 3/31/20). April 6 guidance issued by the SBA provided:
In general, borrowers…
- Calendar Year 2019 Payroll as Basis for Loan Amount (General Rule). If the borrower was in business for all of 2019, the PPP loan application form suggests that the borrower must use the payroll costs for calendar year 2019 (even though this appears to conflict with the language in the CARES Act, which provided
Keenly aware of the enormous impact COVID-19 is having on small businesses throughout the country, in response, the Congress approved and on March 27, 2020, the President signed the “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act” (the “CARES Act”). The CARES Act is intended, in part, to provide small businesses some much needed…
When lenders and borrowers want to modify the terms of an existing loan agreement, and the modifications are extensive and will affect many provisions of the agreement, the lender’s lawyer will often choose to draft an “amended and restated agreement” in order to document those modifications. A single amended and restated agreement will often be…
As discussed in the recent New York Times article, federal and state officials, many facing record budget deficits, are starting to aggressively pursue companies that try to pass off regular employees as independent contractors.
President Obama’s 2010 budget assumes that the federal crackdown will yield at least $7 billion over 10 years. More than…
The federal First Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a taxpayer’s claim for a refund based on recharacterization of a payment for a non-competition agreement. Muskat v. United States, 2009 WL 211067 (1st Cir. 2009).
In connection with the sale of a business structured as an asset sale, the Buyer and the CEO (who was also the largest shareholder of the Seller) agreed in definitive documents that $1.0 million of the retained CEO’s new compensation package would be allocated to his non-compete covenants. Although the CEO initially recorded that payout as ordinary income for his 1998 taxes, in 2002 he filed an amended return for 1998, recharacterizing the $1 million payment as consideration of his personal goodwill, which he argued entitled him to capital gain treatment (which would have entitled him to a refund of over $200,000). The IRS denied Muskat’s request so he brought an enforcement action against the IRS. The district court, too, denied his request, finding that Muskat lacked “strong proof” that the non-competition payment was intended as payment for personal “goodwill” rather than as a covenant not to compete.Continue Reading A Taxpayer’s Post-Closing Remorse Relating to Tax Allocations
Offers and sales of “securities” must be registered unless there is an applicable exemption from the federal and state securities laws. The most commonly known exemption is the private placement exemption set forth in Regulation D promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933 (and corresponding private placement exemptions under applicable state “blue sky” laws).
Regulation D was primarily designed to facilitate capital raising transactions, as opposed to employee stock option or stock purchase plans. Many people are unaware that when an employer (or controlling Shareholder) sells stock to an employee (even at a discount, or even if to an executive), such a sale is subject to the securities laws and applicable federal and state exemptions from registration must be found.Continue Reading New Louisiana Regulation Creates Safe Harbor For Certain Equity-Based Compensatory Plans of Privately-Held Companies
The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal recently held that the single business enterprise theory may apply in a breach of contract case.
The single business enterprise theory, a jurisprudential theory under which one or more entities affiliated with another entity may be held liable for such other entity’s debts or liabilities, was first recognized in Louisiana by the First Circuit Court of Appeal in 1991 in the case of Green v Champion Insurance Co. This theory is somewhat unique to Louisiana and greatly erodes traditional corporate laws which generally shield shareholders and affiliated entities from the debts or liabilities of a corporation or other entity. Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has not expressly adopted the single business enterprise theory, it has had opportunities to repudiate or criticize such a theory but has not done so; and as a result, other appellate courts in Louisiana have continued to invoke the theory.Continue Reading Single Business Enterprise Theory Continues to Gain Ground
After twenty years of fighting tenant-favorable bankruptcy decisions on lease assignments, landlords have won a major victory. The case of In re Trak Auto Corporation v. West Town Center, LLC, 2004 WL 856859 (4th Cir.), decided April 22, 2004, could be a turning point in upholding a landlord’s rights to enforce lease restrictions on use, alterations and other operating issues.
The issue revolved around a limitation in the Trak lease that permitted only the retail sale of automobile parts and accessories and such other items as are customarily sold by Trak at its other auto stores. Trak also agreed to use the leased property only as a Trak Auto Store.
Continue Reading Chalk One Up for the Landlords: Use Clauses Must be Honored in Tenants’ Bankruptcies