Government Adds FAQ Demanding Repayment of Paycheck Protection Program Loans from Companies with "Adequate Sources of Liquidity"
Client Alert | 2 min read | 04.23.20
On April 23, 2020, Treasury drastically complicated the landscape for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) by updating a Frequently Asked Questions document with a response to the question: “Do businesses owned by large companies with adequate sources of liquidity to support the business’s ongoing operations qualify for a PPP loan?”
The PPP application requires applicants to certify in good faith that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” While the Small Business Administration and Treasury had not previously provided any type of guidance around how to interpret this vague certification, Treasury now via this FAQ document articulates a standard that will likely be applied retroactively to all companies that have previously applied for and received PPP loans. This potential retroactive application is underscored by the warning that PPP loan recipients must “be prepared to demonstrate to SBA, upon request, the basis for its certification” that the PPP loan was “necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Importantly, the Treasury FAQ provides that any borrower that cannot defend making this certification in light of its new guidance should repay the PPP loan in full by May 7, 2020.
While recognizing that the CARES Act suspended the ordinary requirement that borrowers must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere, Treasury now advises that applicants must take “into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business.” In the wake of multiple news reports identifying publicly traded companies that had received PPP loans, Treasury notes—as an example—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.” This FAQ document is not limited in application to publicly traded companies, and it does not provide any additional guidance for PPP loan recipients—such as what companies should do if they could have previously accessed other sources of liquidity but now cannot because they relied on receipt of a PPP loan or how to assess the ability of small businesses “to access other sources of liquidity.” The Crowell & Moring Team is closely watching these developments and is standing by to confer with companies about the impact of this new FAQ.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.10.26
European Commission Publishes Landmark Guidelines on Exclusionary Abuses by Dominant Companies
On 3 September 2026, the European Commission adopted new Guidelines on the application of Article 102 TFEU to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. The Guidelines follow a public consultation on a draft published in August 2024 and reflect substantial stakeholder feedback. They replace the Commission's 2008 Guidance on enforcement priorities (which ceases to apply 30 days after publication of the new guidelines in the Official Journal) and represent the most significant reset of the Commission's Article 102 enforcement framework in nearly two decades. The Commission's stated aim is to set out principles and operational guidance, enhance legal certainty, and help companies self-assess their exclusionary-abuse risk.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 09.09.26
Client Alert | 8 min read | 09.08.26
Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21: Good Faith in the Boardroom
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.08.26
IRS Takes Aim: Proposed Rule Threatens Tax-Exempt Status of Private Schools



