SBA provides “safe harbor” for PPP loans under $2 million

New FAQ 46 from the SBA provides a “safe harbor” for borrowers of less than $2 million under the Paycheck Protection Program provisions of the CARES Act. Under the safe harbor, for borrowers of amounts below the $2 million threshold, the SBA will deem their certifications regarding the “necessity” of the loans to have been made in good faith.  What’s more, while loans over the $2 million threshold will be subject to SBA review (as has been widely publicized), if the SBA determines that the borrower “lacked an adequate basis” for the required “necessity” certification, but the borrower then repays the loan, the SBA “will not pursue administrative enforcement or referrals to other agencies” with respect to the “necessity” certification.

SEC Enforcement Co-Director discusses COVID-19-related enforcement priorities

In his keynote address to Securities Enforcement Forum West 2020, SEC Enforcement Co-Director Steven Peikin discussed some of the efforts of  the Division of Enforcement to detect misconduct arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic and related market disruption, including the formation of a steering committee to proactively identify and monitor areas of potential misconduct.  Of particular interest here are the focus on insider trading and financial and disclosure-related fraud.

Another Caremark claim survives dismissal

Are the allegations in Hughes v. Hu an example of the SEC/PCAOB’s recent cautionary Statement on emerging market risks come to life?  (See this PubCo post.)  The case involves a Caremark claim against the audit committee and various executives of Kandi Technologies, a publicly traded Delaware company listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market and based in an emerging market country.  The complaint alleged that they consciously failed “to establish a board-level system of oversight for the Company’s financial statements and related-party transactions, choosing instead to rely blindly on management while devoting patently inadequate time to the necessary tasks.” You might recall that, in Marchand v. Barnhill  (June 18, 2019), then-Chief Justice Strine, writing for the Delaware Supreme Court, started out his analysis with the recognition that “Caremark claims are difficult to plead and ultimately to prove out,” and constitute “possibly the most difficult theory in corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a judgment.” (See this PubCo post.)  Although Caremark presented a high hurdle, the complaint in Marchand was able to clear that bar and survive a motion to dismiss. In the view of the Delaware Chancery Court, Hughes proved to be comparable—the Court denied two motions to dismiss, holding that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to support “a reasonable pleading-stage inference of a bad faith failure of oversight by the named director defendants.” Is clearing the Caremark bar becoming a thing?

House Subcommittee insists certain public companies return PPP loans

As discussed in this PubCo post, in April, the Treasury Department issued a series of FAQs related to loans made under the Paycheck Protection Program provisions of the CARES Act, one of which was addressed to borrowers that are large companies and, particularly, public companies.  The FAQ provides that, to be eligible for a PPP loan, a borrower must certify, in good faith, that the loan is necessary to support continuing operations.  According to the FAQ, that may be difficult in some cases, contending that “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….” The FAQ provided a safe harbor, under which the SBA would deem the borrower to have made the required certification in good faith if the funds were repaid in full by May 14 (as extended in question 43). As reported here, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has warned that companies receiving loans over $2 million would be audited and could have potential criminal liability if their certifications were untrue.   Now, a House oversight subcommittee has demanded that certain public companies return the funds.

Proposal to amend the DGCL to provide relief regarding stockholders’ meetings

On April 6, the Governor of Delaware signed an emergency order applicable to public reporting companies addressing the urgent need of many companies, in light of COVID-19, to change their annual meetings from physical locations to virtual-only formats, including at different dates.  The order allowed companies to provide notice of the change by issuing and filing with the SEC a press release instead of complying with the Delaware requirement to send a formal written notice to stockholders or convening the meeting to adjourn, which could be extremely difficult under the current circumstances. (See this PubCo post.) However, the order provided relief only to companies that had already sent out, as of the date of the order, notice of a meeting of stockholders that indicated a physical location. What about companies that sent out their notices after April 6, but still needed to make a change? The relief under the Delaware order was apparently not available to them. Now, the Corporate Law Section of the Delaware State Bar has approved a proposal to amend the DGCL to address this issue. Will the Delaware legislature provide the necessary relief? And if so, when? 

Heartbreak at Broadridge

When I first saw this temporary relief from the NYSE, I dismissed it as relief designed to help an overwhelmed Broadridge.  The relief temporarily allowed discretionary voting on routine matters even if the proxy materials were transmitted to beneficial owners only 10 days in advance of shareholders’ meetings instead of the required 15 days.  I had no idea there might be a tragedy underlying it. 

Nasdaq provides temporary exception to certain shareholder approval requirements

The SEC has declared immediately effective new Nasdaq Rule 5636T, which will provide a temporary exception, through June 30, 2020, from the shareholder approval requirements for certain issuances of 20% or more of the outstanding shares (Rule 5635(d)) and for a narrow subset of capital-raising issuances that could be considered equity compensation (Rule 5635(c)). Given that stay-at-home orders in effect in many communities have wreaked havoc on the revenue streams of many businesses, companies may have urgent needs to raise capital.  Nasdaq believes that this temporary exception “will permit companies to raise capital quickly to continue running their businesses and address the immediate health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including its impact on their employees, customers, and communities.”