.

Client Alert

Does My Business Qualify for Federal Funding under the CARES Act?

April 1, 2020

by Michael R. Mills and Kenneth Logsdon

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Updated April 21, 2020

What small business owners need to know

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act” or “Stimulus Act”), signed into law on March 27, 2020, includes a program administered through the Small Business Administration (SBA) that will assist small businesses, non-profits, and other concerns that have reduced staff, missed payroll, or are simply struggling to make payroll in response to COVID-19 (known as the Paycheck Protection Program).

Generally, the Stimulus Act will provide up to $10 million in federal assistance to eligible businesses to pay for a wide range of business expenses incurred through June 30, 2020, without the usual collateral or personal guarantee requirements.  For businesses that retain their employees and hold salaries steady during this time, the federal assistance may be forgiven in its entirety.  Apply for this loan program through your local bank or credit union—most will be authorized to facilitate these loans.

Below are the questions that small business owners should consider when determining whether their business qualifies for federal assistance under the Stimulus Act, and a hypothetical applying the legislation as drafted.  A more detailed list of the requirements of the Paycheck Protection Program as set forth in the Stimulus Act may be found here.

Note: Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Treasury and the SBA, and local lenders are continuing to promulgate rules, regulations, and guidelines further refining and providing guidance on the Stimulus Act.  Given the fluid and dynamic regulatory landscape at the time of publication, businesses should consult their counsel and local lenders for any additional rules or regulations that may impact their business decisions related to the Paycheck Protection Program.  We hope that this article will help you craft an overall loan strategy.

1. Is my business eligible for federal assistance through the SBA loan program (administered by your local bank or credit union)?

For your business to be eligible for federal assistance through the SBA loan program, your business must be the right size and have been in operation at the right time.

Is my business the right size?

Otherwise eligible businesses that employ less than 500 employees and, as of February 15, 2020, was in existence and had employees will qualify.

Nonetheless, if a business has more than 500 employees, it may still qualify for federal assistance under the Stimulus Act as a “small business concern.”  Specifically, the SBA determines whether a business is a “small business concern” using either its total number of employees or its annual receipts.  These standards can vary by industry, so it is important to check the specific rule that applies to your business, but “[m]ost manufacturing companies with 500 employees or fewer, and most non-manufacturing businesses with average annual receipts under $7.5 million, will qualify as a small business.”1

Regardless, a business the employs less than 500 employees and was in operation with at least one employee as of February 15, 2020 is eligible to receive federal assistance under the Stimulus Act.  Importantly, the business’s legal form can be a limited liability company, a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, non-profit, or tribal entity.

Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) that are eligible under the SBA’s Section 8(a) business development program are eligible to receive federal assistance under the Stimulus Act.  ANCs that are not Section 8(a) eligible – such as non-profits – may still be eligible if they employ no more than 500 employees or if they otherwise satisfy the requirements for a “small business concern.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a business concern (excluding non-profits) described under 13 CFR §120.110 remain ineligible. Such concerns include financial businesses primarily engaged in the business of lending, life insurance companies, businesses located in a foreign country (businesses in the U.S. owned by aliens may qualify), pyramid sale distribution plans, businesses engaged in any illegal activity among others.

Was my business in operation at the right time?

The business must have been in operation on February 15, 2020, and had employees for whom the business paid wages or salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors as of that date.

2. How much federal assistance can I ask for?

The amount of federal assistance that your business may be eligible for is based on a calculation tied to your business’s payroll costs, and cannot exceed $10 million.  Generally, the SBA will average your payroll costs over the 12 month period before the loan application is made and multiply that monthly average by 2.5.  However, you do not need to borrow the maximum amount.

The intent of the Stimulus Act is to provide a loan that will cover your payroll expenses for about 8 weeks, but it can be used for other qualifying expenses (as further discussed below).  To qualify for a loan, you will need to certify that your business needs financial assistance for ongoing operations in light of COVID-19 disruptions and acknowledge that the loan proceeds you receive from the Stimulus Act will be used to retain workers, maintain payroll or pay other permitted expenses.

What if my business ramps up during the summer tourist season?

If you are a seasonal employer (as determined by the SBA), the SBA will average your payroll from, at the election of the business, February 15, 2019 or March 1, 2019 and, in either case, ending June 30, 2019, and multiply that monthly average by 2.5.

If your business ramps up during the summer tourist season, you may want to elect to have the SBA use your March 1 through June 30, 2019, payroll numbers because it will likely result in a higher average, and thus a higher potential loan amount for your business.

3. Will I have to provide a personal guarantee or collateral for the federal assistance I receive?

No.  A business seeking federal assistance through the SBA under the Stimulus Act will not have to provide a personal guarantee or collateral for the loan.  This usual requirement for receiving loans through the SBA has been waived by the Stimulus Act.

Similarly, the usual SBA requirement that businesses demonstrate that they cannot obtain credit elsewhere before seeking a loan from the SBA and the application fee for seeking SBA assistance have been waived.

4. How can I use the federal assistance I receive?

You can use the Stimulus Act loan to pay for the following business expenses incurred from February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020:

  1. Payroll costs
  2. Rent (including rent under a lease agreement)
  3. Utilities
  4. Payments of interest on any mortgage obligation (but this cannot be used toward the payment of any principal on a mortgage obligation)
  5. Costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits, including insurance premiums and the costs of paid sick leave, medical leave, or family leave, and insurance premiums
  6. Employee compensation (wages, salaries, commissions, or similar)
  7. Interest on any other debt obligations incurred prior to February 15, 2020

If you cannot use the entirety of the loan for eligible expenses incurred on or before June 30, 2020 or if you do not use the loan for forgivable expenses (as further explained below), the remainder becomes a loan with a maximum maturity date of 10 years (unless shortened by additional rules or regulations promulgated by federal agencies) with an interest rate not to exceed 4%.2  The Stimulus Act requires that payments on the principal, interest, and fees on the loan be made on a monthly basis but are deferred for at least 6 months, and up to 1 year, at the discretion of the lenders.

5. Will I have to pay back the federal assistance I receive?

It depends.  The intent of the Stimulus Act is to forgive a portion or all of the loan where businesses have retained their employees and maintained wage levels.  However, the loan forgiveness analysis and calculation is complicated.

My business has retained its employees and maintained wages – how much of my loan can be forgiven?

For businesses that have retained their employees and maintained wages, the loan – up to the principal amount – may be forgiven in the amount equal to certain business expenses incurred and paid in the eight weeks following the disbursement of the loan (the “Forgiveness Expenses Period”).  Those qualifying business expenses are:

  1. Payroll costs (including salaries, wages, commissions, or similar compensation)
  2. Rent (obligated under a rental/leasing agreement in force before February 15, 2020)
  3. Utilities for a service for the distribution of electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone, or internet access for which the service began before February 15, 2020
  4. Interest on any mortgage obligation (obligated under a debt instrument for a mortgage on real or personal property incurred before February 15, 2020), but not the payment of any principal on a mortgage obligation

It is important to note that, although you are permitted to use the loan toward a variety of business expenses, only some of those expenses qualify for loan forgiveness.  Therefore, there is a difference between eligible expenses and eligible forgivable expenses.

Another important distinction to note is that eligible forgivable expenses must be incurred and paid in the eight weeks following the disbursement of the loan.  The loan can also be used toward eligible expenses that are incurred from February 15 through June 30 (rather than just the eight weeks following the disbursement of the loan); however, these expenses would not qualify for loan forgiveness.

My business has had to reduce the number of its employees – can my loan still be forgiven?

Yes.  If your business laid off employees on or after February 15, 2020, the amount of your loan forgiveness may be reduced.

The SBA calculates whether you have reduced the number of your employees by comparing:

  1. numerator: the average number of full-time employees per month in your employment during the Forgiveness Expenses Period to
  2. denominator:  either (at your option): (a) the average number of full-time employees per month in your employment from January 1, 2020, to February 29, 2020, or (b) the average number of full-time employees per month in your employment from February 15, 2019, to June 30, 2019.

These numbers will form a fraction, which will then be multiplied by the amount of eligible expenses you have paid during the Forgiveness Expenses Period.  In order to obtain the greatest loan forgiveness possible, you will want this fraction to be as close to 1 as possible.

For example, if you employ 90 full-time employees during the Forgiveness Expenses Period, but employed 100 full-time employees during the same period last year, your calculation should look like this:

90 full-time employees per month during Forgiveness  X  qualifying costs   =   90% costs forgiven
100 full-time employees per month Feb. 15-June 30, 2019  

 

If, however, you employed fewer employees in the beginning of 2020 than you did from February to June last year, you would likely want to elect to use the number of employees you had at the beginning of 2020:

90 full-time employees per month during Forgiveness X  qualifying costs   =   94.7% costs forgiven
95 full-time employees per month Jan. 1-Feb. 29, 2020

My business has had to reduce employee salaries – can my loan still be forgiven?

Yes.  If your business has been unable to maintain the salaries of its employees from February 15, 2020, to June 30, 2020, the amount of your loan forgiveness may be reduced.

The amount of the loan forgiveness will be reduced by the amount of any reduction in total salary or wages of any qualifying employee (under $100,000 in annualized wages for any pay period in 2019) of more than 25% of the total salary or wages the employee received during the most recent full quarter during which the employee was employed before February 15, 2020 (presumably Q4 in 2019).

Can I rehire employees or raise salaries to have a greater percentage of my loan forgiven?

Yes.  If, prior to June 30, 2020, you rehire your employees or raise salaries that were previously reduced, you can increase the amount of loan forgiveness.

The SBA will use the number of full-time employees or salaries of the employees your business employed on February 15, 2020, as a baseline.  If you reduce or have reduced the number of full-time employees or salaries of employees between February 15, 2020, and April 26, 2020, you can rehire those employees or raise those salaries to their previous levels by June 30, 2020, without having that brief reduction impact your loan forgiveness calculation. For example, if you had 90 full-time employees on February 15, 2020, and had to let go 60 employees on March 12, 2020, you could rehire some or all of those 60 employees on or before June 30, 2020, without having the brief reduction in payroll negatively impact your loan forgiveness calculation (in other words, the rehired employees are considered to have worked during the Forgiveness Expenses Period so they are included in the “average monthly” employee count).  As previously noted, however, only eligible forgivable expenses incurred and paid during the Forgiveness Expenses Period, may be utilized in the loan forgiveness calculation.

HYPOTHETICAL

ABC LLC had a monthly average of 300 employees for the look-back period chosen by the borrower and a monthly average payroll of $1 million for the 12 month period prior to the loan application.  On March 15, 2020, ABC LLC laid off 250 employees due to COVID-19.

ABC LLC could be eligible for a loan of up to $2.5 million (2.5 x $1 million monthly payroll average).  ABC LLC applies for the full $2.5 million loan, which is funded on May 1, 2020.

Scenario A: Full Forgiveness

ABC LLC applies all $2.5 million toward eligible forgivable expenses incurred and paid from May 1 through June 30, 2020.  These eligible forgivable expenses include $2 million in payroll and $500,000 in rent and utilities.

Because ABC LLC laid off its employees between February 15 and April 26, 2020, it is eligible for loan forgiveness calculated as though it had not laid off its employees if it rehires the employees before June 30, 2020.

Therefore, if ABC LLC hires back all of the employees before June 30, 2020, its entire loan would be forgiven.  This forgiveness calculation would be as follows:

300 (monthly avg. full-time employees during Forgiveness Expenses Period)

 

X

 
 
qualifying costs = 100% forgiven

300 (monthly avg. full-time employees Feb. 15-June 30, 2019)   

 

Because this fraction equals 1, the full loan amount would be forgiven based on the requirements set forth in the Stimulus Act.

Scenario B: Partial Forgiveness 

During the Forgiveness Expenses Period commencing May 1, ABC LLC spends $1 million of its $2.5 million Stimulus Act loan toward eligible forgivable expenses (e.g., payroll costs, rent, and utilities) and $500,000 toward other eligible (but not forgivable) expenses (e.g.,  utility expenses other than for electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or internet).  Although ABC LLC received $2.5 million under the Stimulus Act, it only had $1.5 million in eligible expenses, leaving a remainder of $1 million from the disbursement.

ABC LLC rehires only 85 of its laid-off employees effective on May 1, 2020 (perhaps because the remaining 165 laid-off employees would prefer to stay on the increased unemployment benefits).  With these rehired employees, ABC LLC’s monthly employee average is 135 (50 retain employees plus 85 rehired employees) because ABC LLC is eligible for loan forgiveness calculated as though it had not laid off those employees.  The forgiveness calculation would be:

135 (monthly avg. full-time employees during Forgiveness Expenses Period)

 

X

 

 qualifying costs = 45% forgiven

300 (monthly avg. full-time employees Feb. 15-June 30, 2019)

 

Under these facts and the requirements set forth in the Stimulus Act, the $1 million spent on forgivable expenses would be forgiven at 45% equaling $450,000.  The remaining $550,000 would not be forgiven.  Additionally, the $500,000 spent toward eligible but not forgivable expenses would not be forgiven.

Therefore, the $1,050,000 in non-forgivable expenses ($550,000 plus $500,000) plus the remaining $1,000,000 of the Stimulus Act disbursement, would become a loan for $2,050,000.  The loan would have a maximum maturity date of 10 years (unless shorted by federal agencies’ additional rules or regulations) with an interest rate no higher than 4% interest rate and monthly payments becoming due only after the mandatory minimum 6 month deferral period (which could be extended up to a year at the discretion of the lender).

CONCLUSION

The small business relief provisions of the CARES Act provide small businesses with powerful tools to help them stay in business and maintain employee continuity.  The loan and loan forgiveness programs of the Act, which are currently being refined by additional rules and regulations promulgated by federal agencies, are intended to keep local economies going by providing small businesses with access to low interest funding and potentially broad loan forgiveness provided the money is used for payroll expenses (for current or rehired employees) and other eligible forgivable expenses.


1 Basic Requirements, U.S. Small Business Administration, https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-guide/basic-requirements.
2 For example, the U.S. Treasury disseminated an information sheet for Paycheck Protection Program borrowers which indicates that the maturity of the loan will be 2 years at a fixed interest rate of 1.00%.  However, at the time of publication of this article, it is unclear whether this guidance from the U.S. Treasury is final or will be further revised.

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

News

Dorsey & Whitney Partner Michael W. Droke Releases Fourth Edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide with Enhanced Insights for Today's Cooperatives

Industry-leading reference updated with practical tips and current cooperative law developments Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce the publication of the fourth edition of Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, authored by Dorsey Partner Michael W. Droke. Drawing on more than 20 years of direct experience as outside general counsel to major agricultural and food industry cooperatives, Droke has updated this essential resource with new practical tips, real-world guidance, and insights into emerging cooperative law issues that matter to cooperative leaders and their advisors. Since its initial publication, this comprehensive guide has become the standard reference for attorneys, executives, and cooperative governance professionals navigating the unique legal landscape of cooperative organizations. The new fourth edition builds on that foundation by incorporating practical lessons learned from recent cooperative transactions, governance challenges, and regulatory developments. "I am grateful for Dorsey's continued support of this work and for the opportunity to contribute to the cooperative community," said Droke. "Over the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of serving as outside general counsel to some of the nation's most successful cooperatives. The practical insights gained from that work inform every page of this edition. I wanted to create a resource that helps cooperative leaders and their legal advisors tackle real business challenges with confidence." The Fourth Edition features: Practical tips and real-world case examples drawn from decades of cooperative practice Guidance on cooperative formation, governance, member rights, and voting structures Current analysis of antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act issues affecting modern cooperatives Insights into financing, mergers and acquisitions, and corporate restructuring for cooperatives Member relations strategies and dispute resolution approaches specific to cooperative structures About Michael W. Droke Michael W. Droke is a Partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Firmwide Co-Chair of the Food, Beverage & Agriculture practice group. He serves as outside primary counsel for numerous cooperatives, providing comprehensive legal guidance on all aspects of cooperative operations, governance, member relations, corporate restructuring, financing, and mergers and acquisitions. His representative clients include National Co+op Grocers, Darigold, the Northwest Dairy Association, Organic Family Farms Cooperative, Chelan Fruit Cooperative, and Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. A former business executive who brings a dual perspective to his practice, Droke combines legal expertise with practical business acumen. He has served as an outside board member and general counsel for major cooperatives and maintains deep involvement in the cooperative community through regular presentations and participation in industry organizations including NCBA CLUSA, the National Society of Accountants for Cooperatives, and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. About Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law Practice Dorsey & Whitney's Cooperative Law practice group is a recognized national leader in cooperative law with more than 45 years of experience serving agricultural cooperatives, rural electric cooperatives, purchasing cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and cooperative start-ups across the nation. The practice includes 20 dedicated lawyers who advise cooperatives and other agriculture-related organizations on formation and organization, voting rights and governance, antitrust and Capper-Volstead Act compliance, tax issues, project development and finance, mergers and acquisitions, real estate, labor and employment, environmental compliance, and all other aspects of cooperative business operations. Cooperative Business Law: A Practical Guide to the Special Laws Governing Cooperatives, Fourth Edition, is available from major book retailers and online booksellers.