Category: Corporate Compliance

Becoming Antitrust Aware in 2024: Top Five Recommendations for the New Year

A new year means resolutions which are often centered around self-improvement measures like weight loss, exercise plans, and other health improvement measures. Companies can also benefit from resolutions. Increasing antitrust awareness is not usually on the resolution list but here we offer some ideas for companies as they embark on a new year.

Treat antitrust as a priority in 2024.

As antitrust lawyers, our viewpoint may be biased, and we certainly appreciate that most companies already have a lengthy list of priorities for their in-house and outside legal teams. Given that all companies, regardless of their size, are subject to the antitrust laws, and given the high stakes involved (including criminal penalties and treble damages awards), antitrust certainly deserves to be on the priority list. One relatively easy way to get the ball rolling is to put fresh eyes on your company’s antitrust policy. When was the last time it was updated? What type of trainings does your company use to teach the concepts contained in the policy? The training doesn’t need to be – and shouldn’t be – boring or esoteric. Instead, trainings should be engaging and tailored to the specific antitrust risks that workgroups may face. For example, the sales team will need different antitrust training than those working on supply chain or environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. Ask your antitrust lawyer to create easy-to-follow, lively online trainings that can be viewed on demand. And if your company doesn’t have an antitrust policy, we suggest that creating one be moved to the top (or near top) of the legal department’s to-do list in 2024.

Understand the current antitrust enforcement priorities.

2024 will be a significant year for antitrust. It’s an election year, which means 2024 may be the Biden Administration’s last year to execute on plans that have been in the works since President Biden issued Executive Order 14036, “Promoting Competition in the American Economy,” in July 2021. Some of the Administration’s more dramatic plans include significant revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) premerger notification process. While we don’t expect all the FTC and DOJ’s sweeping proposals to make it into the HSR final rule, we do expect some changes to be made, and they will likely mean significant additional burdens for filing parties. We also expect to see the FTC’s new rule on non-compete agreements. The FTC’s proposal would ban most non-compete agreements, and some states have already enacted their own prohibitions on non-compete agreements.

If your company engages in M&A, be aware of the new Merger Guidelines.

The newest Merger Guidelines, addressing both horizontal and vertical mergers, were unveiled in December 2023 . One of the most significant changes announced in the 2023 Merger Guidelines are the decreased levels of concentration that will trigger a rebuttable presumption of illegality. Under the new Guidelines, a market share of greater than 30% and a concentration increase of 100 points will be enough to trigger that rebuttable presumption. That is not to say the presumption is the death knell for a transaction, but it does mean that the government enforcement will be aggressive. Also be aware that the 2023 Guidelines introduce new topics, such as labor markets. Early analysis and planning will be critical, requiring involvement of skilled antitrust counsel.

Understand that application of the antitrust laws is constantly evolving.

The language of the core U.S. antitrust laws – the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the FTC Act, hasn’t changed, but the application of these laws is always evolving. For example, the antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs are increasingly focused on labor issues, such as “no poach” agreements and wage fixing. Antitrust enforcers are also focused on private equity, as evidenced by the FTC’s recent lawsuit against Welsh, Carson, Anderson, and Stowe and some of the changes contained in the proposed revisions to the HSR Rules. Technology is also a significant factor that provokes interesting questions that don’t have answers, at least not currently. For example, do pricing algorithms lead to price fixing? How will antitrust enforcers deal with artificial intelligence?

Pay attention to state antitrust enforcers.

The federal regulators at the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission may get most of the attention, but we must never forget that states have their own antitrust laws and their own antitrust enforcers, who have the power to investigate and bring legal action. Often, the state regulators work collaboratively with their federal counterparts, but the state regulators are free to go their own way, such as those targeting various ESG initiatives. Also bear in mind that states are increasingly blazing new trails, such as bans on non-competes. Thirteen states have also enacted “mini” HSR premerger notification statutes for health care deals. It’s always prudent to check the laws of the state or states where business is conducted to determine if there are any state-specific antitrust considerations.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more Antitrust Awareness News, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

2023 Key Developments In The False Claims Act

2023 was another active year for the False Claims Act (FCA), marked by notable appellate decisions, emerging enforcement trends, and statutory amendments to state FCAs. We summarize the year’s most important developments for practitioners and government-facing businesses.

Developments in Caselaw

Supreme Court Holds That FCA Scienter Incorporates A Subjective Standard

The Supreme Court issued two consequential decisions on the False Claims Act this term. In the first, United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Co., 1 the Court held that objectively reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws and regulations only provide a defense to the FCA’s scienter requirement if the defendant in fact interpreted the law or regulation that way during the relevant period. The Court held that the proper scienter inquiry is whether the defendant was “conscious of a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that their conduct was unlawful. 2 Previously, some courts (including the courts below in Schutte) had dismissed FCA claims based on an ambiguity in relevant statutory or regulatory provisions identified by a party’s attorneys, even if the party never actually believed that interpretation. Schutte precludes such a defense. That said, Schutte does require relators or the Government to allege facts to support an inference of actual knowledge of falsity, and some courts have granted motions to dismiss on that basis post-Schutte. 3

High Court Reaffirms Government’s Authority To Intervene And Dismiss Declined Actions, While Some Justices Raise Constitutional Questions

The Court also decided United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 4 which held that the Government may intervene in a declined action—i.e., where the Government declines to litigate the case at the outset under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4)(B)—for the purpose of dismissing it over the relator’s objection. The case essentially preserves the status quo, as courts widely recognized the authority of the Government to dismiss declined qui tams before Polansky. Polansky places two minor restrictions on the Government’s ability to dismiss declined actions. First, the Government has to intervene. 5 Second, the Government needs to articulate some rationale for dismissal to meet the standard of Rule 41(a), which the Court remarked that it will be able to do in “all but the most exceptional cases.” 6 More notably, however, three of the nine Justices (Justice Thomas in dissent and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett in concurrence) signaled that they would entertain a challenge to the constitutionality of the qui tam mechanism under Article II. 7 Though the one court that has considered such arguments on the merits post-Polansky rejected them, 8 it remains likely that additional, similar challenges will be made.

Split In Authority Deepens On Causation In Kickback Cases

In FCA cases where the relator alleges a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the payment of a kickback needs—at least in part—to have caused a submission of a false claim. That requirement flows from the statutory text of the AKS, which provides that claims “resulting from” AKS violations are “false or fraudulent claim[s]” for the purpose of the FCA. 9 But courts have not coalesced around a single standard for what it means for a false claim to “result from” a kickback. Before this year, the Third Circuit in United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health held that there needs to be “some link” between kickback and referral beyond temporal proximity. 10 On the other hand, the Eighth Circuit in United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Medical, LLC, held that the kickback needs to be a but-for cause of the referral. 11 Earlier this year, the Sixth Circuit endorsed the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of causation. The court reasoned that but-for causation is the “ordinary meaning” of “resulting from” and no other statutory language in the AKS or FCA justifies departure from a but-for standard. 12 But not every court has adopted the Sixth Circuit’s straightforward analysis.

In the District of Massachusetts, for example, two decisions issued this summer came out on opposite sides of the split. In both cases, United States v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13 and United States v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 14 the Government alleged that the pharmaceutical companies were improperly paying copayment subsidies to patients for their drugs. Yet Teva adopted Greenfield’s “some link” standard, while Regeneron adopted the “but-for” standard of the Sixth and Eighth Circuits. The Teva court also certified an interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit to resolve the issue prior to trial, which remains pending. 15 FCA defendants in cases arising out of the AKS thus continue to face substantial uncertainty as to the applicable standard outside the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits. That said, there is mounting skepticism of the Greenfield analysis, 16 and those defendants retain good arguments that the standard adopted by the Sixth and Eighth Circuits should apply.

Enforcement Trends

The also Government remained active in investigating and, in many cases, settling False Claims Act allegations. That enforcement activity included several large settlements, including a $377 million settlement with Booz Allen Hamilton arising out of its failure to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation cost accounting standards. 17 Our review of this year’s activity revealed significant trends in both civil and criminal enforcement, which we briefly describe below.

Focus On Unsupported Coding In Medicare Advantage (Part C) Claims

Medicare recipients are increasingly turning to private insurers to manage the administration of their Medicare benefits: over half of Medicare enrollees now opt for managed care plans. 18 The Government announced several important enforcement actions focused on submissions to and the administration of Medicare Advantage plans.

On September 30, DOJ announced a $172 million settlement with Cigna due to an alleged scheme to submit unsupported Medicare coding to increase reimbursement rates. According to the press release, Cigna operated a “chart review” team that reviewed providers’ submitted materials and identified additional applicable diagnosis coding to include on requests for payment. The Government alleges that some of the coding Cigna added was not substantiated by the chart review. 19

Similarly, in October, the Government declined to prosecute insurer HealthSun for submitting diagnosis coding to CMS that increased applicable reimbursement rate of treatment without an actual underlying diagnosis by the treating physician. The declination was based on HealthSun’s voluntary self-disclosure of the conduct through the Criminal Division’s recently updated Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy. 20 DOJ did, however, indict the company’s former Director of Medicare Risk Adjustment Analytics for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and several counts of wire fraud and major fraud against the Government in the Southern District of Florida. 21

In May, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania announced a settlement against a Philadelphia primary care practice based on the submission of allegedly unsupported Medicare diagnosis coding in Part C submissions. The press release asserts that the practice coded numerous claims with morbid obesity diagnoses when the patients lacked the required body-mass index for the diagnosis and diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease without appropriate substantiation. 22

Both managed care organizations and providers that submit claims to Medicare Advantage should review their claim coding practices to ensure that their claims accurately reflect the medical diagnoses of the treating physician, as well as the treatment provided.

DOJ Follows Through On Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative

In 2021, DOJ announced the launch of its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative, 23 which was aimed at policing government contractors’ failures to adequately protect government information by meeting prescribed cybersecurity requirements. This year, the enforcement of that policy led the Government to alleged FCA violations based on implied or explicit certifications of compliance with cybersecurity regulations:

In September, the Government declined to intervene in a qui tam action against Pennsylvania State University alleging that Penn State falsely certified compliance with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 252.204-7012, which specifies controls required to safeguard defense-related information, during the length of its contract with the Defense Department. 24 However, the parties subsequently sought a 180 day stay of proceedings due to an ongoing government investigation, which was granted. 25 The application for the stay hinted that the Government may yet intervene in the action and file a superseding complaint. 26

DOJ also announced in September a $4 million settlement with Verizon Business Network Services LLC arising out of Verizon’s provision of internet services to federal agencies that was required to meet specific security standards. The Government’s press release, which specifically noted Verizon’s cooperation with the investigation, alleged that Verizon failed to implement “three required cybersecurity controls” in its provision of internet service, which were not individually specified. 27

Entities doing business with the Government should ensure that they are aware of all applicable cybersecurity laws and regulations governing that relationship and that they are meeting all such requirements.

Continued Crackdown On Telemedicine Fraud Schemes

Following OIG-HHS’s July 2022 Special Fraud Alert 28 regarding the recruitment of practitioners to prescribe treatment based on little to no patient interaction over telemedicine, DOJ announced several significant settlements involving that exact conduct. In many circumstances, the Government pursued criminal charges rather than civil FCA penalties alone.

In September, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts announced a guilty plea to a conspiracy to commit health care fraud charge. The Government alleged that the defendant partnered with telemarketing companies to pay Medicare beneficiaries “on a per-order basis to generate orders for [durable medical equipment] and genetic testing,” and then found doctors willing to sign “prepopulated orders” based on telemedicine appointments that the doctors did not actually attend. 29

In June, as part of a “strategically coordinated” national enforcement action, DOJ announced action against several officers of a south Florida telemedicine company for an alleged $2 billion fraud involving the prescription of orthotic braces and other items to targeted Medicare recipients through cursory telemarketing appointments that were presented as in-person examinations. 30

Although enforcement in the telemedicine space to date has largely focused on obviously fraudulent conduct, practitioners should be aware that the Government may view overly short telemedicine appointments as insufficient to support diagnoses leading to claims for payment from the Government.

State False Claims Acts

Both Connecticut and New York made notable alterations to the scope of conduct covered by their state FCAs. Companies doing business with state governments should be aware that 32 states have their own FCAs, not all of which mirror the federal FCA.

Connecticut Expands FCA To Mirror Scope Of Federal Statute

Prior to this year, Connecticut’s False Claims Act covered only payments sought or received from a “stateadministered health or human services program” In June, however, Connecticut enacted a substantial revision to its state FCA, which seeks to mirror the scope and extent of the Federal FCA. 31 Those doing business with the state of Connecticut should conduct an FCA-focused compliance review of that business to avoid potential liability arising out of state law, and should also understand federal FCA jurisprudence, which is likely to have a significant influence on the new law’s interpretation.

New York Expands FCA To Cover Allow Tax-Related FCA Claims Against Non-Filers

New York is among the few states whose state FCAs cover tax-related claims. Prior to this year, though, the state and its municipalities could only assert tax-related claims against those who actually filed and whose filings contained false statements of fact. In May, New York amended its FCA to allow a cause of action against those who knowingly fail to file a New York tax return and pay New York taxes. 32 Companies doing business in New York should be aware that not filing required taxes in New York may potentially subject them to, among other things, the treble damages for which the FCA provides.

1 143 S. Ct. 1391 (2023).
2 Schutte, 143 S. Ct. at 1400-01.
3 See, e.g., United States ex rel. McSherry v. SLSCO, L.P., No. 18-CV-5981, 2023 WL 6050202,
at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2023).
4 143 S. Ct. 1720 (2023).
5 Id. at 1730.
6 Id. at 1734.
7 Id. at 1737 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring); id. at 1741-42 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
8 See United States ex rel. Wallace v. Exactech, Inc., No. 7:18-cv-01010, 2023 WL 8027309, at
*4-6 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 20, 2023).
9 See 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(g).
10 United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sol’ns, 880 F.3d 89, 98-100 (3d Cir. 2018).
11 United States ex rel. Cairns v. D.S. Med., LLC, 42 F. 4th 828, 834-36 (8th Cir. 2022).
12 United States ex rel. Martin v. Hathaway, 63 F. 4th 1043, 1052-53 (6th Cir. 2023).
13 Civ. A. No. 20-11548, 2023 WL 4565105 (D. Mass. July 14, 2023).
14 Civ. A. No. 20-11217, 2023 WL 7016900 (D. Mass. Oct. 25, 2023)
15 See United States v. Teva Pharma USA, Inc., No. 23-1958 (1st Cir. 2023).
16 See, e.g., Regeneron, 2023 WL 7016900, at *11 (remarking that the Greenfield analysis is
“fraught with problems” and “disconnected from long-standing common-law principles of
causation”).
17 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/booz-allen-agrees-pay-37745-million-settle-false-claims-act-
allegations.
18 https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/half-of-all-eligible-medicare-beneficiaries-are-now-enrolled-
in-private-medicare-advantage-plans/.
19 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cigna-group-pay-172-million-resolve-false-claims-act-
allegations.
20 See https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-kenneth-polite-jr-delivers-
remarks-georgetown-university-law.
21 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-executive-medicare-advantage-organization-charged-
multimillion-dollar-medicare-fraud.
22 https://www.justice.gov/usao-edpa/pr/primary-care-physicians-pay-15-million-resolve-false-
claims-act-liability-submitting.
23 See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-announces-new-
civil-cyber-fraud-initiative.
24 See United States ex rel. Decker v. Penn. State Univ., Civ. A. No. 22-3895 (E.D. Pa. 2023).
25 Id. at ECF Nos. 24, 37.
26 Id. at ECF No. 24.

27 See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/cooperating-federal-contractor-resolves-liability-alleged-
false-claims-caused-failure-fully.
28 https://oig.hhs.gov/documents/root/1045/sfa-telefraud.pdf.
29 https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/owner-telemedicine-companies-pleads-guilty-44-million-
medicare-fraud-scheme.
30 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/national-enforcement-action-results-78-individuals-charged-
25b-health-care-fraud.
31 See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 4-274–4-289.
32 See N.Y. State Fin. Law § 189(4)(a).

© 2023 Binder & Schwartz LLP. All Rights Reserved
For more news on the False Claims Act, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Beware of Corporate Transparency Act Scams and Fraud

The Corporate Transparency Act’s (CTA) Beneficial Ownership Information reporting requirements are set to take effect on January 1, and bad actors are already using the CTA’s requirements to solicit unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable Information. To that end, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently issued a warning regarding such scams. FinCEN describes these efforts as follows:

“The fraudulent correspondence may be titled “Important Compliance Notice” and asks the recipient to click on a URL or to scan a QR code. Those e-mails or letters are fraudulent. FinCEN does not send unsolicited requests (emphasis added). Please do not respond to these fraudulent messages, or click on any links or scan any QR codes within them.”

© 2023 Varnum LLP
For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Scams and Fraud, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Despite Record Year, SEC Must Improve Whistleblower Program to Align with White House Anti-Corruption Initiative

SEC Chair Gary Gensler announced on October 25th that in the 2023 fiscal year, the Commission received a record number of 18,000 whistleblower tips.

The SEC Whistleblower Program has grown rapidly and effectively since its inception in 2010 – the 2022 Fiscal Year set a record of 12,300 whistleblower tips. This was a near doubling of the 2020 tips, which set a record of 6,911.

The SEC transnational whistleblower program responds to individuals who voluntarily report original information about potential misconduct. If tips lead to a successful enforcement action, the whistleblowers are entitled to 10-30% of the recovered funds. The programs have created clear anti-retaliation protections and strong financial incentives for reporting securities and commodities fraud.

The U.S. Strategy on Countering Corruption is a White House initiative from December of 2021 that establishes the fight against corruption as a core tenant of national security interests. It outlines strategic pillars and objectives within each. The recommendations on improving the SEC’s whistleblower provisions as outlined below have the same goal of creating stronger processes to combat corruption.

Since the SEC Whistleblower Program was created in 2010, whistleblowers have played a crucial role in the SEC’s enforcement efforts. Overall, since the whistleblower program was established in 2010, “[e]enforcement actions brought using information from meritorious whistleblowers have resulted in orders for more than $6.3 billion in total monetary sanctions, including more than $4.0 billion in disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and interest, of which more than $1.5 billion has been, or is scheduled to be, returned to harmed investors,” according to the 2022 annual report.

This $6.3 billion recovered via sanctions is money that is put back into the pockets of investors and everyday Americans.

The SEC does not credit related enforcement actions to award notifications and sanctions in order to maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of whistleblowers, award notifications don’t tie to underlying enforcement action. The $6.3 billion does not include DOJ enforcement actions, which combined would show a much larger number.

Non-U.S. citizens who blow the whistle on potential securities frauds committed by publicly traded companies outside the United States are eligible to receive awards, as well as those whistleblowers who report violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. This anti-corruption legislation prohibits the payment of anything of value to foreign government officials in order to obtain a business advantage.

Whistleblowers from over 130 countries have used the SEC Whistleblower Program to report fraud in their workplace.

Despite the massive growth of tips received, many whistleblowers’ cases are dismissed by the SEC due to insubstantial filing errors and strict time parameters on forms, or reported to the news media, other U.S. government agencies, or international government workers in roles that are public abroad but private in the U.S.

Considering these narrow qualifications and to ensure that the process for qualifying as a whistleblower aligns with U.S. anti-corruption priorities, the National Whistleblower Center recommends that the program be improved by expanding the definition of voluntary, further the provisions of identity protection and rewards. These recommendations align with the White House drafted United States Strategy on Countering Corruption.

Whistleblowers identified in case investigations should be automatically eligible for rewards, rather than mandated to meet technical form requirements.

The SEC should maintain their “Three Conditions” qualifications standards and expand the definition of “voluntary.” The current language disqualifies whistleblowers who report fraud to the media, other government agencies, foreign law enforcement, or a U.S. embassy before the SEC, considering them “involuntary.” These restrictions dissuade potential whistleblowers from engaging with the program and thus interfere with federal anti-corruption objectives. The agency must ensure that whistleblowers who file complaints internally before coming to the SEC maintain award eligibility.

The SEC should not incentivize or require whistleblowers to report internally before filing claims with the agency, as this exposes them to retaliation. If a whistleblower was removed from their position, they could no longer provide the Commission with the most updated information, which would harm the investigation.

By establishing a consistent inter-agency protocol concerning whistleblowers who have participated in the crime they report, the SEC can further protect the confidentiality and anonymity of whistleblowers in all ongoing federal investigations surrounding their disclosures.

Whistleblowers must receive the full force of related action provisions and rewards if the company or agency they report is simultaneously being investigated by another branch of government.

SEC regulations should contain strict deadlines for paying awards. These regulations should be premised on the fact that the SEC and Justice Department investigators and prosecutors will know the identity and contributions of all whistleblowers who would qualify for a reward in a particular case.

In the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) Whistleblower Program, procedures require that their investigators file whether or not there was a whistleblower involved in the case at the time the case file is closed. Agents thus know who the whistleblowers are, and the agency can process a claim quickly. The integration of affidavits and statements from front-line investigators into the decision-making process accelerates the reward payout.

Wait times for awards received are another disincentivizing factor for blowing the whistle. The SEC should establish and abide by a strict deadline for paying awards to ensure that whistleblowers are compensated fully and promptly. Rewards should not have a cap limit.

Such changes reinforce the White House Strategy’s objective to “bolster the ability of civil society, media, and private sector actors to safely detect and expose corruption,” “curb illicit finance,” and “enhance enforcement efforts” in the name of “modernizing, coordinating, and resourcing U.S. Government efforts to fight corruption.”

Enhancing the program ensures that whistleblowers whose information successfully leads to enforcement action on money laundering crimes are rewarded, no matter how they provide the information.

Such provisions will demonstrate to international whistleblowers that the risk of blowing the whistle on fraud is worth taking and the United States will support them through the process.

This article was authored by Sophie Luskin.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2023. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on the SEC Whistleblower Program, visit the NLR Securities & SEC section.

The Corporate Transparency Act December 2023 Update

The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA” or the “Act”) comes into effect on January 1, 2024. Enacted by Congress as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, the CTA requires certain entities, domestic and foreign, to report beneficial ownership to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).

The CTA’s reporting obligations will apply to “Reporting Companies” (discussed below) currently in existence, and to those formed after January 1, 2024. However, while FinCEN estimates that the CTA will affect over 32 million entities, it will largely impact only smaller and unregulated companies. For example, companies that meet the CTA’s definition of a “large operating company,” are publicly traded or regulated, or are a subsidiary of certain exempt entities are not required to submit beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Accordingly, while all companies should take note of the CTA and the significant change in the law for corporate reporting obligations, an equally vast number of entities will likely find themselves exempt from these requirements.

With the CTA’s effective date fast approaching, companies should consider its potential impact to their compliance obligations and, if appropriate, implement appropriate policies and procedures for handling reporting.

WHAT DOES THE CTA REQUIRE?

The CTA will require Reporting Companies to file reports electronically with FinCEN identifying their beneficial owners, in addition to certain other information. For Reporting Companies formed prior to 2024, these reports require information about the Reporting Company and its beneficial owners. Reporting Companies formed prior to 2024 will have until January 1, 2025, to file an initial report.

For Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, reports will require information about the Reporting Company and its beneficial owners, as well as its company applicants (i.e., individuals involved in the company’s formation filing). Reporting Companies formed after January 1, 2024, will have 30 days from formation to file their initial reports, although FinCEN recently issued a final rule extending this reporting period to 90 days for companies created or registered in 2024.

WHO MUST REPORT?

Reporting Companies are defined as legal entities that are formed through a filing in a state secretary of state’s office or similar office under the law of a state or Indian tribe. Reporting Companies can be domestic or foreign and include, but are not limited to, corporations, limited liability companies, certain partnerships and certain trusts. A foreign Reporting Company is an entity formed under foreign law that registers to do business in any state or Indian tribe. Certain entities outside of the CTA’s scope include sole proprietorships, most general partnerships, common law trusts, unincorporated
associations, and foreign entities not registered to do business in a state or tribal jurisdiction. These entities are likely to have no reporting obligations under the CTA.

EXEMPT ENTITIES

The CTA provides 23 exemptions for Reporting Companies that would otherwise be required to report beneficial ownership information under the Act. These exemptions are predominantly for large or heavily regulated companies, including:

  • securities reporting issuers, banks, credit unions, depository institution holding companies, money services businesses, brokers-dealers, securities exchange or clearing agencies, pooled investment vehicles, regulated investment companies and investment advisors, insurance companies and state-licensed insurance providers, and accounting firms;
  • “large operating companies” who have more than 20 full-time employees in the U.S., an operating presence at a physical office within the United States, and more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales on their previous years’ U.S. tax returns;
  • U.S. publicly traded companies;
  • governmental authorities and tax-exempt entities; and
  • inactive entities who have been in existence prior to January 1, 2020, are not engaged in active business, are not owned in any manner by a foreign person, have not had a change in ownership within the last 12 months, have not sent or received any amount greater than $1,000 within the last 12 months, and have no assets or ownership interests in any entity in the United States or abroad.

The CTA also exempts subsidiaries of certain exempt entities if those exempt entities own or control the subsidiary.

WHAT MUST BE REPORTED?

Reporting Companies are required to report to FinCEN:

  • basic company information, including full legal name, trade names, business address, state of incorporation or business registration, and employer identification number;
  • information of Beneficial Owners, including full legal name, date of birth, residential street address, unique ID number from individual’s identification document and issuing jurisdiction of acceptable ID document (e.g., driver’s
    license, passport, state-issued ID, etc.), and image of ID document from which unique ID number was obtained;
  • information of Company Applicants, including full legal name, date of birth, business address, unique ID number from individual’s identification document and issuing jurisdiction of acceptable ID document, and image of ID document from which unique ID number was obtained. A “Company Applicant” is defined as the individual who directly files a document with the state secretary of state’s office to create the entity or register it to do business in the state, and the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling the filing.

There is no cap on the number of beneficial owners a Reporting Company is required to report. In contrast, a Reporting Company cannot have more than two reportable company applicants. Additionally, the CTA only requires Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, to report company applicants in their initial reports. There is no requirement to report company applicants for entities formed prior to January 1, 2024.

WHO IS A BENEFICIAL OWNER?

A beneficial owner is defined as any individual who, directly or indirectly, either exercises substantial control over a Reporting Company or owns or controls at least 25% of the ownership interests of such Reporting Company.

An individual may exert substantial control by (i) serving as a senior officer (e.g., company’s president, CEO, COO, CFO or general counsel, or any officer who performs a similar function), (ii) having authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors (or similar governing body) of the Reporting Company or (iii) having “substantial influence” over important matters at the company, regardless of their title or role.

Ownership interests in a company generally refer to any arrangement that establishes ownership rights in the Reporting Company, such as stock, capital or profit interests, convertible interests, options to buy or sell any of the above-named interests, or contracts, relationships or other understandings. Option interests must be treated as exercised for purposes of the analysis. Additionally, a beneficial owner may own or control such interest directly or indirectly, jointly with another person or through an agent, custodian, trust or intermediary entity.

The CTA identifies five instances where an individual who would otherwise be a beneficial owner under the Act qualifies for an exception. In these cases, the Reporting Company does not have to report the individual’s information to FinCEN. These exceptions are as follows:

  • a minor child;
  • a nominee, intermediary, custodian or agent;
  • an employee (excluding senior officers);
  • an inheritor, whose only interest in the company is a future interest through a right of inheritance; and
  • a creditor.

HOW TO REPORT

No filings are due prior to the Act’s effective date. While FinCEN has published draft forms for filing by a Reporting Company for comment, they are not yet finalized. FinCEN is also in the process of setting up the beneficial owner reporting infrastructure, the Beneficial Ownership Secure System (“BOSS”), which has not yet been finalized.

If beneficial owners or company applicants do not want to provide their personal data to a Reporting Company, individuals have the option of applying directly to FinCEN for a “FinCEN identifier” (a “FinCEN ID”). The individual will need to provide directly to FinCEN all of the same data that he or she would need to submit to the Reporting Company, but then would only need to provide his or her FinCEN ID to the Reporting Company for inclusion on its reporting.

Individuals who receive FinCEN IDs have the burden of keeping their data updated with FinCEN, whereas a Reporting Company has the burden of keeping the individual’s data current if the individual reports such data directly to the Reporting Company.

WHEN TO REPORT

For non-exempt Reporting Companies in existence as of January 1, 2024, they will have until January 1, 2025, to make their initial beneficial ownership report.

For non-exempt Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, they will need to file their first beneficial ownership report within 30 calendar days after the date of formation. On November 29, 2023, FinCEN issued a final rule extending this deadline to 90 days for companies formed or registered in 2024. The time of formation is the earlier of (i) a company receiving actual notice of its registration from the state secretary of state or (ii) a company receiving notice of its registration becoming publicly available.

In addition to filing initial reports, Reporting Companies are also obligated to make reports within 30 days of a change to any data that FinCEN requires to be reported for the company and its beneficial owners.

PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE

Congress included steep penalties for non-compliance with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Specifically, the CTA provides that willfully reporting or attempting to report false or fraudulent beneficial ownership, or willfully failing to make updates, shall be punishable with a civil penalty up to $500 per day while such violation continues, with a possible criminal fine up to $10,000 and up to two years in prison. If a reporting violation is found to be “willful,” the CTA provides that responsible parties can include individuals that cause the failure, or are senior officers of the Reporting Company at the
time of the failure. The CTA also enhances criminal penalties when a Reporting Company’s failure to file is combined with other illegal activity.

Additionally, it is also unlawful to knowingly disclose or knowingly use beneficial ownership information obtained by the person for an unauthorized purposes. Violations are punishable with a mandatory civil penalty of $500 per day while the violation continues, plus a possible criminal fine of up to $250,000, five years in prison, or both.

HOW YOU CAN PREPARE

The CTA will alter the ways entities organize and govern themselves and it will impose substantial and continuing reporting obligations. In the weeks leading up to the CTA’s implementation, entities should be developing internal policies and procedures to assess their reporting obligations, identify beneficial owners, and identify company applicants on a go-forward basis.

Reporting Companies may wish to consider adopting a CTA compliance policy. Such a policy can educate managers and senior officers on obligations under the CTA, address procedures for reporting to FinCEN and monitoring changes to a company’s reporting status and beneficial ownership, and address the application of the CTA to potential future affiliates of the Reporting Company.

Reporting Companies may also wish to consider how the CTA may implicate its constituent documents and evaluate amending existing operating agreements to incorporate provisions addressing compliance with the CTA. Similarly, some entities may wish to consider their organizational structures and corporate governance in light of the obligation to collect and report personally identifiable information. Additionally, Reporting Companies should consider how the CTA will impact future material transactions, such as mergers and acquisitions.

© 2023 Vedder Price
by: Joel R. Thielen of Vedder Price
For more news on Corporate Transparency Act Updates, visit the NLR Financial Institutions & Banking section.

Beneficial for Whom? Requirement to Provide Beneficial Ownership Information for Business Entities Begins January 1, 2024

On January 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act, a US federal law, will begin requiring certain corporations and limited liability companies to disclose their beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury. The corporate ownership structures of many gaming companies, particularly those that utilize a private equity or Voteco model, may be subject to the reporting obligations.

Unless an exemption applies, entities subject to these obligations must report information about their beneficial owners, including their full legal names, dates of birth, addresses, unique identification numbers, and an image of one of the following non-expired documents: (i) state driver’s license; (ii) US passport; or (iii) identification document issued by a state, local government, or tribe. Gaming companies should consult with their legal counsel on their specific structures and the applicability of the reporting obligations to their corporate ownership models.

The willful failure to report complete or updated beneficial ownership information to FinCEN, or the willful provision of or attempt to provide false or fraudulent beneficial ownership information, may result in civil or criminal penalties, including civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues or criminal penalties including imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Senior officers of an entity that fails to file a required beneficial ownership information report may be held accountable for that failure.

The obligation to report this information is generally required for entities with at least one beneficial owner who owns 25% or more of the entity or exercises substantial control over it. An individual exercises substantial control over a reporting company if that individual meets any of four general criteria: (1) the individual is a senior officer; (2) the individual has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors of the reporting company; (3) the individual is an important decision maker; or (4) the individual has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company.

Reporting companies created or registered to do business before January 1, 2024, will have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial reports. Under FinCEN’s regulations, reporting companies created or registered on or after January 1, 2024, will have 90 days after their company’s creation or registration to file their initial reports, and those created or registered on or after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days after their company’s creation or registration to file their initial reports.

© 2023 Jones Walker LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act and Beneficial Ownership Information, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

Corporate Transparency Act: Implications for Business Startups

Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in January 2021 to provide law enforcement agencies with further tools to combat financial crime and fraud. The CTA requires certain legal entities (each, a “reporting company”) to report, if no exemption is available, specific information about themselves, certain of their individual owners and managers, and certain individuals involved in their formation to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements of the CTA are set to take effect on January 1, 2024. Those who disregard the CTA may be subject to civil and criminal penalties.

A recent advisory explaining the CTA reporting requirements in further detail may be found here.

While the CTA includes 23 enumerated exemptions for reporting companies, newly formed businesses (Startups) may not qualify for an exemption before the date on which an initial BOI report is due to FinCEN. As a result, Startups (particularly those created on or after January 1, 2024) and their founders and investors, must be prepared to comply promptly with the CTA’s reporting requirements.

As an example, businesses may want to pursue the large operating company exemption under the CTA. However, among other conditions, a company must have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year demonstrating more than $5 million in gross receipts or sales. By definition, a newly formed business will not have filed a federal income tax or information return for the previous year. If no other exemption is readily available, such a Startup will need to file an initial BOI report, subject to ongoing monitoring as to whether it subsequently qualifies for an exemption or any reported BOI changes or needs to be corrected, in either case triggering an obligation to file an updated BOI report within 30 days of the applicable event.

Startups also should be mindful that the large operating company exemption requires the entity to (i) directly employ more than 20 full time employees in the U.S. and (ii) have an operating presence at a physical office within the U.S. that is distinct from the place of business of any other unaffiliated entity. Importantly, this means that a mere “holding company” (an entity that issues ownership interests and holds one or more operating subsidiaries but does not itself satisfy the other conditions of this exemption) will not qualify. Startups may want to consider these aspects of the large operating company exemption during the pre-formation phase of their business.

Fundraising often requires Startups to satisfy competing demands among groups of investors, which can lead to relatively complex capitalization tables and unique arrangements regarding management and control. These features may cause BOI reporting for Startups to be more complicated than reporting for other small and closely held businesses. Founders, investors, and potential investors should familiarize themselves with the CTA’s reporting requirements and formulate a plan to facilitate compliance, including with respect to the collection, storage and updating of BOI.

By ensuring all stakeholders understand the BOI reporting requirements and are prepared to comply, your Startup can avoid conflicts with current and potential investors and ensure that it collects the information that it needs to provide a complete and timely BOI report.

Yezi (Amy) Yan and Jordan R. Holzgen contributed to this article.

© 2023 Varnum LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

What Can We Learn From OFAC Enforcement Actions?

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has closed eight enforcement actions so far in 2023. These enforcement actions targeted companies, financial institutions, and individuals in the United States and abroad, and they resulted in more than $550 million in settlements.

What can other companies, financial institutions, and individuals learn from these enforcement actions? OFAC publishes Enforcement Releases on its website, and these releases provide some notable insights into OFAC’s sanctions enforcement tactics and priorities. By understanding these tactics and priorities, potential targets of OFAC enforcement actions can take strategic steps to bolster their sanctions compliance programs and efforts and reduce their risk of facing OFAC scrutiny.
Notably, all eight of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023 resulted in settlements with the target. As discussed further below, the majority of these enforcement actions also resulted from voluntary self-disclosures—so it makes sense that the companies and financial institutions involved were interested in settling. There are several other notable consistencies among OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well.

OFAC Enforcement Actions in 2023

Here is a brief summary of each of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023:

1. Godfrey Phillips India Limited

Statutory Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP): $1.78 million

Base Penalty Amount: $475,000 (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $332,500

Godfrey Phillips India Limited (GPI) faced an enforcement action related to its use of U.S. financial institutions to process transactions for exporting tobacco to North Korea. According to OFAC, GPI “relied on several third-country intermediary parties to receive payment, which obscured the nexus to the DPRK and caused U.S. financial institutions to process these transactions.”

In agreeing to a $332,500 settlement with GPI, OFAC considered the following
aggravating factors under its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines:

  •  GPI acted “recklessly” and exercised a “minimal degree of caution or care for U.S. sanctions laws and regulations.”
  • Several company managers had actual knowledge that the conduct at issue “concerned the exportation of tobacco to [North Korea].”
  •  The company’s actions harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives “by providing a sought-after, revenue-generating good to the North Korean regime.”

    Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • GPI had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  •  GPI took remedial measures upon learning of the apparent violations, including implementing new know-your customer measures and recordkeeping requirements.
  •   GPI cooperated with OFAC during its investigation.

2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $1.066 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $533,369,211 (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $30 million

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. faced an enforcement action related to its predecessor Wachovia Bank’s decision to provide software to a foreign bank that used the software to process trade-finance transactions with sanctioned nations and entities. While noting multiple failures by the bank (including its failure to identify the issue for seven years “despite concerns raised internally within Wells Fargo on multiple occasions”), OFAC agreed to settle Wells Fargo’s potential half-billion-dollar liability for $30 million. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements and failure to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care.
  • The fact that senior management “should reasonably have known” that the software was being used for transactions with sanctioned jurisdictions and entities.
  • Wells Fargo undermined the policy of OFAC’s sanctions programs for Iran, Sudan, and Syria by providing the software platform.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • Wells Fargo had a strong sanctions compliance program at the time of the apparent violations.
  • The “true magnitude of the sanctions harm underlying the conduct” is less than the total value of the transactions conducted using the software platform.
  • Wells Fargo had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years and remediated the compliance issue immediately.

3. Uphold HQ Inc.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $44,468,494

Base Penalty Amount: $90,288 (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $72,230

Uphold HQ Inc., a California-based money services business, faced an enforcement action related to its processing of transactions for customers who self-identified as being located in Iran or Cuba or as employees of the Government of Venezuela. The 152 transactions at issue involved a total value of $180,575. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Failure to exercise due caution or care when conducting due diligence on customers who provided information indicating sanctions risks.
  • Uphold had reason to know that it was processing payments for customers in Iran and Cuba and who were employees of the Venezuelan government.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  •  Uphold had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  • Uphold cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  •  Uphold undertook “numerous” remedial measures in response to OFAC’s investigation.

4. Microsoft Corporation

 
Statutory Maximum CMP: $404.6 million

Base Penalty Amount: $5.96 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $2.98 million

Microsoft Corporation faced an enforcement action related to its exportation of “services or software” to Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and blocked persons in violation of OFAC’s Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Ukraine/Russia-related sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s Enforcement Release, “[t]he majority of the apparent violations . . . occurred as a result of [Microsoft’s] failure to identify and prevent the use of its products by prohibited parties.” Aggravating factors in this case included:

  • Microsoft demonstrated a reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions over a seven-year period.
  •  The apparent violations harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing software and services to more than 100 SDNs or blocked persons, “including major Russian enterprises.”
  •  Microsoft is a “world-leading technology company operating globally with substantial experience and expertise in software and related services sales and transactions.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • There was no evidence that anyone in Microsoft’s U.S. management was aware of the apparent violations at any time.
  • Microsoft cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  • Microsoft undertook “significant remedial measures and enhanced its sanctions compliance program through substantial investment” after learning of the apparent violations.

5. British American Tobacco P.L.C.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $508.61 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $508.61 billion (egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $508.61 billion

British American Tobacco P.L.C. entered into a settlement for the full statutory maximum CMP resulting from apparent violations of OFAC’s sanctions against North Korea. According to OFAC, the company engaged in a conspiracy “to export tobacco and related products to North Korea and receive payment for those exports through the U.S. financial system” by obscuring the source of the funds involved. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  The company “willfully conspired” to unlawfully transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from North Korea through U.S. banks.
  •  The company concealed its business in North Korea through “a complex remittance structure that relied on an opaque series of front companies and intermediaries.”
  • The company’s management had actual knowledge of the apparent conspiracy “from its inception through its termination.”
  •  The transactions at issue “helped North Korea establish and operate a cigarette manufacturing business . . . that has reportedly netted over $1 billion per year.”
  •  British American Tobacco is “a large and sophisticated international company operating in approximately 180 markets around the world.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • British American Tobacco has not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation in the past five years.
  •  British American Tobacco cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.

6. Poloniex, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: 19.69 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $99.23 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $7.59 million

Poloniex, LLC, which operates an online trading platform in the United States, agreed to settle after it was discovered that the company committed 65,942 apparent violations of various sanctions programs by processing transactions with a combined value of over $15 million. In settling for a small fraction of the base penalty amount, OFAC noted that Poloniex was a “small start-up” when most of the apparent violations were committed and that its acquiring company had already adopted a more-robust OFAC compliance program.

7. Murad, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: $22.22 million

Base Penalty Amount: $11.11 million (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.33 million

Murad, LLC, a California-based cosmetics company, faced an OFAC enforcement action after it self-disclosed that it had exported products worth $11 million to Iran. While OFAC found that the company acted willingly in violating its sanctions on Iran, as mitigating factors OFAC noted the company’s remedial response and the “benign
consumer nature” of the products involved.

8. Swedbank Latvia AS

Statutory Maximum CMP: $112.32 million

Base Penalty Amount: $6.24 million (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.43 million

Swedbank Latvia AS faced an enforcement action related to the use of its e-banking platform by a customer with a Crimean IP address to send payments to persons in Crimea through U.S. correspondent banks. While OFAC noted that Swedbank Latvia is “a sophisticated financial institution with over one million customers” and failed to exercise due caution or care, it also noted that the bank took “significant remedial action” in response to the apparent violations and “substantially cooperated” with its investigation.

Insights from OFAC’s 2023 Enforcement Actions To Date

As these recent enforcement actions show, OFAC appears to be willing to give substantial weight to companies’ and financial institutions’ good-faith compliance efforts as well as their remedial efforts after discovering apparent sanctions violations. Cooperation was a key factor in several of OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well. When facing OFAC scrutiny or the need to make a voluntary self-disclosure, companies and financial institutions must work with their counsel to make informed decisions, and they must move forward with a strategic plan in place focused on achieving a favorable outcome in light of the facts at hand.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2023
By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.
For more news on OFAC Enforcement Actions, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Corporate Transparency Act – What You Need to Know

Beginning on January 1, 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department will be implementing heightened transparency disclosure requirements on US corporate entities. These new requirements include disclosing all beneficial owners of US corporate entities for the purpose of preventing white collar crime including money laundering, terrorism financing, and drug trafficking. The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) was passed in early 2021 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) which is a division of the U.S. Treasury Department.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The CTA will require US corporate entities, such as corporations and LLCs, as well as other entities that fall under the CTA reporting requirements to disclose their ultimate Beneficial Owner Information (“BOI”). A beneficial owner is defined as an individual who, directly or indirectly, either (i) exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company or (ii) owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company. Certain foreign entities registered to do business in the United States may also be required to file disclosures under the CTA. Although the CTA’s requirements cover a large range of companies, many entities will benefit from an exemption from the reporting requirement including financial institutions, companies with SEC reporting obligations, insurance companies, accounting firms, certain large operating companies, etc. BOI information that will be required includes the name(s) of the individuals that ultimately own the reporting company, their date of birth, address, and a government-issued identification. BOI requirements specify that it must be the individuals that ultimately own a reporting company that are disclosed, and not simply the identity of the shareholders or the members of an intermediary holding company.

TIMING OF DISCLOSURE FILINGS

Entities created before January 1, 2024, have until January 1, 2025, to file their initial BOI report while entities created after January 1, 2024, must file their initial BOI reports within 30 calendar days of their creation or registration. FinCEN recently issued a notice whereby this 30-day rule may be extended to 90 days for 2024 filings, and the 30-day period would apply for filings made during the 2025 year.

ELECTRONIC FILING

Filing BOI reports will be done electronically through an online interface. FinCEN is currently designing and building a new IT system called the Beneficial Ownership Secure System to collect and store CTA reports, but this system will not be available for filing purposes until January 1st, 2024. According to FinCEN, the filing system will be secure, and the information provided to FinCEN will not be accessible by the public but may be disclosed to other government agencies.

MISTAKES AND CHANGES TO FILING

If any inaccuracies are identified in a BOI report already made by a reporting company, FinCEN has stated a correction must be made within 30 days. This makes the reporting obligation a rolling requirement, and not merely an annual reporting mechanism.

PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO FILE

Deliberate non-compliance or providing false information to FinCEN can result in penalties up to $500 for each day of the violation. Criminal penalties include imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine up to $10,000. Penalties are also applied to companies who are aware of or have reason to know of any error or inaccuracy in the information contained in any previously filed report and fail to correct it within 30 days.

© 2023 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
For more news on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

Businesses Beware: Penalties for Failure to Comply with Reporting Requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act

Businesses, especially small and privately-owned businesses, should be aware of federal reporting requirements becoming effective Jan. 1, 2024. Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) in 2021 to combat money laundering, terrorism financing, securities fraud, and other illicit financial activities by requiring businesses to be transparent about their ownership. With significant exceptions, the CTA generally requires businesses to report certain information—known as Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”)—to the federal government. BOI must be reported to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”)—a Bureau of the U.S. Department of Treasury—where the information will be stored in a secured database. Last year, FinCEN published final regulations implementing the CTA’s reporting requirements. These regulations become effective Jan. 1, 2024.

Businesses should begin preparing for compliance with the CTA, as initial reports for existing businesses must be submitted prior to Jan. 1, 2025, and the penalties for non-compliance are severe.

What is BOI?
The CTA generally requires most domestic and foreign business entities doing business in the United States to report BOI concerning:

persons who directly or indirectly hold a 25% or greater interest in the business;
persons who directly or indirectly “exercise substantial control over” the business; and
for businesses formed after Jan. 1, 2024, persons who assisted in the preparation of the business’s organic documents.
To Whom and When Must BOI be Reported?
For existing businesses, BOI must be reported prior to January 01, 2025.
Businesses formed after Jan. 1, 2024, will have 30 days from confirmation of their formation, incorporation, or registration to report BOI.
If a business’s beneficial ownership changes following the submission of a BOI report, the business must report updated BOI to FinCEN within 30 days after such change.
Penalties for Failure to Comply with the CTA
The penalties for willfully failing to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements are quite severe. Any person who willfully fails to report BOI or reports it inaccurately may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including fines up to a maximum of $10,000 and imprisonment up to 2 years. Businesses should be aware that, although they may have been required to supply information regarding the entity to the secretary of state or other similar office upon formation or registration, BOI reports concern the business’ owners or controllers and must be submitted to FinCEN in addition to any information supplied to a state during the entity’s formation or registration.

An Evolving Landscape: Interplay between State Law and the Impact of the CTA on Businesses
It is yet to be seen whether states will adopt similar or identical BOI reporting requirements. As of the date of this post, legislation is pending in New York that would require LLCs to submit BOI to the New York Department of State upon organization or registration with the state. This same legislation also requires existing LLCs to amend their organic documents to include BOI.

Pennsylvania amended its Business Corporation Law effective Jan. 1, 2023, and now requires businesses conducting business in the state to file annual reports containing information regarding the entity itself. Pennsylvania does not currently require reporting of BOI. However, it is likely that Pennsylvania and many other states will soon follow the lead of the federal government and New York in requiring businesses to report BOI on a state level.

Conclusion
The CTA’s adoption is a watershed moment in the regulation of business entities. For the first time, businesses will be required to internally track and monitor their BOI to ensure compliance with the CTA. Moreover, compliance with the CTA will require businesses to evaluate their control structures and contractual relationships. For example, while it may be simple to determine whether a person owns 25% or more of a business, the determination of whether someone “exercises substantial control over” the business may not be so straightforward.

It is strongly recommended that businesses consult an experienced and qualified attorney to determine whether they are subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements, as well as any similar requirements imposed by states in the future.

©2023 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

By Rocco L. Beltrami , John F. Lushis, Jr. of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more on the Corporate Transparency Act, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.