The Indian government is amending its procurement policy and increasing foreign direct investment in the defense sector, both developments which we believe will be of interest to many of our government contracts clients. India is the second largest arms importer in the world and spends close to two percent of its GDP on defense. In addition, recent border skirmishes with China and Pakistan have heightened the urgency for India to shore up its defense arsenal.

After submission for review and discussion at the 22nd session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the final version of the long-awaited Export Control Law of the PRC was passed and enacted on October 17, 2020, with an effective date of December 1, 2020.

With the passage of time since the first COVID-related lockdowns, many real estate lenders are no longer willing to forbear from collections and modify repayment terms and instead are pivoting to considering, or in fact exercising, their remedies. At this juncture, some borrowers are also asking to “turn in the keys”—particularly in the hardest hit sectors of hospitality and retail. For mortgage lenders, this may mean accelerating the debt and proceeding to a real estate foreclosure of the mortgaged property. For mezzanine lenders, this may mean conducting a UCC foreclosure of the pledged equity. Besides confirming subordination of the mezzanine loan to the mortgage loan, intercreditor agreements (ICAs) address many of the fact patterns described above, along with granting cure rights and purchase rights to the mezzanine lender. These provisions can present both challenges and opportunities.

Since the coronavirus pandemic started, there have been dozens of class actions brought against airlines by passengers seeking refunds and damages for flights cancelled due to COVID-19 and the related travel ban.

Ohio becomes the next state looking to find a balance between opening businesses and protecting business from liability relating to the ongoing pandemic. On September 14, 2020, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed House Bill 606 (“An Act to Grant Immunity to Essential Workers who Transmit COVID-19”), an act establishing two forms of qualified immunity from civil liability for claims relating to the coronavirus crisis and/or similar emergencies. Both houses of the Ohio General Assembly passed the act on September 2, 2020, over the objections of Democrats in the legislature. The Ohio House originally passed a version of the bill in late May, and the Senate passed a revised version of the bill in early June, but the bill languished for two months in the legislature before the House picked up the bill again to resolve differences between the two bills that had passed.

While Washington, D.C. license plates have included the phrase “taxation without representation” since 2000—updated in 2016 to “end taxation without representation”—battling COVID-19 has renewed the call for D.C. statehood.

On August 28, the IRS issued guidance, Notice 2020-65, implementing President Trump’s Executive Order related to the deferral of the employee portion of Social Security taxes. In summary, based on the guidance it appears that employers are not required to permit the deferral, and because of the potential pitfalls and drawbacks described below, employers should consider not deferring any employee’s Social Security taxes absent a compelling reason.

In an April 8, 2020 news release, OSHA reminded employers “it is illegal to retaliate against workers because they report unsafe and unhealthful working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic.” Examples of retaliation include “terminations, demotions, denials of overtime or promotion, or reductions in pay or hours.”

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) closed for new loans on August 8, 2020, though a renewal is currently being negotiated in Congress.1 Regardless of the future of new loans, as PPP borrowers continue through the lifecycle of the program by preparing to apply for loan forgiveness, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has continued to issue important new regulations and guidance that will impact their forgiveness analysis. We summarize below some of these important new developments.

The Absence of a Force Majeure Clause
In common law jurisdictions, force majeure is a creature of contract, meaning that the doctrine cannot be invoked absent an express provision authorizing the parties to do so. Other excuse doctrines, however, exist at the common law—namely impossibility and frustration of purpose. The former doctrine is triggered by the occurrence of a contingency the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made. The latter doctrine is available when a party’s principal purpose is substantially frustrated without its fault by such a contingency, even if performance remains possible.

On March 20, 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an order (the “Executive Order”) pausing, among other things, any residential or commercial mortgage foreclosure actions. On August 3, 2020, a New York court addressed the question of whether that order prohibits a mezzanine lender from foreclosing on its security interest in the equity interests of a mezzanine borrower whose sole asset is the ownership interests in a company whose principal asset is real estate. In Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 BWAY LLC (Index No. 652971/2020), the New York County Supreme Court granted the borrower’s motion for a preliminary injunction precluding the mezzanine lender from proceeding with its UCC foreclosure. This is the third time since the issuance of the Executive Order that a New York Court has confronted this question, and the second time since the issuance of the Executive Order that a New York court has enjoined a mezzanine foreclosure sale from going forward. The court’s decision in Shelbourne, however, may have a wider effect than the earlier cases and may result in the pausing of all mezzanine loan foreclosures in New York until October 15, 2020.

The District of Columbia Council passed Bill 23-869, the “Coronavirus Support Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2020.” This bill, once signed by the Mayor, will extend previous emergency legislation, Act 23-238, the “Coronavirus Support Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2020,” which is set to expire on September 6, 2020. This is omnibus legislation, intended to provide a wide variety of support for District residents and businesses affected by the COVID-19 public health emergency. Below, we discuss select aspects of the legislation in its Title IV, Housing and Tenant Protections.

At the start of 2020, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) finally became operational after more than a year of organizational and budgetary delays. Signed into law as a part of the 2018 BUILD Act, the DFC is a $60 billion investment agency that merged the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) with other foreign investment programs and added new objectives. DFC has a broader development objective than OPIC’s mission and offers increased services to lower- and middle-income economies, with nearly 100 countries identified as priority areas.

The Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. case stems from a settlement agreement between two pharmaceutical companies, Biogen, Inc. and Forward Pharma, pursuant to which Forward agreed to exercise its contractual right to terminate a drug development agreement with a third pharmaceutical company, Ixchel Pharma, LLC. Ixchel then sued Biogen in California federal court asserting: 1) tortious interference with Ixchel’s contractual relationship with Forward; and 2) that Biogen’s agreement with Forward was an unenforceable non-compete agreement under California Business and Professions Code section 16600.¹ The district court dismissed Ixchel’s complaint, Ixchel appealed, and the Ninth Circuit certified two questions, which the California Supreme Court framed as follows: “(1) Is a plaintiff required to plead an independently wrongful act in order to state a claim for tortious interference with a contract that is terminable at will? (2) What is the proper standard to determine whether section 16600 voids a contract by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business?”

With hundreds of cases now pending nationwide involving insurance coverage claims for business interruptions stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal panel has been considering the prospect of consolidating the litigation into one multidistrict litigation (MDL) to promote their efficient resolution. On August 12, 2020, the panel issued a decision ruling out a single nationwide MDL, but leaving open the possibility of smaller, insurer-specific MDLs.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses across the country have faced severe economic hardship. Congress has responded with initiatives such as the Paycheck Protection Program and the Main Street Lending Program (MSLP), but these programs have not been designed with the commercial real estate market in mind. Recently, Representatives Van Taylor (R-TX), Al Lawson (D-FL) and Andy Barr (R-KY) introduced the “Helping Open Properties Endeavor Act of 2020” (HOPE Act) to provide assistance to this sector. If the bill becomes law, it will work in conjunction with existing provisions of the Main Street Lending Program to lend strong support to commercial real estate owners.

Often, deeds in lieu are considered or delivered and accepted in the context of a mortgage financing (also including financings which involve a deed of trust or other similar instruments)—when the borrower (typically, a special purpose entity) is in default or at risk of imminent default and there is little to no equity remaining in the project. Viewed through the borrower’s lens, the consequence of an uncured default is losing the property.

On July 24, 2020, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) released reopening guidance for employers in a COVID-19 Employer Playbook for a Safe Reopening, which it followed up by publishing Safe Reopening FAQs for Workers and Employers on July 28, 2020.

Despite this broadened standard, employers should still be cautious about disciplining or discharging employees who engage in protected concerted activity regarding the terms and conditions of their employment, which can include discussions of COVID-related concerns and race relations, along with other emotionally, politically, or culturally sensitive topics. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has adopted a new standard that will allow employers to more readily discipline employees who have made abusive statements, even when connected to otherwise protected, concerted activity. Under the prior standard, the NLRB had found that employers had engaged in an unfair labor practices on various occasions when they discharged employees who had used profanity against managers or shouted racial slurs while also engaging in activities that are protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Senate Republicans have recently unveiled their proposed liability protection measures intended to be included with the next Congressional COVID-19 pandemic response bill. Republicans have long signaled that providing businesses a federal liability shield is a top legislative priority for future relief bills, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office has now released the text of the SAFE TO WORK Act, a legislative measure that could provide key liability protections for an array of businesses and organizations for COVID-19-related lawsuits. While the measure will likely face partisan opposition to its enactment, if passed, the liability shield would preempt many of the state law measures currently in place, and provide uniform protections for not just businesses, but also nonprofits, state and local governments, schools, and other organizations currently facing unknown liability risks from the COVID-19 pandemic.

On June 30th, 2020, Oregon governor Kate Brown signed into law HB 4204, providing sweeping protections to mortgagors and putting a moratorium on foreclosure proceedings. This law also requires all lenders operating within the state to provide written notice by mail to every borrower by August 29, 2020 of the protections added by the bill. This law applies to all lenders who hold a collateral interest in property or a retail installment contract within the state of Oregon, regardless of the lenders’ location. These protections will remain in place until 90 days after the end of the state’s COVID-19 “emergency period,” which is currently ends on September 30th but is likely to be extended.

After it recently announced plans to issue the first statewide Coronavirus workplace safety rules in the U.S., the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) has published emergency temporary regulations under the authority of the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health (VOSH) Program. The regulations, which are expected to take effect during the week of July 27, 2020 after being published in a Richmond newspaper, will remain in effect for six months. Violations of these standards will subject Virginia employers to penalties under the existing VOSH penalty standards, which range from up to $13,047 for serious and certain other violations, to up to $130,463 for willful and repeated violations. This alert summarizes key provisions of the regulations, but Virginia employers should review the detailed regulatory requirements in full.

On July 15, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) promulgated a final rule amending the implementing regulations (40 CFR § 1500, et seq.) of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq. (NEPA). The final rule largely tracks proposed amendments, which the CEQ issued on January 10, 2020. The amendments aim to align NEPA’s implementing regulations with underutilized principles embedded in statutory provisions, agency guidance, and court decisions to streamline the environmental review process. These regulatory changes represent the culmination of Trump administration efforts to modernize NEPA dating back to August 2017, when the White House issued Executive Order 13087 to mitigate the delays that environmental reviews present to infrastructure development, including the licensing and development of nuclear facilities. The final rule will become effective on September 14, 2020.

The Nation’s First Coronavirus Workplace Safety Rules
On Wednesday July 15, Virginia’s Department of Labor and Industry’s Safety and Health Codes Board (the Department) announced the first coronavirus-related workplace safety regulation in the United States (Workplace Rules). This mandate follows an executive order issued by Governor Ralph Northam in late May that directed the Department to create infectious disease regulation. The Workplace Rules will require businesses under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Occupational Health and Safety Administration to implement safety measures to protect those who have been exposed to and infected by COVID-19 at the workplace. The Workplace Rules will likely come into force toward the end of July once they are published in a newspaper of general circulation. They will then remain in effect for a period of six months, after which they could become permanent if adopted through legislative enactment.

In the wake of the recent economic downturn and resulting liquidity concerns, companies subject to public reporting requirements are reconsidering whether the advantages of a public listing outweigh the burdens of ongoing reporting and compliance obligations. Deregistration, or “going dark,” is an increasingly appealing alternative for companies seeking to avoid Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting obligations and associated costs.

In June 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued its decision, In re Hitz Restaurant Group (No. 20-B-05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 3, 2020)). The Court held that the Illinois Governor’s Executive Order, issued in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, triggered the force majeure clause of a lease and excused part of the tenant’s rent payment obligations. For some, this decision was surprising because force majeure clauses usually do not excuse, wholesale, payment obligations.

U.S. government agencies continue to implement new rules to guard against supply chain threats and mitigate cybersecurity risks. We have previously discussed regulations aimed at excluding, and in some cases removing, Chinese-origin equipment from U.S. telecommunication networks and supply chains. In addition to discussing recent developments related to those regulations, this alert examines how the Department of Defense (DoD) and other agencies plan to mitigate cybersecurity risk at the contractor level.

With the continued public health threat posed by COVID-19, many businesses that have remained open or that are planning their reopening face legal risks of civil liability relating to employees and consumers who are injured as a result of the coronavirus contracted on their premises. As part of the federal pandemic response, the federal government has included legislation and issued administrative declarations providing limited liability protections aimed specifically at health care providers and manufacturers and distributors of health care products used for the current public health crisis.

Stay-at-home and shelter-in-place orders prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic have already led to a dramatic increase in the reliance on technology—and the generation and collection of extensive personally identifiable information (PII)—for myriad personal and professional purposes. As businesses now contemplate how to safely welcome customers, guests and employees back to their physical premises, the collection of PII is only likely to increase in the form of virus and antibody testing, temperature taking, video monitoring to ensure social distancing, contact tracing via location tracking, and similar preventative measures based on the collection of biometric and other personal data.

A memorandum released on July 2, 2020 by Acting Principal Director for Defense Pricing Kim Herrington provides guidance on some of the action taken by the Department of Defense (DoD) in its efforts to support its contractors with reimbursement for the related impacts and costs incurred by DoD contractors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The memorandum highlights the possibility of contractor cost recovery for measures that may have been taken by industry to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and allow facilities to remain open and productive during the pandemic. It further directs contracting officers to use their experience and skill to find innovative solutions to both protect government interests and ensure the continued health of the defense industrial base.

Pre-pandemic, well-advised business owners could have a good understanding of their potential liabilities to customers and employees for safety and health risks in their workplace. Now, in the midst of a pandemic, businesses are uncertain what their potential liabilities may be to customers or employees who contract COVID-19 and suffer harm as a result. Instead of clear and uniform guidelines for proper precautions, businesses face evolving and difficult-to-apply laws and guidance, and a correspondingly increased risk for lawsuits.

Twitter and Square have announced that all of their employees may remain working from home “forever.” Facebook expects half of its 48,000 employees to be working remotely in the next five to 10 years. And it is not only leading tech companies that are contemplating a major shift toward remote working. A recent Gartner survey of 317 CFOs and finance leaders revealed that 47% of respondents will move at least 10% of their on-site employees to permanent remote positions, while 74% will move at least 5% of their previously on-site workforce to permanently remote positions. Overall, the Gartner survey showed that 48% of employees will likely work remotely at least part of the time after COVID-19.

SBA, in conjunction with the Department of the Treasury, announced in a June 6, 2020 press release that it would disclose “detailed loan-level data” regarding all of the 4.9 million PPP loans made to date. Recent legislation, which we summarized here, extended the deadline to apply for new PPP loans to August 8, 2020.

Past Economic Crises Typically Have Not Constituted Force Majeure Events

In most jurisdictions, courts have been reluctant to find that an extreme economic downturn, such as the Great Recession of 2008 or the earlier post-9/11 downturn, constitutes a force majeure event excusing performance of a party’s contractual obligations.

Introduction

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Congress authorized the Treasury Department to provide more than $450 billion for loans, loan guarantees, and investments in support of the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities.

The Key Environmental Laws at Issue

Citing the economic downturn caused by the outbreak of COVID-19, on June 4, 2020, President Trump signed an executive order (EO) directing federal agencies to invoke emergency powers available to them to expedite the environmental review and permitting of infrastructure projects. The EO explicitly enumerates the emergency provisions of the following federal laws:

What is an Act of God?

Absent an express reference to “epidemics” or “pandemics,” a contracting party seeking to invoke a force majeure clause is most likely to look to catch-all language like “Acts of God” or events “not within the parties’ reasonable control” as the most likely language to cover COVID-19. Historically, courts indeed defined “Act of God” to encompass sickness. See, e.g., Herter v. Mullen, 159 N.Y. 28, 37 (1899) (“The disability of a party to do the particular thing, or to perform the contract by reason of sickness is held to be a disability by the act of God.”); Love v. Barnesville Mfg. Co., 19 Del. 152, 50 A. 536, 537 (Del. Super. Ct. 1901) (“The defendant would not be liable for damages caused solely by the act of God, such as an epidemic of sickness in the defendant’s factory.”).

On June 1, 2020, DOJ updated its Guidance (2020 Update), once again, on how it will evaluate corporate compliance programs in deciding “whether to bring charges, and negotiating plea or other agreements.” The 2020 Update builds on the 2019 Update from April 30, 2019, and emphasizes three questions:

Both the House and Senate have passed a bipartisan bill to modify elements of the PPP established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The legislation is intended to provide a “quick fix” to obstacles faced by small businesses seeking relief under the forgivable loan program.

On May 20, 2020, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed S. 945, the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA). If enacted, the bill would amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. §7214) to require additional disclosures from certain issuers regarding foreign jurisdictions that prevent the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) from performing inspections of auditors of public companies.

For the past two-and-a-half months, unlike many service workers, most white-collar office workers have been able to work from home (WFH). While some companies like Twitter and Facebook have implemented permanent “work from home” policies, many other companies are contemplating when and how to bring their workforces back to the office. National attention has now turned to “returning to work” and the changes needed to ensure workplace safety, including for those in office buildings.

This is the first issue of a new client alert series titled Tour de Force, focused on the doctrine of force majeure and its significance in a post-COVID-19 world. Each issue will explore a discrete nuance in application of the force majeure doctrine and include an annotated list of cases filed across the United States, updated with new cases and relevant decisions.

Overview
On May 27, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service issued Notice 2020-40 (“Notice”), which modifies certain rules related to the production tax credit (PTC) available pursuant to IRC Section 45 and the investment tax credit (ITC) available pursuant to IRC Section 48 in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), enacted March 27, 2020, established the PPP and set aside $349 billion for small business loans. We summarized the Act’s small business loan provisions here. On April 24, 2020, the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act increased appropriations for the PPP by $310 billion. Perhaps the most notable facet of the PPP—and the reason that many thousands of companies applied for loans under it—was Congress’ promise to forgive loan amounts expended for up to eight weeks of permissible uses enumerated by the CARES Act.

In our last alert, we noted that litigants had been banned from commencing new nonessential actions (including most commercial actions) in New York State courts since March 22, 2020. On that date, New York Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks issued an administrative order (AO-78-20), prohibiting litigants from making any court filings (paper or electronic) in any non-essential matters, whether new or pending. While the Chief Administrative Judge loosened the restrictions on electronic filings in pending nonessential matters in Administrative Order 87-20, issued on May 1, 2020, the ban on the filing of new nonessential cases remained in place.

A recent court order issued as part of an ongoing litigation involving a Manhattan hotel held that a mezzanine lender may proceed with a UCC foreclosure sale of the mezzanine loan collateral despite N.Y.E.O. 202.8, which prevents creditors from initiating judicial foreclosures. That clarification alone would have been enough to make the decision important during the COVID-19 pandemic but, in a few short pages, the order touches upon the appropriate remedies involving the foreclosure of an indirect ownership interest in real estate. The “secondary” implications from the order are likely to impact real estate lending even after N.Y.E.O. 202.8 has been lifted. Mezzanine lenders and borrowers should take note as they evaluate remedies under existing mezzanine loans.

On May 19, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor issued both an Updated Interim Enforcement Plan and Revised Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases, which will on May 26, 2020, rescind April 10 guidance issued on the respective topics.

On Friday, May 15, New York began reopening businesses after widespread closures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. New York Forward, the New York plan to reopen the state, divides the state into ten (10) regions. Each region may reopen in a four-phased process as it satisfies certain metrics. Generally, the metrics monitor the region’s new infections and analyze the region’s health care, diagnostic testing, and contact tracing capacities.¹ The executive orders remain in effect, as described in this alert, requiring all people in New York to wear masks or face coverings in public, including when taking public or private transportation. As previously advised, employers will generally be expected to provide face masks to employees.(This link provides an updated map and table of each region’s status.)

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a key feature of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), was enacted to provide forgivable loans to certain small business and self-employed individuals demonstrating urgent financial need in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. (See H.R. 748 § 1102.) Loan recipients must certify their compliance with the terms and conditions of the loan, and violations expose them to a wide array of potential civil and criminal penalties, forfeiture, and other liabilities. If you or your company have already obtained, or are considering applying for a PPP loan, it is highly advisable for you to carefully review your D&O Liability Insurance Policy, as coverages for defense or ultimate liability vary significantly.

After many used medical syringes washed up on beaches in the eastern United States, Congress enacted the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988, which directed EPA to establish a two-year medical waste demonstration project that would principally affect several northeastern states. The Act amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and EPA promulgated medical waste standards in 1989. (See 54 FR 12326.) The rules were located in EPA’s solid, non-hazardous waste rules at 40 CFR Part 259 (later revoked). These rules followed the standard RCRA format and regulated Generators, Transporters, and Treatment and Disposal Facilities. When the initial batch of EPA’s RCRA Hazardous Waste Rules were promulgated in 1980, EPA decided against designating infectious waste as a hazardous waste. As a result, medical waste was not made subject to the rigorous RCRA regulatory regime. According to EPA, medical waste is a subset of solid wastes generated at health care facilities—principally hospitals—that may be contaminated by blood, bodily fluids or other potentially infectious materials and can take different forms.