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

Will Federal Legislation Open Cannabis Acquisition Floodgate?

February 18, 2021Are potential buyers quietly lobbying at federal and state levels to kick open the door to launch a new round of strategic acquisitions? Will presently pending federal legislation, the SAFE and MORE Acts, providing safe harbor for banks and re- or de-scheduling marijuana, be sufficient to mobilize into action major non-cannabis companies that previously shunned the cannabis industry due to the unknown implications of owning businesses whose activities are illegal under federal law?Client Alert

The Future of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

February 3, 2021Over the last year we all have had to adjust to the new normal ushered in by the coronavirus pandemic. Schools and daycares closed, businesses transitioned from in-office work to work from home, bars and restaurants have closed their doors...all to slow the spread and try to prevent this pandemic from spiraling out of control. The start of the pandemic was utter pandemonium. Working parents trying to balance both caring for their now at-home children and their livelihood. Businesses trying to decide how to implement leave policies with limited information. Employees determining if they could financially afford to take time off. We were all flying by the seat of our pants trying to adjust to our new normal.Client Alert

Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies Medical Statute of Limitations

February 1, 2021The Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in late December that clarifies and finalizes the Ohio law regarding the period of time in which patients can assert claims for medical malpractice. The Court was examining the interplay between three different statutes being the statute of limitations, the statute of repose, and the savings statute.Client Alert

Ohio Hospitals and Healthcare Clinics: It’s Time to Revisit Your Billing and Collection Practices

February 1, 2021According to a recent Cuyahoga County case, certain healthcare entities may not be protected from liability when engaging in unfair or deceptive billing acts. This decision is consistent with the growing trend across the country to encourage price transparency and eliminate unfair surprise billing practices by health care organizations. Now is the time for hospitals and other health care organizations to revisit their billing and collection policies and procedures to confirm that they are legally defensible and consistent with best practices.Client Alert

HIPAA Business Associate Agreements: Why These Contracts Matter

January 27, 2021No one loves drafting, reading or negotiating HIPAA Business Associate Agreements (BAAs). Yet many of us need to do so, and some of us do so daily. They are often boring, dense and technical, but BAAs are important from both a legal and a business perspective, and they deserve our attention. Failure to enter a BAA when one is required can constitute a HIPAA violation that results in substantial liability, as demonstrated by certain recent Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) settlements.1 A business associate who makes a disclosure that is not authorized by the applicable BAA or required by law can be subject to civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. Further, parties are often presented with BAAs that contain onerous one-sided indemnification and other provisions that can be devasting to an organization in the event of a HIPAA breach. The significance of a BAA is often not fully understood by the parties until something goes wrong (e.g., a HIPAA security incident or breach, an Office of Civil Rights (OCR) audit or a fracture in the relationship between the parties) and, at that point, there is limited opportunity to mitigate legal and business risk. Ideally, attention should be given at the commencement of the business associate relationship, when the parties are able, to thoughtfully addressing regulatory requirements, planning and preparing for potential adverse events and appropriately allocating risk among the parties. As with most healthcare regulatory compliance initiatives, a proactive approach with respect to BAAs is preferable. This article provides a broad overview of certain BAA requirements and some practical negotiating tips for the parties involved.
Older posts
Newer posts