President Signs New Paycheck Protection Program Changes into Law Offering Greater Flexibility
Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.05.20
On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, which makes the following key changes to the Paycheck Protection Program:
1. Extends Maturity Period from 2 to 5 Years
For any loan made on or after June 5, 2020, the minimum maturity for loans that are not completely forgiven has been increased from two to a minimum of five years. While this does not automatically change the maturity for PPP loans already made, the Act notes that none of the relevant statutes will be construed to prohibit lenders and borrowers from mutually agreeing to modify the maturity terms.
2. Extends Forgiveness Period from 8 up to 24 Weeks
The Act extends the period of forgiveness from eight to up to twenty-four weeks. Now for any PPP loan, the forgiveness period is defined as the period beginning on the date of the loan origination and ending the earlier of 24 weeks later or December 31, 2020. But, the Act allows those recipients whose PPP loans were made before June 5, 2020 to elect to use the eight-week period of forgiveness.
3. Reduces Payroll Cost Limitation on Forgiveness from 75% to 60%
The Act changes the amount of the loan that the Small Business Administration had determined must be used for payroll costs, providing that a PPP loan recipient must use at least 60 percent of the covered loan amount for payroll costs and may use up to 40 percent of such amount for expenses allowed under the CARES Act (e.g., payment of mortgage interest, rent, and utility payments). The Act eliminates any forgiveness if the 60% threshold is not met.
4. Adds Exemptions to Employee Rehiring Requirement
The Act adds two exemptions to the forgiveness reduction penalties. It provides that the forgivable amount will be determined without regard to a reduction in the number of employees if the recipient, in good faith, is able to document that it is (1) unable to rehire former employees and/or is unable to hire similarly qualified employees for unfilled positions by December 31, 2020, or (2) unable to return to the same level of business activity due to compliance with certain federal requirements or guidance related to COVID-19.
5. Revision of Loan Deferral Period
The Act allows recipients to defer payments of principal, interest, and fees until the amount of forgiveness is determined and remitted to the lender. The loan deferral period for those PPP loan recipients who do not apply for forgiveness is 10 months after the applicable forgiveness period ends.
6. Lifts Prohibition on Payroll Tax Deferral
The CARES Act delayed payment of employer payroll taxes for all but PPP loan recipients who received forgiveness. The Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act lifts this ban.
Although the PPP Loan Forgiveness Application (the Application) posted by the SBA on May 16, 2020 is still available on the SBA website and could still be used by a borrower that decides to continue to use the 8 week covered period, the Application is inconsistent with the new legislation. We anticipate the Application will be updated to reflect the above referenced changes. Crowell & Moring will continue to monitor and provide updates regarding developments in the PPP.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development



