Insights
Publications

Paycheck Protection Program Eligibility for Private Equity and Venture Capital-Backed Entities

April 14, 2020 Articles

Congress’ recently enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) created a new small business lending program to provide a direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on their payroll during the economic upheaval wrought by COVID-19. The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was enacted as an amendment to the Small Business Investment Act, and it initially made available $349 billion in small business loans that are potentially forgivable if used primarily for payroll costs. The program saw massive interest in its first week of availability, and Congress is currently working on amending the CARES Act to increase the PPP by an additional $251 billion.

Affiliation Rules May Increase Your Employee Count for Purposes of Determining PPP Eligibility

In addition to “small business concerns” (which are not the subject of this note), most businesses that have 500 or fewer employees are eligible for PPP loans. However, because the PPP is a part of the Small Business Investment Act, it is generally subject to the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) rules for affiliation for small business loans. This means that private equity or venture capital-backed business may need to aggregate the employee count for multiple businesses within a fund’s portfolio when determining whether that business meets the 500 employee threshold for eligibility. For smaller or newer funds, this may not create an issue, but for many funds the threshold may be quickly exceeded even though a specific company has fewer than 500 employees.

In determining whether affiliation exists, the SBA will consider the totality of the circumstances, and may find affiliation even though no single factor alone would establish affiliation. Generally, portfolio companies are considered affiliates of each other when a third party (e.g., a sponsor fund) has the power to control both. It does not matter whether that control is actually exercised, and that control may be affirmative or negative, such as through common protective provisions in the portfolio company’s charter or shareholders’ agreement.

If a fund owns or has the power to control 50% or more of a portfolio company’s voting stock, then the fund will be deemed to control the portfolio company. Additionally, the affiliation rules generally treat stock options, convertible securities (e.g., warrants) and agreements to merge to have a present effect on the power to control a portfolio company. Even though a fund may have a minority stake in a portfolio company or an equal stake to another investor, it may still be deemed to control the portfolio company by way of common protective provisions and control rights in the portfolio company’s charter, by-laws or shareholders’ agreement.

Affiliation may also be based on common management, so where a fund’s partners or employees control the board of directors or management of multiple portfolio companies, those companies may be deemed affiliated.

Additionally, the affiliation rules provide that two companies may be deemed affiliated with one another if they share a common economic interest such as common investments or economic dependence. For funds that have development agreements with third parties, this may create affiliation with the developer even though there is no common ownership or management between the two companies.

Analyze Fund Control and Consider Waivers of Control Rights

The overall effect of these ownership rules means that portfolio companies will need to work closely with their sponsor fund and understand both the capital structure and fund control rights of each portfolio company in the fund in order to determine the full scope of affiliation in order to participate in the PPP. While control through stock ownership creates a relatively clear test, there are finer distinctions to be drawn with respect to common protective provisions and negative control for sponsor funds that hold minority positions in portfolio companies. When determining whether an investor controls a portfolio company through negative controls, the SBA has generally made a distinction between negative consent rights over extraordinary actions (e.g., sales of the company, issuances of new stock, entry into bankruptcy) and those actions that are essential to the operation of the business (e.g., control over hiring, approval of the budget, payment of dividends, the incurrence of debt). To the extent a minority shareholder only has negative control over extraordinary actions, the SBA is less likely to find affiliation, whereas they are more likely to find affiliation where such a shareholder has negative control over common business actions.

Where affiliation may exist because of control rights, the SBA has indicated that if the controlling party irrevocably waives or relinquishes such control prior to a portfolio company applying for a PPP loan, then the portfolio company may be eligible to participate in the program. This solution may prove impractical or undesirable for funds in the long run with respect to certain of their portfolio companies, and sponsor funds will need to carefully evaluate whether the benefits of participation in the PPP for the portfolio company warrant relinquishing such controls indefinitely.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Corporate Transparency Act Imposes New Disclosure Obligations on Business Entities Effective January 1, 2024

Corporate Transparency Act Guide - PDF If you own an interest of 25% or more in any business entity or have any substantial control over any business entity (including as a manager or senior...

Read More
Publication

Corporate Transparency Act: State of the Law and Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements

Key Points: Despite ongoing legal challenges, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) generally remains in effect and enforceable. Clients should continue to abide by its regulations. Initial reports for entities formed in 2024 are due within...

Read More
Publication

What Nonprofit Leaders Need To Know About the Corporate Transparency Act

Welcome to  EO Radio Show – Your Nonprofit Legal Resource. I'm Cynthia Rowland, and today on EO Radio Show , we are discussing a new law that will have implications for many nonprofit organizations...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Earns 2024 Best Law FirmsĀ® Rankings

Read More
Publication

A Summary of New Laws Coming for California Employers in 2024

In 2023, California has adopted several new employment laws either introducing new employee protections or codifying existing practices into state law. With these changes, employers will need to examine and adjust some of their...

Read More
Publication

Life Is Too Short for Bad Wine Distribution Agreements: 10 Key Considerations

If you are like most wine brands, DTC through your tasting room, club, and website can only take you so far. Success usually means accessing the general on- and off-premise markets, and accessing those...

Read More
News

North Coast Industry Insiders Weigh In on Why California Cannabis Tax Revenue Slipped in 2023

Jeff Hamilton spoke to Susan Wood with the North Bay Business Journal for the article "North Coast Industry Insiders Weigh In on Why California Cannabis Tax Revenue Slipped in 2023." Read the article with Jeff's...

Read More
Publication

Corporate Transparency Act: A Guide on Beneficial Ownership for Nonprofit Executives

The Corporate Transparency Act, enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, represents a significant shift in regulatory requirements for entities across the United States. This act, set to...

Read More
News

Farella 2024 Partner Elevations: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint

Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel is pleased to announce the election of two lawyers to partnership effective Jan. 1: Cynthia Castillo and Greg LeSaint. “We are thrilled to elevate Cynthia and...

Read More