1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Treasury Guidance Provides Relief from Financial Instrument Offering under Payroll Support Program for Small and Mid-Sized Aviation Businesses

New Treasury Guidance Provides Relief from Financial Instrument Offering under Payroll Support Program for Small and Mid-Sized Aviation Businesses

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.14.20

Treasury recently announced additional guidance regarding the Payroll Support Program under Title IV of the CARES Act, which provides payroll support for American workers employed by passenger air carriers, cargo air carriers, and certain contractors to Part 121 air carriers. This guidance modifies Treasury's earlier requirement that applicants offer warrants, options, preferred stock, debt securities, notes, or other financial instruments as compensation for the provision of payroll support. 

Recognizing the difficulty that small and mid-sized aviation businesses face in making such an offer, Treasury decided that it will not require passenger air carriers that receive $100 million or less in payroll assistance to provide financial instruments as appropriate compensation. Because Treasury will not need to evaluate financial instruments proposed by passenger air carriers qualifying for this exception, funds will be available to those air carriers promptly upon approval of their applications.

This exception does not apply to passenger air carriers whose allocated payments would exceed $100 million, or to cargo carriers or contractors. Treasury is expected to provide further guidance for those applicants in the near future. Additional guidance about this program can be found in our previous client alert.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights