SBA Caps the Aggregate Amount of PPP Loans Each Corporate Family Can Receive
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.01.20
On April 30, 2020, the Small Business Administration (SBA) released an interim final rule imposing a $20 million cap on the aggregate amount of loans a single corporate group can receive from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Given the high demand for PPP loans and finite appropriations, the SBA has imposed this limit in order to ensure PPP funds reach the largest possible number of borrowers.
Businesses are part of a single corporate group if they are majority owned, directly or indirectly, by a common parent based on the broad definition in the interim final rule. This cap applies without limitation even to those businesses that are eligible for the otherwise applicable waiver-of-affiliation provisions.
This cap applies to PPP loan funds that have not yet been fully disbursed as of April 30, 2020. This means that the cap applies not only to all PPP loans to be made in the future but also to any loans that have only been partially disbursed. The interim final rule makes it incumbent on PPP recipients and applicants to determine if they will receive PPP loans in excess of the cap and withdraw or request cancellation of any pending PPP loan application or approved PPP loan not in compliance with this rule. The Crowell & Moring Team is closely watching these developments and is standing by to confer with companies about the impact of this new loan ceiling.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
