Conkle Firm Attorneys Attend Cosmoprof Bologna to Assist Clients

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys John Conkle and Kelly Peterson have returned to Cosmoprof Worldwide Bologna to continue the firm’s longstanding practice assisting the growth and protection of personal care products businesses in U.S. and international markets.  Last year, Cosmoprof Bologna had nearly 3,000 exhibitors and 250,000 visitors in exhibition space totaling more than 160,000 square meters.  For over 50 years, Cosmoprof has been the benchmark event for companies and professionals in all sectors of the cosmetics industry, from supply chain to branding, marketing, distribution and sale of finished products.

Cosmoprof’s B2B format is well suited to connect businesses all over the world, and CK&E attorneys are experienced with what businesses in this sector need to succeed. CK&E lawyers have more than 40 years of experience with the legal issues affecting all stages of growth of personal care products businesses, from startup through acquisition. Issues such as domestic and international brand protection, regulatory compliance, contractual relations with distributors and vendors, customer relations, employment matters, partnership issues, sales representative issues, and insurance can be vexing to a growing business without the guidance of lawyers who have “been there and seen that” for decades.

On the first day of Cosmoprof Bologna, John and Kelly have already begun engaging with clients and prospective clients to help them navigate toward international growth. If you are a vendor there and have not talked with them yet, you can use the email addresses on their attorney pages to reach out to them for a consultation.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Start at the End: Planning for Termination of Sales Representative Relationships

Posted by:

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorney Evan Pitchford recently published Start at the End: Planning for Termination of the Principal-Representative Relationship in the April 2023 edition of Agency Sales, the nationwide publication of the Manufacturers & Agents National Association (MANA).  Although no one likes to think about the potential end of a business relationship just when they finally succeeded in getting it off the ground, it is wise for sales representatives and principals alike to do just that.

Thoughtful preparation for the eventual termination of the sales representatives’ relationship will greatly improve the relationship throughout its existence, by making clear the terms that will apply as it comes to an end.  To understand their ongoing duties to each other, both parties should clearly understand the consequences of a termination under the various circumstances that may apply, such as a change by the principal to direct sales, contractual breaches, or just dissatisfaction of either side.  Specialized state statutes directed to sales representative contracts sometimes limit some of the termination provisions, but such statutes typically allow the parties to establish most or all of the terms for themselves.  It is definitely not wise for either side to just assume an applicable state statute will define what happens upon termination.

There are a great many options for termination provisions, including absolute cutoffs upon termination (which may be subject to “procuring cause” post-termination sales commission claims in some states), to timed durations of sales commission tails based on when the commission is considered earned, to phased termination extending commission tale periods based on longevity or achievement.  The only limits to the terms that can be agreed upon are the requirements of each state’s specialized sales commission statutes and the imagination and negotiating leverage of the parties.  Parties considering sales commission agreements are well-advised to seek the counsel of attorneys who are very familiar with sales representatives laws and practices, such as  attorneys at the Conkle firm.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

AB51, California’s Law Against Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, is Invalidated

Posted by:

California employers – especially those that required employees to sign arbitration agreements – have reason to celebrate. On February 15, 2023, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, (Case No. 20-15291) 2023 WL 2013326 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2023), ruled that AB 51, a California law effectively prohibiting and criminalizing mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements, is invalid because it is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

This development was not unexpected, as the U.S. Supreme Court has rendered a series of decisions supporting arbitration and striking down state laws prohibiting arbitration clauses in employment contracts as violations of the FAA. Yet despite this precedent, the California legislature has tried time and time again to enact anti-arbitration laws that creatively seek to avoid FAA preemption. AB 51 was the most recent attempt to circumvent the FAA.

AB 51 added California Labor Code Section 432.6, which prohibited employers from: (1) requiring employees to waive, as a condition of employment, the right to litigate certain claims in court; and (2) retaliating against applicants for employment or employees based on their refusal to waive such rights. Id. at (a) & (b). These two prohibitions by themselves would almost surely be preempted by the FAA but the California legislature sought to avoid that result by adding § 432.6(f), providing that nothing “in this section is intended to invalidate a written arbitration agreement that is otherwise enforceable under the [FAA].” To give the statute teeth, AB 51 also amended other codes to impose civil and criminal liability on an employer who violates Labor Code Section 432.6. Together, these provisions had the strange effect of imposing criminal and civil liability on employers who enter into arbitration agreements that are valid and enforceable.

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States filed a lawsuit seeking to declare that AB 51 was preempted by the FAA. In 2020, the trial court granted temporary injunctions against enforcement of AB51, because the court found that the Chamber of Commerce was likely to succeed in establishing that AB51 is preempted by the FAA. For that reason, employers did not feel the brunt of AB51 while the challenge made its way through appellate court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (after some unusual twists, including a published decision that was later withdrawn by the Court) ultimately agreed with the trial court. The Ninth Circuit held that although AB 51 does not expressly prevent the formation of employment contracts containing an arbitration provision, it clearly disfavors the formation of arbitration agreements by placing civil and criminal liability on employers who require employees to sign arbitration agreements. That kind of penalty is an exception to generally applicable law that allows employers to require agreements, such as confidentiality agreements, as a condition of employment. The Ninth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that “state rules that burden the formation of arbitration agreements stand as an obstacle to the FAA.” Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1423 (2017). In addressing AB 51’s strange mechanism of imposing liability for the formation of valid contracts, the Court held that that “[a] state rule interferes with arbitration if it discriminates against arbitration on its face or if it covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.” Id. The Court held that “[b]ecause the FAA’s purpose is to further Congress’s policy of encouraging arbitration, and AB 51 stands as an obstacle to that purpose, AB 51 is preempted.” Id., at *10.

California employers should welcome this decision. The decision clarifies that businesses have broader freedom to contract as they see fit, and that it is permissible, even in California, to require employees to sign mandatory arbitration provisions as a condition of employment. The overall perception is that arbitration results in faster, less expensive resolution of employee-employer disputes, and keeps employment disputes out of California courts. Still, there are other schools of thought that believe that employment arbitrations can be more expensive for employers than the courts because private arbitrators often charge high hourly rates, the fees and costs of the arbitration must be advanced by employers, and dispositive motion victories (for example, a successful motion to dismiss a frivolous claim) are less common in arbitration. As well, even if arbitration is enforceable some employees may file their claims in court in the hope that the employer fails to take action to enforce arbitration.

Moreover, there are important limitations on employment arbitration agreements in California. In Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000), the California Supreme Court held that employer-employee arbitration agreements may be “unconscionable” and unenforceable if they do not include provisions for: (1) a neutral arbitrator; (2) all remedies allowed under statutes; (3) adequate discovery procedures; (4) a written and well-reasoned arbitration decision; and (5) the employer’s payment of all costs unique to the arbitration process itself.

It is predictable that the same labor groups that supported AB 51 will continue to try to develop alternative measures to restrict employment arbitration agreements. Employers are well-advised to consult with well-qualified employment attorneys to stay on the right side of the rapidly changing laws. The attorneys at the Conkle firm stay abreast of developments and are well equipped to help your business navigate all aspects of wage & hour, discrimination, class actions, Private Attorney General (PAGA) claims and employment law, including the intersection of employment arbitration and litigation. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys have many years of experience drafting arbitration provisions in conformance with California law and handling employment disputes—whether in arbitration or litigation.

Amanda Washton and Alec Pressly

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Changing Messages from Courts on AB 51: Now Employers Cannot Require Arbitration Agreements

Posted by:

Note:  For updated developments on the long-running saga of AB 51, see our February 2023 blog post: “AB51, California’s Law Against Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements, is Invalidated”

For those employers who have been following the evolving history of Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), which regulates California employers’ ability to have agreements to arbitrate any disputes with their prospective or hired employees, there is a new twist:  In a September 15, 2021 decision, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., et al. v. Bonta, et al., Case No. 20-15291, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed a District Court decision to conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) did not preempt California AB 51’s ban on employment conditioned upon mandatory arbitration agreements. As explained below, this Ninth Circuit ruling may soon have a substantial impact on employers’ arbitration policies going forward.

In 2019, California passed AB 51, which added section 432.6 to the California Labor Code and section 12953 to the California Government Code to generally prohibit employers from requiring applicants or employees to agree to arbitrate as a condition of employment. AB 51 made it illegal for an employer to require applicants or employees, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or the receipt of any employment-related benefit, to waive any rights, forum, or procedure established by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the California Labor Code. The Conkle firm has written previously about the potential effects of AB 51.

AB 51 had been set to take effect on January 1, 2020, but on December 30, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction, preventing AB51 from taking effect. Judge Mueller concluded that “AB 51 placed agreements to arbitrate on unequal footing with other contracts and also that it stood as an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of the FAA.” Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 12. In other words, Judge Mueller decided that AB 51 discriminated against arbitration agreements in a manner that is prohibited by the superseding federal law of arbitrations, the FAA.

California appealed Judge Mueller’s ruling.  On September 15, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a split (2-1) decision partially reversing the District Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that the FAA did not preempt AB 51 with respect to its prevention of conditioning employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement. On this basis, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction that had stopped AB 51’s enforcement, so at present there is nothing stopping AB 51 from taking effect very soon.

For employers, this means that, unless there are further decisions by the Ninth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court, AB 51’s mandate that employers cannot condition employment or continued employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement will shortly go into effect. However, employers should be aware that AB 51 does not apply retroactively, which means that arbitration agreements previously signed by employers before AB 51 can still be enforced.  ([Proposed] Labor Code §432(f).)

A common question Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys are receiving is whether, even under AB 51, an employer is allowed to request that employees or prospective employees sign an arbitration agreement. The answer is yes. However, because the Ninth Circuit’s decision is somewhat muddled on this point, there is no clear answer to the natural follow up question, “What can I do if the employee refuses?”

The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the enforcement provisions of AB 51 are preempted “to the extent that they apply to executed arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.” Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 29. The dissent in Bonta attacks the majority’s reasoning as illogical:

In case the effect of this novel holding is not clear, it means that if the employer offers an arbitration agreement to the prospective employee as a condition of employment, and the prospective employee executes the agreement, the employer may not be held civilly or criminally liable. But if the prospective employee refuses to sign, then the FAA does not preempt civil and criminal liability for the employer under AB 51’s provisions.

Bonta, No. 20-15291 at 47. As the dissent argues, the majority’s reasoning could result in liability to the employer where the employer fails while attempting to engage in the prohibited conduct of forcing an employee or prospective employee to sign an arbitration agreement, but the employer would not have liability when the employer succeeds in engaging in that same prohibited conduct.

What does this ultimately mean for employers? We expect the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to be challenged by a request for an en banc review by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit’s justices, or by a writ to the U.S. Supreme Court (which has recently been quite hostile to Ninth Circuit rulings that it has chosen to review).  Such a challenge could result in yet another “stay” that would effectively restore the injunction issued by Judge Mueller and preclude AB 51 from taking effect. However, unless a stay is issued, AB 51 is set to go into effect in the near future.

While much uncertainty remains as a result of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, AB 51 will increase potential liability for employers that condition employment on arbitration agreements, as well as provide more power to employees who do not wish to arbitrate. Employers that currently have policies conditioning employment or continued employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement should continue to monitor the status of AB 51, should prepare for the possibility that it will not be able to require arbitration agreements going forward and should reevaluate the benefits and risks related to conditioning employment on the signing of an arbitration agreement.

CK&E attorneys keep updated on developments in the law that affect employers in California, including their rights to arbitrate disputes with applicants and employees.  Stay tuned for additional developments in this saga of AB 51.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Annual PCPC Virtual Summit Features Conkle Firm Attorneys

Posted by:

Attorneys John Conkle, Zachary Page and Kim Sim helped lead off the first day of the Personal Care Product Council (PCPC)’s Virtual Summit on May 11, 2021 with a dynamic and timely presentation on the changing federal and state regulatory landscape for cosmetic and personal care products.  Consistent with the theme of the Virtual Summit – “Embracing the Future of Beauty” – they covered litigation trends in California and across the country in connection with product advertising and marketing claims, from the use of natural and clean/green claims such as “botanical” and “plant-based” to the use of “oil-free” and claims related to the “nourishment” and “revival” of hair.  They also spoke about other areas of the law uniquely affecting businesses as they navigated doing business during a global pandemic and preparing for a post-pandemic future, from privacy concerns to website accessibility, and issues related to product subscriptions and cause marketing.  These are areas that have taken on vital importance as businesses transition to e-commerce and consumers  increasingly focus their shopping online.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel’s presentation was featured in HBW Insight Informa Pharma Intelligence on May 13, 2021.  CK&E has been a frequent participant in other PCPC industry summits, but this year the three-day Virtual Summit was a seamless combination of the PCPC’s Annual Meeting and Legal & Regulatory Conference and marked the first time both events were combined into one and held entirely online.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

It’s the First of the Month – Is the Rent Due Under COVID-19 Eviction Moratoriums?

Posted by:

To mitigate some of the effects of massive unemployment and pay reductions, and the business disruptions that have resulted from stay-at-home orders, a variety of residential and commercial tenancy eviction moratoriums have been imposed.

Much has been said about eviction moratoriums, but they are far more complex and nuanced than generally portrayed. It is clear that moratoriums are already having profound effects for both tenants and landlords. Reportedly about 69% of renters paid their April 2020 rent on time, down from 81% in March 2020. If the stay-at-home orders and closures of non-essential businesses continue, the percentage of renters failing to pay on time is almost sure to increase.

A moratorium is a legally authorized period of delay in the payment of a debt, such as rent. It is important to recognize that a moratorium is not debt forgiveness – the same rent remains owed, but the effects of nonpayment are modified. There are some who are currently demanding new rent forgiveness laws to permanently relieve tenants of obligations to pay rent that comes due during the COVID-19 emergency, but no such laws have been enacted anywhere in the U.S. at this time, to our knowledge.

Even during normal times, tenants are routinely evicted for nonpayment of rent. In California, the eviction process is normally accomplished by a speedy judicial action for “unlawful detainer” that can be initiated quickly, require a tenant to respond in court within 5 days, and in some circumstances can result in a judicial eviction order and a judgment for the amount of unpaid rent against the tenant in less than a month. In one way or another the moratoriums effectively slow down that process and give tenants more opportunities to pay the accrued rent to avoid eviction. To make matters more confusing, eviction moratoriums with varying requirements and terms have been enacted by the U.S. government, and by many states, counties and cities. Exactly how each moratorium applies does depends on where the rented property is located, and whether it is subject to a U.S., state, county or city moratorium.

Here, we’ll briefly examine the U.S., California state, Los Angeles County, and City of Los Angeles moratoriums as representative samples that give insight into how rent payment obligations and evictions have changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Broadly speaking, U.S. laws can supersede state orders, and state orders supersede county and city orders, but stricter orders will usually be enforced over broader and more general ones. For that reason, it is very important to consider where the subject property is located and which state or local order may control that location.

The U.S. rent moratorium was part of the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act passed on March 27, 2020, and signed into law by President Trump on March 28, 2020. The U.S. order applies only to residential homes and apartments whose owners have federally-backed mortgages (typically Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgages), and tenants in federally-subsidized low-income housing. The CARES Act imposes a 120-day eviction moratorium for tenants unable to pay rent due to COVID-19 effects. While the U.S. moratorium applies to nearly half of the residential housing market, as a practical matter tenants rarely know if they can take advantage of it, so state eviction moratoriums have a bigger impact.

The California eviction moratorium order (No. N-37-20) was signed by Governor Newsom on March 27, 2020, and applies throughout the state. The March 27 order was designed to strengthen a previous directive (No. N-28-20) that merely gave local jurisdictions authority to temporarily halt residential and commercial evictions due to financial reasons related to COVID-19. The California state order now extends the time for tenants to respond to an unlawful detainer lawsuit by another 60 days, in addition to the usual 5 days. To qualify for the extension of time, the tenant must have previously paid rent to the landlord under an agreement (typically a lease) and, within seven days of the rent becoming due, must have notified the landlord of the inability to pay rent for reasons related to COVID-19 (such as being sick, losing work, or missing work while caring for a child or family member). The tenant is required to maintain documentation proving the changed financial circumstances, but only needs to provide that documentation to the landlord by the time the tenant later pays the back-due rent.

Because the California state order is tied to the unlawful detainer statute, it appears that the statewide deadline to pay the back-due rent is in effect 65 days from an unlawful detainer lawsuit being filed, provided that the tenant qualifies for the COVID-19 related relief. This puts into the landlord’s hands when to start the clock for payment of back rent by initiating an unlawful detainer action to evict the tenant, but the tenant has just over two months to even respond to the suit. There does not appear to be an expiration date for the California state moratorium, which means that the unlawful detainer process could be slowed in this manner for the foreseeable future (though some commentators believe the May 31, 2020 expiration date in the preceding Order No. 28-20 might apply to the March 27 Order No. N-37-20 as well – that remains to be clarified).

But that is not the end of the analysis, because many cities and counties have stricter orders. On March 19, 2020 Los Angeles County enacted an order forbidding a residential or commercial property owner to file an eviction suit or otherwise evict a tenant before May 31, 2020, for non-payment of rent or any other no-fault scenario (such as a lease ending or the landlord removing the unit from the market). Like the state order, to qualify for this eviction moratorium the tenant must demonstrate an inability to pay due to financial impacts related to COVID-19 and must provide notice to the landlord within seven days of the rent becoming due. Under the Los Angeles County order, tenants have six months following the termination of the order – currently meaning until the end of November 2020 – to pay all back rent. But if the moratorium expires as currently scheduled, the qualifying tenants must begin paying current rent starting June 1, 2020, and have six months to make up their back rent. The order encourages payment plans but permits tenants to pay in any increments as long as the back-due rent is paid in full within the six-month window.

The City of Los Angeles enacted a series of eviction moratorium orders, on March 15, 17, 23 and 31, 2020, that similarly restrict commercial and residential evictions. Los Angeles city’s moratorium now has no expiration period other than the end of the “Local Emergency Period,” whenever that may be declared by the Mayor of Los Angeles. As finally enacted by the Los Angeles City Council, Ordinance No. 20-0147-S19 extends, for residential tenants, the time to pay back rent to twelve months after the Mayor declares an end of the Local Emergency Period. Commercial tenants have the same protections, but only three months to pay the accrued back rent after the end of the Local Emergency Period.

But wait, there’s more. Recall that the state modification of the unlawful detainer notice requirement does not have a clear expiration date. If it is determined to extend past May 31, 2020, the state order will continue to allow 65 days for a tenant to respond to an unlawful detainer eviction lawsuit, if the nonpayment was due to COVID-19 related reasons. That effectively extends for another two months the tenant’s ability to not pay rent and yet retain possession of the property.

Despite the complexity of the many jurisdictions’ overlapping orders, at present all tenants remain obligated to pay all lawfully charged rent. So tenants who maximize their withholding of rent will build up a huge debt of unpaid rent, and eventual eviction will become much more likely. For all concerned, it is best for landlords and tenants to work cooperatively to agree on a payment plan, including partial payments and deadlines. These agreements should be committed to at least informal writings in case they are needed as evidence. Landlords should be careful to specify in any writing that these are temporary agreements that are a consequence of the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government orders, that the rent is not waived or reduced but rather delayed, and that the subject lease agreement is not modified or otherwise affected by the rent timing concession.

Lastly, it is very possible that the moratoriums will be extended if stay-at-home orders and workforce reductions continue, which could cause significant concerns for property owners who have mortgage payments due. Many lenders have instituted some kind of mortgage payment delay option – but caution is advisable because they too have pitfalls. Some jurisdictions have enacted limited moratoriums on mortgage payments, so it is advisable to investigate those for your areas and speak with lenders regarding mortgages. And stay tuned as popular pressure builds for new laws to provide some form of mortgage and rent forgiveness.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay abreast of Coronavirus-related issues affecting business clients, including their landlord-tenant relations. CK&E has published blogs about the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), and other governmental COVID-19 responses that may be useful resources for income replacement, for the benefit of both tenants and landlords.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

CARES Act Update: Application for Paycheck Protection Program Loans And Guidelines Available Here

Posted by:

We recently blogged about the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”), and the tax free gifts it can provide to careful employers. On March 31, 2020, the U.S. Treasury Department published the Application Form for PPP loans, available here. The Application is short – just two pages.

The Application requires some basic information about the business applying for the PPP loan, including certifications that the loan is necessary to address economic uncertainty in the current circumstances, and that the loan proceeds will be used for payroll, rent and utility payments. The Application invites the borrower to insert its own calculation of its average monthly payroll, which should be calculated pursuant to the limitations noted in our prior blog post, including: (1) for most businesses, calculating payroll for the one-year period prior to the date on which the loan is made; and (2) excluding costs over $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee. Borrowers should calculate payroll cost to include salaries, tips, payment for vacation or sick leave, health insurance premiums, retirement benefits and state and local payroll taxes. The Application notes that documentation of payroll costs will be required, but is not specific about what kind of documentation will be required or when it must be submitted.

The Treasury Department has also just published an Information Sheet for PPP Borrowers with important information, available here. The guidelines indicate that only 25 percent of the amount forgiven may consist of costs other than payroll costs (e.g., rent, utilities, etc.), which is a limitation not expressly stated in the CARES Act. Other notable points from the Treasury Department’s Information Sheet are:
• Loan applications for businesses and sole proprietorships will be available beginning April 3, 2020
• Loan applications for independent contractors and self-employed individuals will be available beginning April 10, 2020
• All payments will be deferred for 6 months
• The interest rate for PPP loans will be a fixed rate of 0.50%, and will accrue during the deferral period of the loan
• The loan term is two years.

[Despite the Treasury’s published Information Sheet, on April 2, 2020 U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announced that the interest rate would be changed to 1% to help small banks. Further changes may arise, so check all loan terms carefully.]

We expect that more specific guidance about the PPP loan application process will be forthcoming over the next few days. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay updated on legal events affecting businesses trying to manage the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic. We will update our blog as more developments occur.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

U.S. CARES Act: PPP Loans Provide Gifts for Careful Employers

Posted by:

The U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act passed on March 27, 2020, and signed into law by President Trump on March 28, 2020, aims to address some of the economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis. The entire act is a $2 Trillion economic stimulus package – the largest ever. Aside from the well-publicized $1,200 per person payments, the CARES Act provides hundreds of billions of dollars for large and small businesses, state and local governments and public health.

Rather than try to summarize the entire CARES Act, we’d like to focus on what many of our clients should pay attention to first: The $349 billion loan fund for small businesses called the “Paycheck Protection Program” (“PPP”) administered by the Small Business Administration. The PPP is designed to be a huge tax-free gift to employers, provided that the employers are careful about how they use it.

The basic points for PPP loans under the CARES Act are:

  1. PPP loans are available to businesses with fewer than 500 employees, as well as 501(c)(3) non-profits, sole-proprietors, independent contractors and other self-employed individuals, so long as the business was operational and had paid employees on February 15, 2020. Some businesses with multiple locations, each having less than 500 employees, may also qualify (but generally, this is limited to hospitality businesses with a primary NAICS code starting with “72” – Accommodation and Food Service).
  2. Borrowers must make a good faith certification that the PPP loan is necessary due to the uncertainty of the current economic conditions caused by COVID-19.
  3. PPP loans will be issued through regular lenders who already handle SBA loans, in addition to new lenders electing to provide PPP loans. Your regular bank is likely to offer PPP loans.
  4. The amount of the PPP loan is at the borrower’s choice, but the maximum amount of a PPP loan is 2.5 times the business’ average monthly payroll expenses for the past year, up to $10 million.
  5. Most of the usual “red tape” for SBA loans has been waived, including determinations of borrower eligibility and creditworthiness. PPP loans are non-recourse, and require no personal guarantees. There are no fees, a maximum interest rate of 4%, and all payments are deferred for 6-12 months.
  6. PPP loans can be used for:
    a. “Payroll Costs” including salaries, vacation and sick leave, health insurance, retirement benefits, and state and local payroll taxes. But “Payroll Costs” does not include compensation for an employee’s annual salary in excess of $100,000. There is some uncertainty about this limitation, but indications are that for highly compensated individuals the first $100,000 in salary can be paid with PPP loan funds.
    b. Rent.
    c. Utilities.
    d. Interest on any debt obligations incurred before February 15, 2020.
  7. The total amount of the PPP loan funds that are used for these approved categories within the eight-week period following loan origination would be forgiven, and the forgiven amount is not taxable. In effect, the PPP loan turns into a tax free grant to the extent that it was used for the approved purposes.
  8. Businesses may elect to use PPP loan funds for other purposes not within the approved categories, but funds spent for “non-approved” uses will not be forgiven and the loan must be repaid with interest.
  9. There is an additional important condition that the PPP borrower must maintain the same number of full time employees, and cannot reduce salaries more than 25%, through June 2020. Otherwise portions of the PPP loan may not be forgiven. If the borrower terminated employees or made salary reductions greater than 25% between February 15, 2020 and April 26, 2020, as long as the employer hires back the same number of employees and restores salaries to sufficient levels by June 30, 2020, the PPP loan funds used for approved purposes will still be forgiven.
  10. One further cautionary note is that borrowers receiving a PPP loan are not be eligible for several of the other tax credits, refunds or deferrals available under the CARES Act, so consulting a tax professional about the value of those benefits to particular businesses would be advisable.

The PPP loan portion of the CARES Act is plainly designed to stem the layoffs and furloughs that have been rampant in the wake of the economic seizure that has been imposed by federal, state and local governments’ “stay at home” guidelines and orders intended to stem the COVID-19 outbreak. This can benefit both employees and employers who need to adapt their businesses to the unsettled conditions in which we find ourselves.

Business owners – from sole proprietors to employers of 499 employees (and some with more) should explore very seriously, very quickly, the virtual giveaway that the PPP loan program represents. If taken, PPP loans demand some care in documenting use of funds to assure compliance with the terms required to be granted forgiveness of the loan and receive the tax-free gift from the U.S. government.

Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys stay attuned to legal developments and the opportunities they create for our business clients. The CARES Act is a big opportunity that should be carefully considered and acted upon promptly.

June 18, 2020 Update: PPP funds remain undistributed, and PPP Loan Applications are currently due by June 30, 2020. See our updated blog posts concerning further developments in the PPP program:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

More “Essential” Changes for Personal Care Products Businesses

Posted by:

On March 18, Conkle, Kremer & Engel first published an alert about the first California city and county stay-at-home orders and their “essential” business exceptions. And on March 20, CK&E updated that blog post to assess the effects of California’s March 19, 2020 statewide “stay at home” Order. But that “California State Order” was vague as to what particular businesses qualify as “essential” to be able to remain in operation at their facilities, and how its terms interacted with the city and county orders also in effect. On March 22, 2020, the California State Public Health Officer responded to the confusion by releasing a “Guidance” list of particular types of businesses that are considered “Essential Workforce” and are permitted to continue to operate at their facilities during the Coronavirus pandemic. Despite the head-spinning changes in the past several days, the California’s State Guidance list at least provides some measure of certainty – and hope – for the personal care products industry.

There are several provisions in the Guidance that appear to permit personal care products manufacturers and sellers to continue to operate, at least in particular ways: There are express exceptions for:

  • “personal care/hygiene products”
  • “cleaning [and] sanitizing supplies”
  • “services that are necessary to maintain the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences”
  • “support required for cleaning personnel”
  • “manufacturing [and] distribution facilities [for] consumer goods, including hand sanitizers”
  • “workers supporting the production of protective cleaning solutions”
  • as well as other general references to “sanitation” and “consumer products”

Taken together, these exceptions in the California State Order Guidance make reasonably clear that personal care products that are functional for hygiene should be among the types of products that are essential during a period when cleanliness is potentially life-saving.

While the California State Order Guidance does not include specific reference to “non-hygienic” cosmetic products, the California State Order itself refers to the Department of Homeland Security’s materials on the nation’s “Critical Infrastructure Workforce.” Among those materials, there are specific references to “soap, detergents, toothpaste, hair and skin care products, cosmetics, and perfume” in the Chemical Sector-Specific Plan (see Section A3.5) and the Chemical Sector Profile). For now, based on these materials and barring further developments, businesses appear to be permitted to continue making all personal care products, whether “hygienic” or not.

However, some caution is advisable because enforcement officials could nonetheless decide to distinguish between “hygiene”-related products (such as soaps, shampoos, cleansers and washes, body lotions, and skin creams) and products that are not as “hygiene”-oriented (like hair coloring products, nail polishes, fragrances, and cosmetics). It appears those businesses that can plan to potentially pivot to producing a larger proportion of “hygienic” products may have greater success in remaining open as the situation evolves. Having readily available concise documentation summarizing the “hygiene” products that your company is manufacturing could be helpful if you or your employees receive government inquiries. Of course, if ordered by a government agency to stop production, it is advisable to stop immediately and seek legal guidance – it is not advisable to disregard a direct government order of any kind.

As a final point, the Los Angeles County Order was also updated, and there is now a clear mandate closing barber shops and salons in Los Angeles County, which under previous versions of the order were permitted to operate as essential businesses. We know that this will create tremendous personal hardships for stylists and salon owners, and we are sorry to have to report this development. But however unfortunate this is for the stylists and salon owners (as well as customers, distributors and manufacturers), this development in itself does not alter our broader view that California currently allows continued production and sale of personal care products.

CK&E will continue to monitor developments important to our clients, in the personal care products industry and otherwise, during these uncertain and fast-changing circumstances. Our goal is to help clients continue their business in safe and socially responsible ways, within the bounds of the law as it evolves to meet the challenges of this coronavirus crisis.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

Can Coronavirus be a Force Majeure to Excuse Contract Performance?

Posted by:

Businesses dealing with Coronavirus developments are suddenly faced with many pressing concerns, from whether they will be allowed to continue to operate, to employee relations and supply and delivery issues. One question that may become urgent is: What are the effects of Coronavirus and COVID-19 events on your business’ existing contracts? Can you cancel that big product order you placed, when government closure orders or other disruptions will make it difficult for you to sell it? Can you be forced to deliver products when you can no longer get the ingredients due to supply chain disruptions? Who bears those risks?

First, Does Your Contract Have a Force Majeure Clause?

All contracts are in some ways a method of allocating risks between the parties. Many (but not all) contracts contain what is commonly called a force majeure clause. These clauses explain what will happen when an unexpected and uncontrollable event disrupts performance of contractual obligations. Such a force majeure event is sometimes loosely referred to as an “Act of God,” but it is more accurately an unanticipated event that the parties could not have controlled. A key element is that the parties could not have reasonably anticipated the event at the time of contracting. As a result, the contract date becomes an important consideration: In a force majeure analysis, a contract entered into during March 2020 may well be treated differently than one entered into in March 2019.

Next, Read and Comply with the Requirements of the Force Majeure Clause

The primary purpose of a force majeure clause is to allocate the risk of such unanticipated events – effectively excusing one party’s failure to perform a contractual obligation due to such an event. It is regarded as a term that is negotiable between the parties, like price or delivery time. Whether the parties have any force majeure clause, and its specific terms, will vary from contract to contract. So it is essential to read your contracts carefully and be sure to comply with their terms.

If a contract has a force majeure clause, the first question that will arise is what kind of event can trigger it? Common events identified may be floods, earthquakes, wars and terrorism. Relatively few force majeure clauses refer to “pandemic,” “epidemic” or “state of emergency,” which seem most applicable here. But some may, and others may include events that result from such occurrences, such as “government action or order.” Others may refer to inability to obtain supplies, which could also be triggered by worldwide Coronavirus effects. And some may just generally refer to “force majeure” without identifying any specific event, or include a “catch all” term of some kind. Courts tend to apply such non-specific force majeure terms narrowly, so it is important to read and understand your specific contract and how its terms are likely to be applied.

Many force majeure terms include written notice requirements. Strict compliance with such notice requirements is often required, including giving written notice of inability to perform the contract within a specified time after the unanticipated event. Here, the Coronavirus pandemic and its effects, such as new government orders, may be viewed as a series of events that have varying effects – whether any one or more triggers the required notice will depend heavily on the contract terms and the specific circumstances.

The decision about whether and when to give the required notice can be daunting: Giving notice too early may itself be a breach of the contract – an anticipatory repudiation in legal terminology – but giving notice too late may waive the force majeure excuse. In many instances, it may be advisable to have communications with the other side about the issues, without formally giving notice.

Then, Give Consideration to the Controlling Law

Another important consideration is what jurisdiction’s laws control the contract. Many contracts include an agreement on which state or country’s law will control. But when the contract does not include such an agreement, it may become a fact question driven largely by where the parties were located, where the contract was made and where the performance was required.

The law of the controlling jurisdiction can be very important because states differ in what they require to apply a force majeure excuse for non-performance. California, for example, invokes a standard of “commercially impracticability,” which is more flexible than the standards of many other states. Some states require that actual impossibility be shown. All states require some showing of causation – meaning that the alleged disruption in fact was a cause of the inability to perform. But some states require that the force majeure be shown to be the sole cause of the inability to perform, and not just one among many causes.

Some states, including California, require substantial effort to mitigate the disruption (meaning, taking all reasonable alternative measures to eliminate or limit the effects of the force majeure), but other states are less demanding of mitigation efforts. For example, if the seller has unanticipated problems getting expected supplies of required ingredients, a court may require that the seller seek other more expensive supplies, or may even require that the seller take legal action against its suppliers. Courts may also require partial performance, if the unanticipated disruption does not preclude all performance.

Be Judicious in Your Use of the Force Majeure Clause

In all instances, the focus will be on the event that caused the disruption, not on the disruption itself. Just showing that performance has become more costly, difficult or inconvenient will not usually suffice to establish a force majeure. Courts may assume that the parties allocated ordinary risks of post-contract changes in costs and profitability, although contract terms can set different standards that could control this assessment.

Business managers should readily see that a contract’s force majeure clause can be a powerful tool in this Coronavirus emergency, but it can be double-edged if not wielded carefully. Managers may also have to face the difficult position of being on both sides of this issue – on the one hand, dealing with a business partner that is unable to perform a contractual obligation, and on the other hand, being unable to perform yourself. Conkle, Kremer & Engel attorneys routinely help clients with complex business matters, including contract terminations and force majeure disputes. In our next blog post on this subject, we will turn to what happens when your contract did not include any force majeure clause. In California, as in many states, the Uniform Commercial Code or other doctrines of Impossibility of Performance and Frustration of Purpose can come into play.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0
Page 1 of 4 1234