The SBA Extends the Safe Harbor Deadline for Return of PPP Loans to May 18, 2020
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.14.20
Yesterday we reported on the publication of FAQ 46 by the Small Business Administration (SBA) regarding the economic necessity certification contained in the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) application and that the safe harbor deadline of May 14, 2020 remained in place. Late last night though, the SBA issued FAQ 47 in which it automatically extended the safe harbor deadline to May 18, 2020 for borrowers to return their PPP loan and still be deemed by the SBA to have made the necessity certification in good faith.
Yesterday, the SBA also issued an interim final rule authorizing all lenders to increase existing PPP loans to partnerships and seasonal employers who applied before SBA guidance specific to their type of business had been issued and, as a result, received lower loan amounts than they would have ultimately been entitled to. By this rule, lenders may now (1) increase existing PPP loans to partnerships to cover partner compensation in accordance with the SBA’s interim final rule posted on April 14, 2020, and (2) permit seasonal employers to calculate a maximum loan amount using the alternative criteria posted in an interim final rule on April 28, 2020.
Crowell & Moring will continue to monitor and provide updates regarding developments in the PPP.
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
