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

The Masks Are Back: New OSHA Regulations for Healthcare Employers

June 11, 2021Employment Law After Hours is back with a News Break Episode. Yesterday, OSHA published new rules for healthcare facilities, including hospitals, home health employers, nursing homes, ambulance companies, and assisted living facilities. These new rules are very cumbersome, requiring mask wearing for all employees, even those that are vaccinated. The only exception is for fully vaccinated employees (2 weeks post final dose) who are in a "well-defined" area where there is no reasonable expectation that any person with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 will be present.Client Alert

New OSHA Guidance for Workplaces Not Covered by the Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard

June 11, 2021On June 10, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for occupational exposure to COVID-19, but it applies only to healthcare and healthcare support service workers. For a detailed summary of the ETS applicable to the healthcare industry, please visit https://youtu.be/vPyXmKwOzsk. All employers not subject to the ETS should review OSHA’s contemporaneously released, updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. The new Guidance essentially leaves intact OSHA’s earlier guidance, but only for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers (“at-risk” meaning vaccinated or unvaccinated workers with immunocompromising conditions). For fully vaccinated workers, OSHA defers to CDC Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People, which advises that most fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, or local laws or individual business policies.Client Alert

Employer Liability for COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects

June 9, 2021As employers encourage or require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine, they should be aware of OSHA recording obligations and potential workers’ compensation liability. Though OSHA has yet to revise its COVID-19 guidance in response to the latest CDC recommendations, OSHA has revised its position regarding the recording of injury or illness resulting from the vaccine. Until now, OSHA required an employer to record an adverse reaction when the vaccine was required for employees and the injury or illness otherwise met the recording criteria (work-related, a new case, and meets one or more of the general recording criteria). OSHA has reversed course and announced that it will not require recording adverse reactions until at least May 2022, irrespective of whether the employer requires the vaccine as a condition of employment. In its revised COVID-19 FAQs, OSHA states:Client Alert

The New Rule 1.510 - Radical Change for Summary Judgement Procedure in Florida

June 8, 2021In civil litigation, where both sides participate actively, trial is usually required at the end of a long, expensive case to determine a winner and a loser. In federal and most state courts, however, there are a few procedural shortcuts by which parties can seek to prevail in advance of trial, saving time, money and annoyance. The most common of these is the “motion for summary judgment”: a request to the court by one side for judgment before trial, generally on the basis that the evidence available reflects that a win for that party is legally inevitable and thus required. Effective May 1, 2021, summary judgment procedure in Florida has radically changed.Client Alert

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

June 8, 2021In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.
Older posts
Newer posts