Blog Posts
Business
How Buy-Sell Agreements Can Help Prevent a Messy Business Divorce
Just like any kind of relationship, not all business partnerships are built to stand the test of time. They can sour just as easily as a romantic partnership or friendship as vision and long-term goals diverge, financial stress comes into play, or personal issues enter the business relationship. When these kinds of factors arise, it can often result in a “business divorce.” A business divorce has the potential to be just as messy, emotionally charged, and costly as a marital divorce, particularly when there is no established plan in place to outline how the two parties will separate. This is why buy-sell agreements can be critical, helping to ensure a smooth and fair process in the case of a business divorce. It is always best to agree on buyout terms in advance while everyone is getting along and not leave it to the expense and risk of legal proceedings before an arbitrator or judge who does not understand your business. What is a Business Divorce? A business divorce occurs when two or more parties decide to end a business partnership, and it is estimated that anywhere from 50-70% of business partnerships will fail. There can be numerous contributing factors that lead to the dissolution of the partnership. As stated earlier, there are typically differing visions for the company’s future, the strategies used to achieve long-term goals, financial disagreements, or even personal issues that begin to impact the partnership. However, there can also be actions taken by a partner that reflect negatively on the company or even an illness or death that would require the partnership to dissolve. No matter the root cause of the divorce, there are several avenues that can be taken when the partners make the decision to split. This could be one partner buying out the other, fully dissolving the business, or some kind of restructuring that occurs. It is at this stage of deciding which path to take where emotions can start to come into play, and lawsuits and other disputes can arise if there is not an agreed-upon method to end the partnership. This is where buy-sell agreements can be a game changer. Why Buy-Sell Agreements are Critical Think of a buy-sell agreement as a prenuptial agreement for business owners. When a married couple has a prenup in place, it provides a roadmap for how to divide the assets if they divorce. Buy-sell agreements provide the same kind of roadmap for a partnership, outlining a course of action should one partner want or need to leave. As with a prenup, these are typically negotiated when the partnership is established; however, it is never too late to negotiate this in a partnership if one does not already exist. These agreements allow for a smoother process and minimize conflict, as they provide an established business valuation methodology as well as liquidity and exit plans, including the terms of the payout to the departing partner, which could be over several years so as not to impair the business cash flow. They can also prevent a spouse or heirs from attempting to assume a partnership role in the case of a partner’s death or disabling illness, and they can help stabilize the business during what can be a chaotic time. When considering structures for a buy-sell agreement, there are several options. These can include one or more owners buying out a departing owner’s stake, the actual business buying the departing partner’s stake, or some of combination of the two. In the case of death, the buy-sell can provide for the purchase of life insurance on the deceased partner. The structure of a buy-sell agreement is specific to the individual business and partnership and must be agreed upon by all parties involved. At the end of the day, a buy-sell agreement can save a great deal of heartache and expense if you find yourself in the middle of a business divorce. A little bit of additional planning on the front end could be the key to an amicable split that allows for the continuity of the business and avoids a legal mess.
April 18, 2025
Labor and Employment
Federal Court Denies ATS Tree Services' Bid to Delay FTC Rule Implementation
On July 23, 2024, U.S. District Judge Kelley Brisbon Hodge, serving the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, rejected ATS Tree Services LLC’s request to delay the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule, set to take effect on September 4, 2024. ATS also sought a preliminary injunction against the rule. Still, Judge Hodge also denied this request, concluding that ATS had not shown that the rule would cause irreparable harm or that it could establish a likelihood of success on the merits. This decision followed shortly after U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC from enforcing the rule against Ryan, LLC, a tax preparation company, and certain intervenors. Judge Hodge’s denial of ATS's motion was based on a determination that ATS had failed to prove it would suffer irreparable harm because of the rule. The court found that ATS’s claims of irreparable harm—such as nonrecoverable compliance costs and the potential loss of contractual benefits— were based upon either a choice or a “speculative risk,” which did not rise to the level of irreparable and immediate harm required for an injunction. The court cited Third Circuit precedent, stating that nonrecoverable compliance costs, such as monetary losses or business expenses, do not constitute irreparable and immediate harm required for an injunction. Additionally, the court held that ATS offered no binding precedent to support its argument that the loss of contractual rights is an irreparable harm, reiterating that such determinations must be on a case-by-case basis. Even if ATS could establish irreparable harm, the court found that it had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Judge Hodge’s opinion included a detailed analysis of the FTC’s authority to issue substantive rules regarding unfair methods of competition. The court confirmed that the FTC has such authority, noting that Section 6 of the FTC Act does not limit the FTC to procedural rules alone. The use of the term "prevent" in Section 5 of the Act supports the FTC's ability to make rules to prevent harm before it occurs rather than merely remedying it. The court also referenced prior circuit court decisions and Congressional actions, such as the Magnuson-Moss Act, which affirmed the FTC’s rulemaking authority. The court also addressed ATS’s other challenges to the rule. It upheld the FTC’s authority to broadly regulate non-compete clauses as unfair methods of competition, rejected claims that regulation of non-competes is solely a state matter, and found that the Major Questions Doctrine does not apply to the rule. Additionally, the court dismissed ATS’s nondelegation challenge, affirming that Congress had provided a clear guiding principle for the FTC’s rulemaking authority under the FTC Act. Given these findings, the court did not need to evaluate the balance of equities or public interest considerations. This ruling is significant for several reasons. It contrasts with the earlier decision in Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, where Judge Brown granted a preliminary injunction, suggesting the plaintiffs would likely succeed on the merits. The Texas court has indicated it will decide on the enforceability of the FTC rule by August 30, 2024. While Judge Hodge’s decision represents a victory for the FTC, it may be temporary. The Texas court’s preliminary injunction in Ryan LLC hinted at potential future invalidation of the rule based on arguments that the FTC lacked statutory authority or that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). If the Texas court rules against the FTC, it might vacate the rule entirely or issue a permanent injunction, though the specifics are yet to be determined. In the meantime, businesses should continue to assess and document their use of non-competes and explore alternative protections like non-disclosure agreements, invention protection, non-solicits, training repayment programs, garden leaves, and non-competes related to business sales. The FTC’s guidance suggests that if properly structured, these alternatives should comply with the new rule. Additionally, state legislation and actions by other federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), may further influence the legal landscape regarding non-competes.
August 7, 2024
Business
Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Deference in Landmark Loper Bright Decision
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. As expected, following oral argument, the Court overruled the Chevron deference doctrine in a 6–3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. The doctrine stems from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), establishing a two-step analysis for judicial review of statutory interpretation. Under Chevron, if a court concluded that a statute was silent or ambiguous, it had to defer to an agency’s permissible construction of the statute. Now, under Loper Bright, courts must “exercise their independent judgment” and “may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” Supreme Court Review: Chevron Doctrine's Applicability to Cases Post-Loper Bright In Loper Bright, two sets of fishing companies challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service requiring vessels operating in the Atlantic herring market to pay for a government-certified observer during their fishing trips. Applying Chevron, the district court in each case rejected the companies’ challenge to the observer rule and granted summary judgment to the government. Panels of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and First Circuit affirmed these decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases on the limited question of whether Chevron should be overruled or clarified. Supreme Court's Interpretation of APA in Loper Bright The Loper Bright decision is premised on what the majority believes is a plain text reading of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs judicial challenges to agency actions. The Court specifically determined that the APA, which was not considered in Chevron, reflects the traditional understanding of the judiciary's role. This role requires courts to independently interpret the meaning of laws. The Court dismissed the notion of a “presumption” of agency expertise, explaining that resolving unclear laws falls within the court’s jurisdiction, not the agencies. Put another way, while courts may use an agency’s interpretation to help “inform their inquiry,” they cannot dictate how courts interpret the law. The Loper Bright Court also rejected the idea that Chevron promotes consistency, highlighting inconsistencies in its application. Furthermore, it concluded that adherence to Chevron is not mandated by stare decisis. Chevron had proven “unworkable” because determining whether a statute is ambiguous is an indeterminate exercise. Consequently, the Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s decisions. Supreme Court Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts and the Majority Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.
July 12, 2024
Labor and Employment
Texas Court Blocks FTC Non-Compete Rule: What It Means for Businesses
On July 3, 2024, a federal district court in Texas took a significant step, temporarily blocking the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) proposed rule banning non-competes. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown for the Northern District of Texas granted the motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Ryan LLC and plaintiff-intervenors U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, Texas Association of Business, and Longview Chamber of Commerce, effectively putting the FTC’s rule on hold for the named plaintiffs. Although the stay is temporary pending the court’s final decision on the merits of the case and applies only to the movants, it signals that a permanent and nationwide injunction is likely. Background on the FTC's Non-Compete Rule As a quick refresher, in April 2024, the FTC narrowly passed a rule along party lines intended to ban future non-compete agreements and nullify most existing ones. The FTC asserted its authority to enact this rule under Section 6(g) of the FTC Act, claiming it grants the power to establish substantive rules against unfair competition. Set to take effect on September 4, 2024, the rule would prohibit all new employment-related non-competes and invalidate nearly all existing ones. Ryan LLC and others immediately challenged the rule in court on various grounds. Judge Ada Brown's Ruling on the FTC Rule Judge Ada Brown, a former President Trump appointee, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, determining that they successfully demonstrated all the necessary criteria for a preliminary injunction: (i) a strong likelihood of winning the case; (ii) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the injunction wasn't granted; and (iii) a favorable balance of the potential harms and benefits to both parties. Judge Brown’s opinion focused on two key points: The Scope of the FTC’s Authority: The court’s determination that the FTC lacked statutory authority to enact the rule is significant, particularly considering its alignment with the "major questions" doctrine. Historically, the FTC has disclaimed such power, but Congress has not expressly granted it. The court's reasoning aligns with the recent trend of limiting agencies' authority, echoing concerns in the "major questions" doctrine. Whether the Rule is Arbitrary and Capricious: Judge Brown ruled that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) due to its overbroad nature and lack of supporting evidence. The opinion noted that no state has enacted a ban as broad as the one proposed by the FTC, and the FTC failed to justify its sweeping approach or consider less disruptive alternatives. Additionally, the court agreed that the rule would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs' businesses and that the balance of equities favored maintaining the status quo. Current Status and Potential Developments of the FTC Rule While the injunction only applies to Ryan LLC and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (and not its members), no entities will be subject to enforcement before the rule's intended effective date of September 4, 2024. Additionally, Judge Brown indicated that she intends to issue a final ruling by August 30, 2024, which could invalidate or permanently enjoin the rule. In the interim, the parties will further brief the merits issues and the narrow scope of the court’s order, including whether the injunction should be expanded nationwide. A separate challenge brought by ATS Tree Services LLC is pending in Pennsylvania, with a hearing scheduled for July 10, 2024, potentially resulting in a nationwide injunction 1. This underscores the potential nationwide impact of the ongoing legal proceedings. Impact on FTC's Rulemaking Authority This ruling is a significant setback to the FTC's agenda to expand its rulemaking authority and regulate labor markets. It reflects a broader trend of constraining administrative agencies following the Supreme Court's recent decision (issued June 28, 2024) in Loper Bright Enterprises. In Loper Bright, the court overruled Chevron’s deference. It concluded that courts must interpret statutes de novo, and agency interpretations are not entitled to deference. The court found that even where a statute is “ambiguous,” there is a single “best reading” of the statute that courts, not agencies, are responsible for determining. Previously, courts often deferred to agencies under the Chevron doctrine if their interpretation of an ambiguous law was reasonable. However, Loper mandates that courts independently assess whether an agency acted within its authority, regardless of statutory ambiguity. This means the Ryan court's final decision will heavily depend on its own interpretation of the FTC's statutory power. Given this new precedent, it is plausible to expect the FTC's rule may be overturned, at least in part. The business community, which has strongly opposed the rule, likely sees this as a positive sign. However, state-level efforts to limit non-competes continue, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the view that the proffer, maintenance, and enforcement of non-competes generally violate the National Labor Relations Act 2. Proactive Review of Non-Competes: Alternative Strategies Businesses are advised to proactively review their use of non-competes across their organization and explore alternative strategies to safeguard their interests. These alternatives include: Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) Intellectual Property Protection Non-solicitation agreements Training Reimbursement Programs Garden Leave Clauses Non-Competes Linked to Business Sales The FTC has indicated that, when properly structured, these alternatives should not violate its proposed rule. _____________________________________________ 1 ATS Tree Services, LLC v. FTC, No. 2:24-cv-1743 (E.D. Pa. 2024). 2 On June 13, 2024, an administrative law judge for the NLRB held that certain non-compete and non-solicit covenants violated an employee’s labor rights under the NLRA. See J.O. Mory, Inc., 25-CA-309577, 25-CA-336995, JD-36-24 (2024).
July 10, 2024
Labor and Employment
Employment Law Update: Delaware Supreme Court Takes a Stand on Restrictive Covenants
In Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. Ainslie, C.A. No. 9436 (Del. Jan. 29, 2024), the Delaware Supreme Court signaled to its lower courts that many well-drafted restrictive covenants remain valid and enforceable. The Cantor Court unanimously reversed the Delaware Chancery Court’s ruling, which had rejected as unenforceable a financial services company’s limited partnership agreement clause under which a limited partner’s equity is forfeited if the partner violates non-competition provisions. The decision is noteworthy because the Court of Chancery has increasingly demonstrated a willingness to strike down overly broad non-compete agreements, accompanied by a growing reluctance to revise (or “blue pencil”) agreements by narrowing their terms. The Court of Chancery held that the non-compete and non-solicitation provisions contained in the limited partnership agreement, which had a worldwide geographic scope, were geographically overbroad and unenforceable. Additionally, the Court of Chancery found the definition of “Competitive Activity” overbroad due to its inclusion of “any Affiliated Entity,” reasoning that “it is highly possible that a partner could unknowingly engage in a Competitive Activity.” 2023 WL 106924, at *18. Notably, the court declined to “blue pencil” the provisions to make them more reasonable. The Court of Chancery then focused on the forfeiture-for-competition provision triggered by “Competitive Activity.” The Court of Chancery considered whether it should evaluate the forfeiture-for-competition provision (which it called a “Conditioned Payment Device”) for reasonableness or apply contractual deference under the “employee choice” doctrine. The court determined that “forfeitures do not enjoy this Court’s contractarian deference” and conducted a reasonableness analysis. Id. at *24. Although the court applied a “lenient” reasonableness test, it nonetheless determined that the Conditioned Payment Device was unreasonable and invalid, given the broad definition of “Competitive Activity,” the lack of an established legitimate business interest for the broad restrictions, and the four-year temporal scope, which extended beyond the temporal scope of the contractual non-competition and non-solicitation provisions. Id. at *26. The Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting the distinction between non-competition clauses for former employees and those for former partners. It ruled that partnership agreements could include consequences not typical in standard contracts, like penalties and forfeitures. While the Delaware Supreme Court’s decision was specific to limited partnership agreements, employers should still take note. Put another way: while employment-based non-compete clauses are still subject to a reasonableness standard, the tides in Delaware may be shifting back towards the employer-friendly interpretation of restrictive covenants, at least for now (and until there is more clarity surrounding the FTC’s final rule). Moreover, such provisions may not be enforceable in specific industries, such as law firm partnership agreements where ethics rules may be implicated due to a chilling effect on a client’s right to select counsel. Furthermore, following the Cantor ruling, the Delaware Supreme Court accepted an interlocutory appeal regarding a Chancery Court ruling in Sunder Energy, LLC, v. Jackson, C.A. No. 455, 2023 (Del. Jan. 25, 2024). This case concerns the denial of a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-compete provision in a limited liability company agreement and a refusal to engage in blue-penciling. The Delaware Supreme Court’s stance on the matter remains to be determined. Given the current state of Delaware jurisprudence on restrictive covenants, employers must carefully consider any restraints on employee mobility. They should also give similar consideration to the choice of law and forum selection provisions contained in employment agreements. Thank you for reading our legal update- please get in touch with us if you have any questions or require any assistance. Sarah Goodman can be reached at sarah.goodman@offitkurman.com or 267-338-1319, and Charles McCauley can be reached at cmccauley@offitkurman.com or 484-531-1712.
February 27, 2024
Labor and Employment
SBA To Require PPP Borrowers of $2 Million or More to Provide Documentation to Support Certification of Necessity Due to Economic Uncertainty
This blog post may contain information that was accurate at the time of publication but could become outdated over time. We strive to provide relevant and timely content, but circumstances, facts, and data can change. Users are encouraged to verify the current status of any information presented and seek updated guidance where necessary. Originally posted on 11/6/2020, no content changes. The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) recently posted a notice seeking comment on draft Loan Necessity Questionnaire Form 3509 (For-Profit Borrowers) and Form 3510 (Non-Profit Borrowers) to be used by the SBA to review Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) forgiveness applications. The SBA claims that the purpose of the necessity questionnaire is to facilitate the collection of supplemental information used by SBA loan reviewers to evaluate the good-faith certification that borrowers made on their PPP Loan Application that economic uncertainty made the loan request necessary. The completed necessity questionnaire will be due to the PPP lender within ten business days of receipt from a borrower’s lender. These necessity questionnaires present serious concerns for the 29,000 non-profit and for-profit businesses that received PPP loans in excess of $2 Million. The necessity questionnaires contain many questions requiring disclosure of confidential financial and proprietary information. It is not clear whether responses to the questionnaire will be required disclosures with a loan forgiveness application or whether the responses will be required in advance of, or without, submission of a loan forgiveness application. The necessity questionnaire has two parts, a “Business Activity Assessment” and a “Liquidity Assessment.” Business Activity Assessment A comparison of the gross revenue for the first quarters of 2019 and 2020, including supporting documentation. Borrowers must provide information about how COVID-19 has temporarily shut down, caused a reduction in operations, or resulted in additional capital outlays of a borrower. Liquidity Assessment Borrowers are required to provide documentation regarding the amount of liquidity on hand when the PPP loan application was submitted. Borrowers are required to provide documentation regarding distributions and dividends paid to owners during the covered period. Borrowers are required to provide documentation regarding all debt prepayments and capital expenditures made during the covered period. Borrowers are required to provide documentation regarding the amounts paid to owners in excess of $250,000 annualized during the covered period. If privately held, the borrower is required to provide its book value on the last day of the quarter preceding its loan application. Borrowers are required to disclose whether they received any other CARES Act benefits, excluding tax benefits. The necessity questionnaire includes certifications regarding the accuracy of responses, and alarmingly warns that false statements will result in criminal penalties. If you are a borrower with a PPP loan in excess of $2 Million, you need to consult your legal counsel immediately. The information sought will be used by the SBA to determine whether PPP borrowers were initially eligible for the PPP loans they received due to the category of business, access to capital, or ownership by a foreign entity, among other reasons. For borrowers eligible for a PPP loan, aside from the necessity issue, using hindsight to review the actual impact on the PPP borrower after receipt of PPP funds due to business closures, losses in revenue, and effects on employees is patently unfair. Further, no formal SBA guidance was available on the PPP application date. The SBA urged all businesses to apply quickly to avoid losing out on the opportunity to receive PPP funds. Given the uncertainty with how the SBA will use this information, the confidential and proprietary nature of the information sought (which may be publicly available), PPP borrowers should consult with counsel immediately and before submission of a loan forgiveness application. Borrowers may be best served by waiting as long as possible before seeking loan forgiveness (if ever) to allow for SBA and lender guidance to be issued, legal challenges and resolution, and obtain information from lenders as to how the information will be used.
November 6, 2023
Tax
New Jersey Law Permits Pass Through Entities to Bypass the Federal Cap on State and Local Tax Deductions
Originally posted on 2/20/2020, no content changes New Jersey has passed legislation to limit the impact of the $10,000 cap on state and local tax (“S.A.L.T.”) deductions created by the 2017 federal implement Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The bill creating the New Jersey law, known as The Pass-Through Business Alternative Income Tax Act (A-4807/S-3246) was signed by the governor of New Jersey on Jan. 13, 2020 and was previously passed by the New Jersey legislature on December 16, 2019 (“NJ Act”).[1] The NJ Act creates an optional entity-level tax on pass-through businesses. The NJ Act permits New Jersey pass-through entities, such as “S” corporations, partnerships and LLCs to elect to pay income taxes at the entity level as a business expense instead of at the personal income tax level. Paying the tax individually subjects the tax payer to the limitation for federal deductibility of state and local taxes of $10,000. By structuring as a deductible business expense/tax at the entity level, the pass-through entity’s taxable income is reduced by the amount of the tax and the flow through income to the owner is so reduced. Under the NJ Act the “pass-through entity” must have at least one member who is liable for tax on distributive proceeds pursuant to the “New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act” in a taxable year. The NJ Act defines “distributive proceeds” as the income, dividends, and gain of a pass-through entity, derived from or connected with sources within the State of New Jersey, and upon which tax is imposed and due on a member of the pass-through entity pursuant to the “New Jersey Gross Income Tax Act” in a taxable year. The New Jersey Society of Certified Public Accountants (“NJCPA”) welcomed the signing of the NJ Act: “We are grateful to the Governor, the Legislature and all those who supported the bill. Their dedication to assisting small businesses in New Jersey does not go unrecognized.” The NJCPA noted that the NJ Act is estimated it would save New Jersey business owners $200 to $400 million annually on their federal tax bills. The NJ Act was sponsored by Assemblymen Daniel Benson and Roy Freiman in response to federal changes to S.A.L.T that “have had a great impact on homeowners and businesses”, according to Benson. Benson further opined that “[t]his tax payment option could save business owners $450 million annually without costing the state any money in lost revenues. Protecting New Jersey businesses against sweeping federal changes ensures New Jersey’s economy stays on the right track and business owners continue to thrive.” Other states, such as New York, have also attempted to implement a state law to circumvent the federal S.A.L.T. limits through contributions to state-run charitable funds. However, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued regulations that eliminate the benefits of the New York law. The New Jersey approach has not been expressly barred by the IRS as of the writing of this article. As such, the NJ Act is effective for pass through entities for tax years beginning after January 1, 2020. The option to pay the tax at the entity level is made for each tax year by an authorized person(s) for the entity. Moreover, the tax rates imposed at the entity level are different from those imposed on individuals. The practical import of the NJ Act is that tax advisors for businesses should advise their New Jersey flow through entity clients of the change in New Jersey law, risk/benefit tradeoff of making such an election, as well as careful consideration of taking advantage of this change in the law by paying estimated taxes at the entity level (i.e. reducing their draws/distributions) instead of at their individual level. Additional considerations should include that the option to pay the tax at the entity level is made annually by the entity and the tax rates imposed at the entity level differ from the rates imposed on individuals. Owners of pass through entities must consult their lawyers and tax advisors prior to making any decisions. [1] The NJ Act supplements Title 54A of the New Jersey Statutes and amends N.J.S.54A:4-1 and P.L.1993, c.173. The text of the NJ Act can be found at https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S3246/id/1829428
November 1, 2023
Business
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Primer
This blog post may contain information that was accurate at the time of publication but could become outdated over time. We strive to provide relevant and timely content, but circumstances, facts, and data can change. Users are encouraged to verify the current status of any information presented and seek updated guidance where necessary. Originally posted on 6/9/2020, no content changes. You applied for and obtained a Paycheck Protection Program loan. Now it is time to ask for the loan to be forgiven. Listen and watch here for a 30 minute presentation from the Offit Kurman CV-19 Business Response Team on the what, when and how to that apply to the loan forgiveness process, along with keen insights into that process. This presentation was recorded on June 5, 2020. For any updates to the loan forgiveness rules since then, please contact us.
June 9, 2023
Business
UPDATE: Did Your Business Need a PPP Loan? Borrowers May Return Funds by May 14 Without Fear of Civil or Criminal Enforcement
This blog post may contain information that was accurate at the time of publication but could become outdated over time. We strive to provide relevant and timely content, but circumstances, facts, and data can change. Users are encouraged to verify the current status of any information presented and seek updated guidance where necessary. Originally posted on 5/6/2020, no content changes. UPDATE: On May 6 the SBA extended the safe harbor deadline to return PPP funds from May 7 to May 14 in FAQ #43. FAQ #43 also noted this is an automatic extension of the safe harbor and that borrowers do not need to apply for the extension. The safe harbor applies to any borrower who applied for a PPP loan prior to April 24, 2020 and repays it in full by May 14, 2020. As the SBA has provided little guidance on what it means to “need” a PPP loan, the SBA has promised to provide additional guidance on this issue prior to May 14, 2020. *All May 7th deadlines have been extended to May 14th In response to adverse publicity, a number of high-profile entities, including listed companies, that had received loans in recent weeks under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), announced that they were returning the money. The decision by these entities was prompted in part by the SBA’s publication on April 23, 2020 of FAQ 31, emphasizing that loan applicants should think carefully before certifying, as required, that the loan was really necessary to support ongoing operations considering the uncertainty of economic conditions. The stakes were raised even further on April 28, 2020, when Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced that all companies receiving more than $2 million of PPP money, and other loans as appropriate, would be audited and could face criminal prosecution if their certification of “need” was false and they did not return the money by May 14th*. Predictably this sudden scrutiny of “need” by businesses that received loans has created uncertainty and anxiety among business owners who had applied in good faith, had been able to check all the qualification boxes on the application, and felt fortunate to have received the quick infusion of capital. However, the same business owners who a few weeks ago asked their attorneys and accountants for help in applying, are now asking these same advisors, with trepidation, should they keep the money? The problem of course is that the CARES Act legislation, and supporting regulations, were hastily drafted and did not provide clarity, especially with respect to “need”. Facing a hard May 14th* deadline, what should a business owner do now if he has any concerns regarding entitlement to the loan? Certainly, this requires a case-by-case analysis, beginning with making certain that the proceeds of the loan will be put to use as Congress intended: putting workers back on the payroll promptly, i.e., within the first eight weeks of receiving the loan. If a business is in an industry that cannot function during the lockdown, e.g., hospitality, the need for PPP money is difficult to justify. Second, businesses that have access to other sources of capital through, the public securities markets, private equity or hedge funds, should take a closer look at their “need”. On a more subjective basis, any company that would consider the scrutiny of a federal audit to be bad optics, e.g., a defense contractor, should carefully consider the consequences of not being able to support the need for the money. These special circumstances aside, what should the owners of a business that received a significant PPP loan be thinking about, and doing, in the next few days before the May 14th* deadline? If a borrower decides to retain the PPP Funds, affirmative steps must be taken now, if they have not been taken already, to document in writing the need for the loan. Put differently, in the event of audit by the SBA, the borrower must demonstrate that it had a good faith belief that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” While the Treasury and SBA have provided very little guidance on the interpretation of this borrower certification, documentation to establish a good faith belief should examine all issues the borrower faces as to economic uncertainty and necessity of the funds. Projections of revenue and cash flow under various scenarios should be made, with the margin of solvency resulting from each scenario closely analyzed. Further, the borrower should focus on issues specific to its business and also in the industry/region in which the borrower operates. Specifically, the borrower should review and document, among other items: Financial stability - budgets and projections, including payroll shortfall projections; Liquidity - cash on hand and alternative sources of funds; Geographic Location – will the area and region in which the borrower operates open first or last; Risks – is the borrower a favored “mom and pop” business; Employee Availability – cost to train, find and replace staff; Materiality of the Loan Amount – will the business be able to operate without the loan and for how long; Sensitivity to Public Scrutiny – what is the impact of an audit on prospective business opportunities; and Projected Uses of the Funds – when and how. Although the absence of clarity in the PPP legislation and rules makes good faith compliance challenging and uncertain for all, business owners should address these issues with a team of advisors including their attorneys and accountants.
May 8, 2023
Business
In Delaware – Is Your Business “Essential” or Not? A Deep Dive With Our Guidance
This blog post may contain information that was accurate at the time of publication but could become outdated over time. We strive to provide relevant and timely content, but circumstances, facts, and data can change. Users are encouraged to verify the current status of any information presented and seek updated guidance where necessary. Originally posted on 3/30/2020, no content changes Practice Group: Business Law & Transactions In response to the Coronavirus pandemic, most of us know that governments have ordered certain businesses to close. Delaware Governor John C. Carney declared a State of Emergency starting on March 13, 2020 and has since updated it multiple times, most recently on March 22. On March 22, the Governor ordered Non-Essential Businesses to close at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 24. The March 22 Order also requires that employers operating “Essential Businesses” maximize telecommuting. Moreover, the Order is a “stay at home” order that requires everyone to stay home, except essential personnel. The Order also puts in place a travel ban except for certain circumstances. The purpose of the Order is to control and direct within the State of Delaware the operation of certain businesses, organizations, and enterprises necessary to maintain life, health, property, or public peace during the State of Emergency. Above all else, we as a firm want everyone to remain healthy and make it through this emergency unscathed. This article provides a general overview. As always, please contact us for specific guidance for your business as the March 22 Order creates a few murky areas for the unwary business. For example, while the Order allows individuals to leave their house to perform “Essential Activities,” which seems to allow for work in the office, the section on “Essential Travel” does not seem to authorize leaving the house to go to the office. Another example is that the Order appears to require employers to exclude workers over 60 years old from the worksite. However, this provision may run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Another issue presented is what to do about situations in which employees cannot be kept six feet apart, as will happen in many situations. We are here to help. THE MARCH 22 ORDER. In essence, the March 22 Order states that all physical locations of Non-Essential Businesses within the State of Delaware are closed until after May 15, 2020, or after the public health threat of COVID-19 has been eliminated, except that Non-Essential Businesses may continue to offer goods and services over the internet. Here is a link to the 18-page March 22 Order relating to Essential and Non-Essential Businesses. https://governor.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2020/03/Fourth-Modification-to-State-of-Emergency-03222020.pdf WHO CAN WORK? Essential Businesses are certain businesses that employ or utilize the following workers: (a) healthcare and public health; (b) law enforcement, public safety and first responders; (c) food and agriculture; (d) certain energy-related industries (electricity, petroleum, natural and propane gas); (e) water and wastewater; (f) transportation and logistics; (g) public works; (h) certain communications and information technology businesses; (i) certain community-based government operations and essential function; (j) manufacturing; (k) hazardous materials; (l) financial services and insurance; (m) chemical; (n) defense industrial base; (o) construction; (p) necessary products retailers; (q) necessary retail and service establishments; and (r) open air recreational facilities. Non-Essential Businesses are certain businesses that employ or utilize the following workers: (a) hospitality and recreational facilities; (b) concert halls and venues; (c) theaters and performing arts venues; (d) sporting event facilities and venues; (e) golf courses and shooting ranges; (f) realtors; (g) business support services, including customer service call centers and telemarketing operations; (h) shopping malls; and (i) retail stores. It is important to note that the above list of Essential Business and Non-Essential Businesses contains many exceptions and clarifications. The list found at the link above also contains the relevant 4-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. All businesses should have a NAICS code or codes on their unemployment insurance forms or on their most recent tax return to aid in determining whether a business is Essential or Non-Essential. If you are unsure as to whether your business is Essential or Non-Essential, you can email covid19faq@delaware.gov or call 302-577-8477 between the hours of 9:00 am and 4:00 pm with any additional questions. Again, Offit Kurman is also here to help you navigate your business through these troubled waters. CAN YOU APPEAL YOUR BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION AS NON-ESSENTIAL? Yes, but there is not a guarantee that a petition will be successful. A petition must be requested in writing via electronic mail to covid19faq@delaware.gov for consideration. We understand that you can expect to receive a decision within one week of your submission. If you have questions or need assistance with the preparation of your petition, please contact us at the phone number or e-mail address listed below. ENFORCEMENT. The March 22 Order has the force and effect of law. Any failure to comply with the provisions contained in a Declaration of a State of Emergency or any modification to a Declaration of the State of Emergency constitutes a criminal offense. State and local law enforcement agencies are authorized to enforce the provisions of any Declaration of a State of Emergency. OTHER RESOURCES. Delawareans with questions about COVID-19 or their exposure risk can call the Division of Public Health’s Coronavirus Call Center at 1-866-408-1899, or 711 for people who are hearing impaired, from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, or email DPHCall@delaware.gov For more information go to https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dph/epi/2019novelcoronavirus.html The Delaware Department of Health & Social Services website offers a response to COVID-19, including information on testing, community resources and what you can do to avoid spreading COVID-19. For more information go to https://coronavirus.delaware.gov/ FURTHER GUIDANCE AND CLARIFICATION. As noted above, Governor Carney has modified the Declaration of a State of Emergency on six occasions and we anticipate that such modifications will continue, seemingly on a daily basis. For example, on March 24, the Governor issued an order, effective March 25 at 8:00 a.m. that delayed elections, evictions, foreclosures, termination of utility service, and termination of insurance coverage. Here is a link to the March 24 order as to these issues. https://media1.dsba.org/public/pdfs/GOVR%20Sixth-Modification-to-State-of-Emergency-03242020.pdf Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the Declaration of a State of Emergency generally, the classification, or appeal of a classification, as an Essential or Non-Essential Business, insurance coverage questions, employment law questions, or the most recent order concerning delayed elections, evictions, foreclosures, termination of utility service, and termination of insurance coverage. Stay tuned for more. Charles “Max” McCauley III contributed to this Article.
March 31, 2023
Business
FTC Seeks to Ban Non-compete Clauses: What This Really Means for Your Business
Today we will cover how the FTC seeks to ban non-compete clauses and what this means for your business. On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed a new rule banning employers from imposing non-competes on their workers. The rule is undoubtedly politically motivated as it was issued in response to President Biden’s Executive Order that encouraged the FTC to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.” The FTC believes a non-compete is a “widespread and often exploitative practice that suppresses wages, hampers innovation, and blocks entrepreneurs from starting new businesses.” By stopping this practice, the FTC erroneously estimates wages would increase by nearly $300 billion per year, and it would expand career opportunities for 30 million Americans. By stopping this practice, the FTC erroneously estimates wages would increase by nearly $300 billion per year, and it would expand career opportunities for 30 million Americans. Scope of Proposed Rule to Ban Non-compete Clauses The FTC’s proposed rule would prohibit employers from using non-compete clauses – i.e., any contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, within a specific geographic area and period of time after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer. It would make it illegal for an employer to: enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete with a worker; maintain a non-compete with a worker; or represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a non-compete. The proposed rule would apply to “workers,” broadly defined by the FTC to include employees, individuals classified as independent contractors, externs, interns, volunteers, apprentices, and sole proprietors who provide a service to a client or customer. The rule also includes a “functional test” for determining what constitutes a “de facto” non-compete clause that has the same effect as an express non-compete clause – the same test employed by courts in states that already have express prohibitions on non-compete clauses. Effective Date of Proposed Rule Importantly, this is a proposed rule that is not in effect. The proposed rule is in a comment period until March 20, 2023. We do not believe it will go into effect, if at all, until after a lengthy court battle ending with a ruling from the United State Supreme Court. Then, even if the proposed ban becomes law, employers will have 180 days to revise their agreements to conform with the law. Moreover, there are a variety of tools, such as reasonably tailored non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality provisions, employers can use to accomplish their goals without violating the proposed ban. The proposed rule is the first step in a long process that will take years to complete. We expect the FTC will receive thousands or hundreds of thousands of comments to consider. Based on the comments, the rule will be revised. It could take the FTC until late 2023 or even the end of 2024 to issue a final rule. After the final rule is set forth, it will be subject to a legal challenge (or challenges); this will undoubtedly delay the effective date into 2025 or later, assuming the final rule survives any legal hurdles it faces. During this challenging period, a presidential election will occur, and the political winds will likely change, potentially further reversing the course of the FTC. Criticism of the Proposed Rule The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has opined that the FTC lacks the authority to issue the rule and ignores the benefits of non-competes. A senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated: “Attempting to ban non-compete clauses in all employment circumstances overturns well-established state laws which had long governed their use and ignores the fact that, when appropriately used, non-compete agreements are an important tool in fostering innovation and preserving competition.” An FTC Commissioner issued a dissenting statement when the proposed ban was announced. The dissenting statement outlined potential legal challenges noting the FTC lacks the legal authority to issue the ban, and the rule is barred by a recent United Supreme Court decision. Even if the FTC has authority, it is an impermissible delegation of that authority. The proposed rule must overcome extensive case law upholding the use of non-compete clauses that are determined to be reasonable unless they are unreasonable as to time or geographic scope. Even if the FTC has authority, it is an impermissible delegation of that authority. Exemptions to Proposed Rule to Ban Non-compete Clauses The proposed rule would exempt non-compete agreements that a person entered in connection with the sale of a business, but only if that person owned 25% or more of that business. The FTC is also seeking comments as to whether: non-compete clauses between employers and senior executives should be subject to a different standard; the rule should apply uniformly to all workers; and the rule should impose a categorical ban on non-compete clauses. Alternatives to Non-compete Clauses Employers are not without options. The FTC’s proposed rule’s definition of a non-compete clause does not include other types of covenants. Accordingly, employers should begin analyzing their confidentiality clauses, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure provisions. Carefully drafted provisions can ensure that employers are able to protect confidential information and customer relationships, as well as the poaching of current employees by former employees. Employers should also use this as an opportunity to strengthen trade secret protection plans. Employers should also use this as an opportunity to strengthen trade secret protection plans. What Should I Do as an Employer? There is no need to panic. The proposed rule will not go into law in its final form, if at all. However, now is the time to implement proper planning techniques into agreements with employees. As noted previously, with proper legal counsel, non-compete, non-solicitation (vertically and horizontally), confidentiality, non-disclosure, and other restrictive covenants can be used to accomplish the goals of employers, most of which are not within the scope of the current version of the proposed rule. With proper legal counsel, non-compete, non-solicitation, confidentiality, non-disclosure, and other restrictive covenants can be used to accomplish the goals of employers. Conclusion Thank you for reading our blog on how the FTC seeks to ban non-compete clauses and what this means for your business. Please contact us immediately so that we can assist you in your planning and contract drafting process to properly implement such restrictions to protect your business. Charles McCauley can be reached at cmccauley@offitkurman.com or 484-531-1712, and Sarah Goodman can be reached at sarah.goodman@offitkurman.com or 267-338-1319.
February 24, 2023
Labor and Employment
Alert: The Paycheck Protection Program Is Now Accepting First Draw and Second Draw Applications
This blog post may contain information that was accurate at the time of publication but could become outdated over time. We strive to provide relevant and timely content, but circumstances, facts, and data can change. Users are encouraged to verify the current status of any information presented and seek updated guidance where necessary. Originally posted on 1/20/2021, no content changes. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) reopened the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) for First Draw PPP loans and is now also accepting applications for Second Draw PPP loans. The PPP now allows certain eligible borrowers that previously received a PPP loan to apply for a Second Draw PPP loan with the same general loan terms as their First Draw PPP loan. Second Draw PPP loans can be used for payroll costs and benefits. Loan proceeds can also be used to pay for mortgage interest, rent, utilities, worker protection costs related to COVID-19, uninsured property damage costs caused by looting or vandalism during 2020, and certain supplier costs and expenses for operations. Loan Amount. For most borrowers, the maximum loan amount of a Second Draw PPP loan is 2.5 multiplied by the average monthly payroll costs up to $2 million. Loan amounts may be based on payroll costs for the calendar year 2019, the calendar year 2020, or the actual trailing 12-month period before the application. Qualification Requirements. To qualify for a Second Draw PPP loan, the borrower must have: Previously received a First Draw PPP Loan and will or has used the full amount only for authorized uses; Have no more than 300 employees; and Demonstrate a decline in gross receipts of 25 percent in any quarter of 2020 over the corresponding quarter or submit tax returns showing a 25 percent decline in 2020 revenue over 2019. Gross receipts include all revenue in whatever form received in accordance with the borrower’s accounting method. Eligible Entities. Eligible Second Draw PPP entities include businesses, certain non-profit organizations, housing cooperatives, veterans’ organizations, tribal businesses, self-employed individuals, sole proprietors, independent contractors, and small agricultural co-operatives. Expansion of Allowable and Forgivable Uses. The Second Draw PPP expands the scope of payroll costs to include group insurance benefit payments, covered operations expenditures, covered property damage costs, covered supplier costs, and covered worker protection expenditures. By way of further explanation, Second Draw PPP funds may be used for the following allowable and forgivable uses: Covered operations expenditures include payment for any software, cloud computing, and other human resources and accounting needs. Covered property damage costs include expenses related to property damage due to public disturbances that occurred during 2020 that are not covered by insurance. Covered supplier costs include expenditures to a supplier pursuant to a contract, purchase order, or order for goods in effect prior to taking out the loan that is essential to the recipient’s operations at the time at which the expenditure was made. Supplier costs of perishable goods can be made before or during the life of the loan. Covered worker protection expenditures include personal protective equipment and adaptive investments to help a loan recipient comply with federal health and safety guidelines or any equivalent State and local guidance related to COVID-19 during the period between March 1, 2020, and the end of the national emergency declaration. Forgiveness Covered Period. A Second Draw PPP borrower can elect a forgiveness covered period of any duration from eight to 24 weeks. Additional Loan Terms and Qualifications. Seasonal employers may calculate their maximum loan amount based on a 12-week period beginning February 15, 2019, through February 15, 2020. Entities in industries assigned to NAICS code 72 (Accommodation and Food Services) may receive loans of up to 3.5X average monthly payroll costs. Certain businesses with multiple locations that are eligible entities under the initial PPP requirements may employ not more than 300 employees per physical location. An eligible borrower may only receive one PPP second draw loan. Fees are waived for both borrowers and lenders to encourage participation. For loans of not more than $150,000, the borrower may submit a certification attesting that the borrower meets the revenue loss requirements on or before the date the borrower submits their loan forgiveness application, and non-profit and veterans organizations may utilize gross receipts to calculate their revenue loss standard. Tax Deductible Expenses. With the reopening of PPP, the SBA, in conjunction with the Treasury, also reversed prior guidance, and now there is an income tax deduction available for expenses paid with PPP loan proceeds. For most borrowers, this will result in substantial extra cash (not including PPP loan proceeds) available for business operations, to pay down loans, or to even make distributions to business owners. This article is not intended to provide legal advice as the SBA continually updates, modifies, reverses and changes its PPP loan program guidance. Moreover, all borrowers have different concerns and face different qualification issues for a PPP First Draw and/or Second Draw Loan. If you have questions or concerns regarding a PPP loan or need legal guidance, please contact the author of this article – Charles “Max” McCauley at cmccauley@offitkurman.com or 484-531-1712.
January 20, 2023
Estates and Trusts
Case Study on Estate Tax Reduction Strategies: Business and Investment
In the following case study for business owners, Offit Kurman attorneys Herbert Fineburg and Charles “Max” McCauley illustrate an estate and gift planning strategy for removing your business from your taxable federal estate. This tax planning also works for your stock portfolio. The presentation was delivered at the Philadelphia chapter of The Exit Planning Exchange’s monthly conference.
October 14, 2022
Business
Avoiding an Adverse Tax Impact on Death of an S Corporation Shareholder
As Published on American Bar Association – ABA Tax Section I. Introduction One of the main reasons to consider a partnership for owning a business rather than an S Corporation is the adverse impact upon death if the business is held by an S Corporation. Now there are solutions to this problem for S Corporation shareholders that tax advisers need to add to their toolbox. These solutions convert the tax status of the business from an S Corporation to a partnership for federal tax purposes, in a federal income tax-neutral manner. This can be accomplished through liquidation in the case of a deceased shareholder or reorganization prior to death of a shareholder. A. Upon the Death of an S Corporation Owner Specifically, upon the death of an S Corporation owner, the heirs are denied the benefits of receiving a step-up in bases in underlying corporate assets to fair market value. In a partnership, the heirs receive a full income tax-free step-up in basis for all of the underling partnership assets and the benefits of obtaining the income tax shelter from new large depreciation deductions. However, in an S Corporation when the owner dies, the shareholder heirs only receive a step-up of basis in the corporate stock equal to the fair market value of the company at the date of death. The underlying S Corporation assets retain the same pre-death tax bases even though the decedent estates in both cases have the same federal estate tax implications and costs. Therefore, the S Corporation heirs should consider promptly liquidating the corporation to also achieve an income-tax neutral stepped-up basis for the company’s assets. This same technique can also be considered if a surviving shareholder buys out the estate of a deceased shareholder. If you have questions about this or any other legal matter, please feel free to contact Herb Fineburg at 267.338.1376 or Charles McCauley, III at 484.531.1712. Read the full article below.
April 1, 2021
