June 26, 2022

Volume XII, Number 177


June 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

SEC Enforcement Expanding Efforts Regarding Coronavirus Impacts

As we described several weeks ago, the SEC across the agency is going to be vigilant in its efforts to regulate, examine and enforce the federal securities laws regarding coronavirus/COVID-19. More recently, the SEC Division of Enforcement (“SEC Enforcement”) has stepped to the forefront of these efforts. 

SEC Enforcement Initiative, and SEC Investment Management and FINRA Guidance

Last week, SEC Enforcement appeared to initiate a “sweep” of public companies that borrowed money under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) —the $669 billion SBA forgivable loan program established by the CARES Act. Specifically, SEC Enforcement is sending voluntary inquiries requesting information regarding the companies’ eligibility to receive PPP loans, including COVID-19’s impact on the business. Eligibility for a PPP loan is based in part on certifying in good faith that “[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes th[e] loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Importantly, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has recently published FAQ guidance creating a safe harbor regarding the evaluation of this certification. In Question 46, the guidance states that “[a]ny borrower that, together with its affiliates, received PPP loans with an original principal amount of less than $2 million will be deemed to have made the required certification concerning the necessity of the loan request in good faith.” Apart from PPP eligibility issues, SEC Enforcement presumably will review the companies’ MD&A and risk factor disclosures concerning COVID-19’s impact on their business operations and financial condition.

SEC Enforcement’s PPP loan investigation appears to be focused on public companies, but the SEC is also monitoring registrants who received PPP loans. The agency’s Division of Investment Management recently updated FAQ guidance stating in Question II.4 that registered investment advisors taking PPP loans should consider whether such loans require disclosure in amendments to Forms ADV if the circumstances leading to seeking a PPP loan or other financial assistance “constitute material facts relating to [the] advisory relationship with clients.” The SEC does not specify what constitutes “material” in this context. However, the guidance states that “[i]f for instance, you require such assistance to pay the salaries of your employees who are primarily responsible for performing advisory functions for your clients, it is the staff’s view that you would need to disclose this fact.” The guidance further notes that “[i]f your firm is experiencing conditions that are reasonably likely to impair its ability to meet contractual commitments to its clients, you may be required to disclose this financial condition.” Faegre Drinker previously covered this FAQ guidance in greater detail. 

Regarding broker-dealers, FINRA previously addressed its member’s obligations regarding PPP loans in FAQ guidance. These FAQs asked, “[i]f a registered person or a business they control obtains a PPP loan and the loan or part of the loan is forgiven, will the registered person be required to report that forgiveness in response to Question 14K on their Form U4 as a ‘compromise with a creditor?’” FINRA responded: “No, provided the PPP loan or part of the loan is forgiven consistent with the original terms.”

The SEC’s broad position on disclosure, and even FINRA’s more narrow guidance, is causing vexation within the industry as it is perceived as running counter to the purpose of a PPP loan, which assists registrants to stay in business, thus furthering—not impairing—their ability to meet their commitments to clients. Some observers have noted that the SEC’s position has prompted worries that disclosure will constitute a form of “PPP shaming.” Nevertheless, investment advisors should follow the SEC’s guidance on disclosure.

SEC Enforcement Announces Coronavirus Steering Committee Priorities

On May 12, 2020, Steven Peikin, Co-Director of SEC Enforcement, delivered a speech outlining the priorities of the SEC Enforcement’s Coronavirus Steering Committee, which is tasked with coordinating SEC Enforcement’s response to coronavirus-related enforcement issues. The priorities include:

  • The escalation of microcap fraud related to specious claims of treatments or pandemic-related capabilities;

  • Insider trading and market manipulation associated with increased volatility and a steady stream of market-moving announcements by issuers;
  • Corporate disclosure and accounting fraud, particularly in highly impacted industries—either from the financial stresses of the current downturn exposing pre-existing accounting or disclosure improprieties or from issuers making improper disclosures, impairments, or valuations related to the effects of the current pandemic;
  • Investment advisor and investment company misconduct, such as failure to honor redemption requests indicating underlying issues, or improper marketing and sale of complex-structured products to retail investors.

Given SEC Enforcement’s heightened vigilance and the numerous economic risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, companies and firms should assess and continue to monitor the novel risks presented, their policies, procedures, and controls, and their disclosures to clients. If warranted, companies and firms should consult with experienced counsel to obtain assistance regarding strategically maneuvering through this complicated and unforeseen regulatory environment.

© 2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 139

About this Author

James G. Lundy, Drinker Biddle, regulatory investigations lawyer, financial services compliance attorney

James G. Lundy represents clients in Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), self-regulatory organization, and other financial regulatory agency investigations and examinations, and compliance and governance counseling, white collar criminal investigations, and complex business litigation.

With 12 years of senior SEC experience and more than two years of in-house experience at a futures and securities brokerage firm, Jim has developed an in-depth working knowledge of the various...

Michael R. MacPhail Partner Denver Litigation White Collar Crime

Michael MacPhail defends clients against federal and state government agencies during civil and criminal investigations and litigation, primarily involving the securities industry. He represents public companies, registered investment advisers and broker-dealers.

Securities Litigation

Michael handles investigations and litigation by securities regulators including:

  • The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

  • The FINRA

  • The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)

  • The Colorado Division of...

Isaac Smith Associate Denver Corporate Group Litigation Product Liability and Mass Torts

Isaac Smith represents clients through all stages of complex litigation in both state and federal courts throughout the country. He has assisted in the representation of clients on a wide variety of matters, including contract, class actions, products liability, insurance and business torts.

Isaac also advises and defends clients in prosecutions and investigations involving federal and state agencies. He has experience representing clients on matters involving federal and state securities laws, the False Claims Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money-laundering laws, and criminal...