Client Alerts & Insights
SBA Guidance on PPP Loans in the Context of a Sale of a Business
October 5, 2020
Authored By:
On October 2, 2020, the SBA released the attached guidance relating to whether the SBA will be required to consent to a “change in ownership” of a business. A “change in ownership” is deemed to be any of the following:
– A sale of 20% or more of the common stock or other ownership interests of a PPP Borrower;
– A PPP Borrower transfers 50% or more of its assets; or
– A PPP borrower is merged with or into another entity
1. The SBA does not have to consent to a change in ownership in the following circumstances:
A. The PPP loan is fully satisfied prior to the change in ownership, which requires the following elements:
a. The PPP loan has been repaid in full; or
b. The PPP borrower has completed the process for forgiveness and the SBA has remitted funds to the PPP lender to satisfy the PPP loan
B. If the PPP loan is not fully satisfied prior to the change in ownership (see elements in (A) above) and the transaction is structured as a sale of equity interests if:
a. Less than 50% of common stock or other ownership interests are transferred; or
b. (i) the PPP borrower completes its forgiveness application and
(ii) the PPP borrower establishes an interest bearing escrow account which is controlled by its PPP lender. Escrowed monies must be deposited in the full amount of the outstanding PPP loan.
C. If the PPP loan is not fully satisfied prior to the closing (see elements in (A) above) and the transaction is structure as an asset sale if:
(i) the PPP borrower completes its forgiveness application and
(ii) the PPP borrower establishes an interest bearing escrow account which is controlled by its PPP lender. Escrowed monies must be deposited in the full amount of the outstanding PPP loan.
2. If none of the circumstances set forth in item 1 above are applicable, then the SBA must consent to the change in ownership and the SBA will have up to 60 days from its receipt of a request for consent to make a decision. If the SBA is not required to consent to a change in ownership, a PPP lender may unilaterally approve the change in ownership.
A few other items of interest to note:
1. If a purchaser also has a PPP loan, the purchaser should treat its current PPP loan and the PPP loan of the target as two separate loans and should keep separate records as to how proceeds of each loan are spent (i.e. do not co-mingle funds or use PPP proceeds of the target to pay for expenses of the purchaser and vice versa).
2. The PPP borrower (selling entity) remains responsible for certifications made at the time of the application and for obtaining, preparing and submitting PPP related documentation to the PPP lender.
Note that the guidance does not specify how transactions closed prior to the issuance of this guidance will be treated. Many transactions did involve an escrow, but the escrow was not always with the PPP lender.
If you have any questions, please contact a member of Benesch’s Commercial Finance & Banking Practice Group.
Matthew P. Delguyd at mdelguyd@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4627.
***
Please note that this information is current as of the date of this Client Alert, based on the available data. However, because COVID-19’s status and updates related to the same are ongoing, we recommend real-time review of guidance distributed by the CDC and local officials.

Latest News
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Issues Ohio Ethics Guide on Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Dispensary tip practices—especially involving hybrid roles like “Leads” or Agents-in-Charge—are increasingly being scrutinized as unlawful as a surge in wage-and-hour lawsuits claim that managers or employees with supervisory duties are improperly sharing in tips meant for front-line staff.
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.
Beyond the Buzzwords: State AGs Put Enforcement Muscle Behind Algorithmic Pricing and Age Verification Crackdowns
State AGs are doubling down—across party lines—on consumer protection, with a sharp focus on vulnerable groups and increased scrutiny of algorithmic pricing models and online age verification practices.