Publication
Development finance facilities: Prospects for APAC
Sponsors and project developers across the renewables and energy transition space are currently facing a challenging macroeconomic environment.
On October 26, 2020 the Small Business Administration ("SBA") issued a notice proposing two new forms that will be used by SBA loan reviewers to evaluate the good faith certification made by borrowers that economic uncertainty made Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loan funds necessary. Every borrower who applied for a PPP loan had to certify in the application process that economic uncertainty brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic made the PPP borrower's loan request necessary to support its ongoing operations. The new proposed forms—SBA Form 3509 (Loan necessity questionnaire for for-profit borrowers) and 3510 (Loan necessity questionnaire for non-profit borrowers)—will be used to collect supplemental information from borrowers who received US$2 million or more in PPP funds.
As noted in prior Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ") published by the SBA regarding the PPP, the SBA intends to closely examine whether the PPP borrower's good faith certification that economic uncertainty made the PPP borrower's loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations was justified. An automatic audit process will be triggered for all borrowers who received US$2 million or more, and the new SBA forms make clear that a review of the good-faith necessity certification will be a critical part of that audit process.
The instructions for the proposed forms make clear that the questions asked and information requested will only be a starting point for the necessity certification review. The instructions state that SBA may request additional information, and its evaluation will be based on the "totality of your circumstances," and not just the answers to these questions. At the same time, the new forms also provide that failure to complete the form or the failure to provide the requested supporting documents may in itself provide a basis for the SBA to determine that a borrower was ineligible for the loan and/or deny the forgiveness request.
Below we provide a brief overview of the information requested in the new SBA forms. While the majority of the requests are not surprising given prior SBA guidance, there are a few notable items that illustrate how the SBA reviewers will evaluate the necessity question. For example, the new forms seek data on the number of employees and owners of the borrower who were compensated in an amount over US$250,000 on an annualized basis during the loan forgiveness covered period. For those employees who received such compensation, the borrower is asked to provide documentation to show how much was actually paid to those employees during the covered period. The SBA form also asks whether a private equity, venture capital, or hedge fund owned more than 20 percent of a borrower's equity securities on the date of the application. This suggests a continued focus on whether a borrower had the ability to obtain the requested loan proceeds from other sources.
The requested information is divided into two categories—"Business Activity Assessment" and "Liquidity Assessment"—and summarized as follows.
In reviewing this list, it is apparent that the SBA will request information and documents previously not discussed in any of the FAQs or the interim final rules published in connection with the PPP. This information will reflect the PPP borrower's ownership and economic status before and after the PPP loan application was filed. It is likely that the SBA will require detailed information and documentation relating to items such as expenditures for capital improvement projects, dividends, and prepayment of debt during the relevant period. A close evaluation of the borrower's business decisions on these expenditures, as well as the treatment of highly compensated employees during the claimed period of necessity will be part of the review process. All of this suggests that the SBA will use multiple factors not previously considered in the PPP rules or regulations in fact some factors, e.g. the evaluation of dividends or the employee compensation, that were outlined in the CARES Act in connection with other loan programs but were not brought in connection with the PPP until now to evaluate the PPP borrower's necessity to apply for the PPP loan.
From a process standpoint, once approved the new SBA forms will be distributed by lenders to the PPP borrowers. Upon receipt of the questionnaire, the borrower will have ten (10) days to complete the questionnaire, provide the ancillary documentation requested, sign and certify the SBA form, and return it to the lender. The lender will have five (5) days following receipt to upload the complete form with all responses, supporting documents, signatures and certifications to the SBA PPP forgiveness platform. The SBA further reserves the right to request additional information following its review of the information provided by the PPP borrower.
For recipients of PPP loans in excess of US$2 million, there can be little doubt that the review process will involve close scrutiny of the original necessity certification made on the PPP loan application. In anticipation of this, borrowers must engage in a careful collection and compilation of the information and documents that support their good faith necessity certifications. Failure to provide the required information can result in a denial of loan forgiveness, and false certifications may be punishable by civil and criminal penalties.
Publication
Sponsors and project developers across the renewables and energy transition space are currently facing a challenging macroeconomic environment.
Publication
The case of Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V. marks a significant milestone in the legal landscape concerning the use of copyright works for AI training. As the first of its kind in Germany, the outcome of the case has the potential to reshape the intersection of AI development and copyright law, setting a precedent with broad implications for the AI industry and intellectual property protection. With many stakeholders tracking the case closely, the decision in the case could influence similar legal battles across Europe and beyond.
Publication
The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) in Germany recently issued a landmark ruling on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in patent law. The decision, on 11 June 2024, in the DABUS case (AZ X ZB 5/22), reinforces the principle that only natural persons can be named as inventors under patent law. This ruling has significant implications for the future of AI-generated inventions and patent applications globally.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023