CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Safe Harbor’

Finding Shelter from the Storm: SBA Issues New Guidance on Safe Harbors for PPP Borrowers

Posted on: May 20th, 2020

By: Anastasia Osbrink

The safe harbor period for businesses that received the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans expired on May 18, 2020 after a 4-day automatic extension. That safe harbor provided that businesses that repaid loans by that date would automatically be deemed to have satisfied the “good faith” requirement of the PPP wherein borrowers certified that “current economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” This safe harbor arose after reports of large businesses, such as Shake Shack and the NBA, receiving loans under the program. Under normal circumstances, a business must provide documentation of making unsuccessful attempts to obtain loans from other sources prior to receiving an SBA loan. However, the PPP required self-certifications of good faith and eligibility without requesting separate documentation. The purpose of this was to quickly get an injection of cash into the economy – particularly to small businesses – so that companies could retain and rehire employees. When it came out that large companies were also receiving these loans, a public outcry ensued and the SBA provided additional guidance allowing for this safe harbor period so that large businesses would be encouraged to repay loans without facing any further investigation, audits, or consequences based on the “good faith” certification. Many of these larger businesses may still satisfy the “good faith” requirement, but making quick repayments creates good optics for these companies and eliminates further audits based on this certification.

Now, in a further effort to conserve resources and protect small business’ payroll capacities, the SBA has announced an additional safe harbor. This second safe harbor provides for an automatic assumption of good faith for any borrower that, along with its affiliates, received under $2 million in PPP loans, regardless of whether that loan was repaid by May 18, 2020. This means that audits for good faith will only be conducted for companies that received over $2 million and did not repay that loan by May 18th. The SBA cited three reasons for this additional safe harbor: 1)  borrowers that received under $2 million are more likely to satisfy the “good faith” requirement because they are less likely to have had access to other loan sources; 2) it will help promote economic stability by helping small businesses retain and rehire employees that otherwise may not have the ability to do so; and 3) it will enable the SBA to conserve resources by only investigating and auditing those companies that received bigger loans, which could yield larger returns if successful. It should be noted, though, that neither of these safe harbors apply to other requirements, such as the eligibility certification, or outright false statements or fraud. However, except where there is evidence of actual fraud, it appears that companies that fall into one of the safe harbors are unlikely to be audited.

It also seems that the SBA is less focused on punishment and more focused on recouping loans that did not satisfy the good faith requirement. That is because the SBA additionally stated that if it does determine a company failed to satisfy the good faith requirement after being audited, the company will not face any further action or fines if it repays the loan in full. This though, again, does not apply to determinations of actual fraud.

As the focus shifts to larger companies and the safe harbor for these larger loans expires, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is ramping up its investigations of public companies that received PPP loans. The SEC is seeking information from several of these public companies in order to ascertain whether they satisfied the PPP requirements. As part of this sweeping probe, the SEC is sending out letters to these public companies entitled “In the Matter of Certain Paycheck Protection Program Loan Recipients,” in which it requests additional information and documentation. This again demonstrates the focus of audits and investigations on large companies that received significant loans rather than on small businesses.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Anastasia Osbrink at [email protected].

Additional Information:

The FMG Coronavirus Task Team will be conducting a series of webinars on Coronavirus issues on a regular basis.  Click here to view upcoming webinars.

FMG has formed a Coronavirus Task Force to provide up-to-the-minute information, strategic advice, and practical solutions for our clients.  Our group is an interdisciplinary team of attorneys who can address the multitude of legal issues arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, including issues related to Healthcare, Product Liability, Tort Liability, Data Privacy, and Cyber and Local Governments.  For more information about the Task Force, click here.

You can also contact your FMG relationship partner or email the team with any questions at [email protected].

**DISCLAIMER:  The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP (“FMG”) have been working hard to produce educational content to address issues arising from the concern over COVID-19.  The webinars and our written material have produced many questions. Some we have been able to answer, but many we cannot without a specific legal engagement.  We can only give legal advice to clients.  Please be aware that your attendance at one of our webinars or receipt of our written material does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and FMG.  An attorney-client relationship will not exist unless and until an FMG partner expressly and explicitly states IN WRITING that FMG will undertake an attorney-client relationship with you, after ascertaining that the firm does not have any legal conflicts of interest.  As a result, you should not transmit any personal or confidential information to FMG unless we have entered into a formal written agreement with you.  We will continue to produce education content for the public, but we must point out that none of our webinars, articles, blog posts, or other similar material constitutes legal advice, does not create an attorney client relationship and you cannot rely on it as such.  We hope you will continue to take advantage of the conferences and materials that may pertain to your work or interests.**

Office of Inspector General Approves Warranty Program for Medical Device Manufacturer

Posted on: November 5th, 2018

By: Ali Sabzevari

The Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General recently approved a medical device manufacturer’s proposed warranty program, which provides a refund to the hospital at which a patient underwent joint replacement surgery using the manufacturer’s knee or hip implant and related products, if the patient was readmitted within 90 days because of a surgical site infection or need for implant replacement surgery. The proposed model could serve as a road map for these kinds of risk sharing arrangements.

Advisory Opinion No. 18-10, which can be accessed here, set forth that although the suggested warranty implicates the safe harbor regulations to the anti-kickback statute, 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952, the “Proposed Arrangement poses a sufficiently low risk of fraud and abuse under the anti-kickback statute.”

The anti-kickback statute makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully offer, pay, solicit, or receive any remuneration to induce or reward referrals of items or services reimbursable by a Federal health care program. See section 1128B(b) of the Act. Where remuneration is paid purposefully to induce or reward referrals of items or services payable by a Federal health care program, the anti-kickback statute is violated. By its terms, the statute ascribes criminal liability to parties on both sides of an impermissible “kickback” transaction. For purposes of the anti-kickback statute, “remuneration” includes the transfer of anything of value, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind. The statute has been interpreted by several federal courts to cover any arrangement where one purpose of the remuneration was to obtain money for the referral of services or to induce further referrals.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has promulgated safe harbor regulations that define practices that are not subject to the anti-kickback statute because such practices would be unlikely to result in fraud or abuse. See 42 C.F.R. § 1001.952. The safe harbors set forth specific conditions that, if met, assure entities involved of not being prosecuted or sanctioned for the arrangement qualifying for the safe harbor. However, safe harbor protection is afforded only to those arrangements that precisely meet all of the conditions set forth in the safe harbor.

The Advisory Opinion concludes that the Proposed Arrangement would not generate prohibited remuneration under the anti-kickback statute. Value-based care and risk sharing models continue to gain appeal, and the Office’s approval of this warranty program shows that the era of value-based care is here to stay.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Ali Sabzevari at [email protected].

A National “Safe Harbor” to Reduce the Cost of Defensive Medicine?

Posted on: June 18th, 2013

By: Michael Eshman 

The Center for American Progress recently proposed a “safe harbor” in medical malpractice litigation to reduce the cost of defensive medicine.  The essential component of the “safe harbor” plan is the creation of clinical-practice guidelines on a national level, ideally through physician organizations – such as the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists.  Under this system, the national guidelines would be presumed to establish the legal standard of care and create a “safe harbor” from medical malpractice for physicians who can show that they followed the guidelines.  The idea being that, with national guidelines that establish the presumptive legal standard of care, physicians hoping to avoid suit will follow the national guidelines rather than practicing defensive medicine – the ordering of excessive and unnecessary medical tests, procedures, or further consultations.

Though the proposal cites an Oregon study that estimated the implementation of a “safe harbor” could save 5% in medical liability costs in Oregon and could resolve 10% of claims more quickly, the value of a national “safe harbor” as a means of reducing the cost of medical malpractice liability is unclear.  A claimant could still support a medical malpractice claim with evidence that the guidelines are not applicable to the specific situation or that a physician did not actually follow the guidelines.

Other proposals to reduce the cost of medical malpractice liability include capping the amount of damages that may be awarded in medical malpractice suits, which has been found unconstitutional in Georgia, and the adoption of the worker’s compensation model for medical malpractice claims.  Either the capping of damages or the adoption of a worker’s compensation model would likely go further in reducing medical malpractice liability costs for medical providers.  However, both methods raise significant legal and constitutional questions.

What are your thoughts on the Center for American Progress proposal and other possible methods of reducing the cost of medical malpractice claims and reducing the cost of defensive medicine?