Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Hurry Up, STOP. . .Has CTA Been Struck Down By Courts?

Client Alert
December 5, 2024

On December 3, 2024, Judge Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, enjoined the Federal Government from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). To date, the case, Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al v. Garland et al, No. 4:2024cv00478 - Document 30 (E.D. Tex. 2024), has garnered a lot of buzz.

Background
Following the passage of the CTA and effective January 1, 2024, many companies in the U.S. were slated to report information about their “beneficial owners” (individuals who ultimately own or control a company) to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). These reports are referred to as “BOI reports”. Under the CTA there are severe penalties for not timely and accurately filing the required BOI reports. As the December 31, 2024, initial filing deadline neared, attorneys, accountants and other advisors have been advising clients to get the filings completed.

Analysis
In Texas Top Cop, one private individual and five entities, including the aforementioned Texas Top Cop (a family-run, Texas corporation selling equipment to first responders), sought to enjoin the Federal Government from enforcing the CTA and its Implementing Regulations. It filed its lawsuit on May 28, 2024, seeking a declaratory judgment that the CTA is unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. On October 9, 2024, the Court heard arguments from both the plaintiffs and defendants. In ruling for Texas Top Cop, the court agreed that the CTA intrudes upon States’ rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and is likely [emphasis added] outside of Congress’s power. What the court did not due was address whether the CTA compels speech and burdens the right of association under the First Amendment, and the CTA violates the Fourth Amendment by compelling disclosure of private information.

Fallout
Following Texas Top Cop, uncertainty has arisen regarding whether clients should file their BOI reports. After all, the Federal Government is enjoined from enforcing the CTA, right?

The answer depends.

Previously, on March 1, 2024, in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala. 2024), a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, entered a final declaratory judgment, concluding that the CTA exceeds the Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power and enjoined Treasury and FinCEN from enforcing the CTA. The difference between National Small Business United and Texas Top Cop is that National Small Business United applied solely to the plaintiffs who filed the case, while Texas Top Cop Shop applies to all.

In other cases outside of Texas, courts have declined to issue a nationwide injunction. See Small Business Association of Michigan et. al. v. Yellen et. al., No. 1:2024cv00314 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 26, 2024) (Michigan U.S. District Judge denies preliminary injunction of the CTA); Firestone v. Yellen, No. 3:24-cv-01034 (D. Or. June. 26, 2024) (Oregon U.S. District Judge declines to enjoin enforcement of the CTA); and Community Associations Institute v. Yellen, No. 1:24-cv-1597 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2024) (Virginia U.S. District Judge denies preliminary injunction of the CTA).

What to do now?
After National Small Business United, the FinCEN website posted an alert reiterating that the final declaratory judgment only applied to the particular individuals and entities subject to the Northern District of Alabama’s injunction. It stressed that “reporting companies are still required to comply with the law and file beneficial ownership reports as provided in FinCEN’s regulations.” It will be interesting to see whether the FinCEN website will be updated in the coming days to address the Texas Top Cop injunction.

Regardless, enforcement of the CTA has been enjoined at least temporarily by the Texas Top Cop Shop case. While the federal government is likely to appeal the Texas decision, the changes in leadership at the Department of Justice resulting from the incoming Trump administration leaves the long-term status of the CTA uncertain.

To navigate this uncertain landscape, business owners are encouraged to consult with their BMD legal advisers or BMD Member Blake Gerney at brgerney@bmdllc.com.

CTACorporate Transparency ActFinCEN
Client Alert

New York, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Delaware Become the latest States to Adopt Full Practice Authority for Nurse Practitioners

May 19, 2022While the COVID-19 pandemic certainly created many obstacles and hardships, it also created many opportunities to try doing things differently. This can be seen in the instant rise of remote work opportunities, telehealth visits, and virtual meetings. Many States took the challenges of the pandemic and turned them into an opportunity to adjust the regulations governing licensed professionals, including for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).Client Alert, Blog Post

Explosive Growth in Pot of Gold Opportunity for Bank (and Other) Cannabis Lenders Driving Erosion of the Barriers

May 13, 2022Our original article on bank lending to the cannabis industry anticipated that the convergence of interest between banks and the cannabis industry would draw more and larger banks to the industry. Banks were awash in liquidity with limited deployment options, while bankable cannabis businesses had rapidly growing needs for more and lower cost credit. Since then, the pot of gold opportunity for banks to lend into the cannabis industry has grown exponentially due to a combination of market constraints on equity causing a dramatic shift to debt and the ever-increasing capital needs of one of the country’s fastest growing industries. At the same time, hurdles to entry of new banks are being systematically cleared as the yellow brick road to the cannabis industry’s access to the financial markets is being paved, brick by brick, by the progressively increasing number and size of banks that are now entering the market.Client Alert

2021 EEOC Charge Statistics: Retaliation & Impact of Remote Work

May 11, 2022The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its detailed information on workplace discrimination charges it received in 2021. Unsurprisingly, for the second year in a row, the total number of charges decreased as COVID-19 either shut down workplaces or disconnected employees from each other. In 2021, the agency received a total of approximately 61,000 workplace discrimination charges - the fewest in 25 years by a wide margin. For reference, the agency received over 67,000 charges in 2020, and averaged almost 90,000 charges per year over the previous 10 years.Client Alert

Ohio’s Managed Care Overhaul Delayed – New Implementation Timeline

May 4, 2022At the direction of Governor Mike DeWine, the Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) launched the Medicaid Managed Care Procurement process in 2019. ODM’s stated vision for the procurement was to focus on people and not just the business of managed care. This is the first structural change to Ohio’s managed care system since the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) approval of Ohio’s Medicaid program in 2005. Initially, all of the new managed care programs were supposed to be implemented starting on July 1, 2022. However, ODM Director Maureen Corcoran recently confirmed that this date will be pushed back for several managed care-related programs.Client Alert

Laboratory Specimen Collection Arrangements with Contract Hospitals - OIG Advisory Opinion 22-09

May 3, 2022On April 28, 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) published an Advisory Opinion[1] in which it evaluated a proposed arrangement where a network of clinical laboratories (the “Requestor”) would compensate hospitals (each a “Contract Hospital”) for specimen collection, processing, and handling services (“Collection Services”) for laboratory tests furnished by the Requestor (the “Proposed Arrangement”). The OIG concluded that the Proposed Arrangement would generate prohibited remuneration under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”) if the requisite intent were present. This is due to both the possibility that the proposed per-patient-encounter fee would be used to induce or reward referrals to Requestor and the associated risk of improperly steering patients to Requestor.
Older posts
Newer posts