Buildings

In the on again, off again series of statements from FinCEN regarding the Corporate Transparency Act, it appears that enforcement is off again, and could be indefinitely. With respect to the BOI reporting requirements under the Act, FinCEN announced that it will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update their BOI reports by the current deadlines. No fines or penalties will be issued, and no enforcement actions will be taken, until a forthcoming interim final rule becomes effective and the new relevant due dates in the interim final rule have passed.

FinCEN indicates that it will not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect

Further, not only will the federal government not impose penalties or fines to entities that fail to file or update a BOI report under existing deadlines, it announced that it will not enforce any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies or their beneficial owners after the forthcoming rule changes take effect. The Treasury Department will issue a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.

*** The foregoing is a broad analysis provided for informational purposes only and does not represent legal advice for any specific client or their situation.  As a result, it may not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you need legal advice, you must contact our office directly regarding your specific situation. ***

WASHINGTON––Today, FinCEN announced that it will not issue any fines or penalties or take any other enforcement actions against any companies based on any failure to file or update beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports pursuant to the Corporate Transparency Act by the current deadlines. No fines or penalties will be issued, and no enforcement actions will be taken, until a forthcoming interim final rule becomes effective and the new relevant due dates in the interim final rule have passed. This announcement continues Treasury’s commitment to reducing regulatory burden on businesses, as well as prioritizing under the Corporate Transparency Act reporting of BOI for those entities that pose the most significant law enforcement and national security risks.

No later than March 21, 2025, FinCEN intends to issue an interim final rule that extends BOI reporting deadlines, recognizing the need to provide new guidance and clarity as quickly as possible, while ensuring that BOI that is highly useful to important national security, intelligence, and law enforcement activities is reported.

No later than March 21, 2025, FinCEN intends to issue an interim final rule that extends BOI reporting deadlines, recognizing the need to provide new guidance and clarity as quickly as possible, while ensuring that BOI that is highly useful to important national security, intelligence, and law enforcement activities is reported.

FinCEN also intends to solicit public comment on potential revisions to existing BOI reporting requirements. FinCEN will consider those comments as part of a notice of proposed rulemaking anticipated to be issued later this year to minimize burden on small businesses while ensuring that BOI is highly useful to important national security, intelligence, and law enforcement activities, as well to determine what, if any, modifications to the deadlines referenced here should be considered.

The beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirements under the CTA are once again back in effect after a court decision on February 18, 2025.

However, according to the attached press release from the Department of the Treasury, it recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations, FinCEN is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from February 19, 2025, for most companies.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the Corporate Transparency Act and its impact on your company, we are available to address any such questions.

*** The foregoing is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent a full analysis of the matters presented.  The foregoing may not be relied upon as legal advice. ***

Buildings

In the ever-changing landscape of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its enforcement (or lack thereof), here are the latest developments as of February 6, 2025:

The Trump Administration recently filed its first brief in one of the cases in which an injunction was entered prohibiting the enforcement of the CTA.  The brief appears to indicate the Trump Administration’s belief that the CTA is constitutional and should be enforceable.  The brief echoes many of the legal arguments raised by the Biden Administration in support of the CTA.

Notwithstanding the current administration’s apparent support for the CTA, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is maintaining its position that reporting companies are not required to file BOI reports at this time.  Reporting companies will not be subject to liability for failing to filing BOI reports while the injunctions remain in place.  Reporting companies can, however, voluntarily submit BOI reports if desired.  FinCEN announced that if and when the injunctions are lifted, reporting companies will have 30 days to file their BOI report.

Further, FinCEN also indicated it is considering modifying the reporting requirements “for lower-risk entities, including many U.S. small businesses.”  Only time will tell what, if anything, this means.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the Corporate Transparency Act and its impact on your company, we are available to address any such questions.

*** The foregoing is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent a full analysis of the matters presented.  The foregoing may not be relied upon as legal advice. ***

Buildings

On December 17, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas denied the Federal Government’s request for a stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction previously entered in the Texas Top Cop Shop case.  The Government has filed an emergency motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit asking that the injunction be dissolved.  The Fifth Circuit has not issued a ruling as of December 18, 2024.

Thus, at least for now, reporting companies do not need to file beneficial ownership reports by year end.

As noted previously, the nationwide injunction is temporary in nature and whether the CTA is ultimately enforced depends on a number of factors, including the incoming Presidential administration, Congressional action or inaction on the issue, and whether the preliminary injunction is made permanent.  We will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as they occur.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the Corporate Transparency Act and its impact on your company, we are available to address any such questions.

*** The foregoing is a broad analysis provided for informational purposes only and does not represent legal advice for any specific client or their situation.  As a result, it may not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you need legal advice, you must contact our office directly regarding your specific situation. ***

Buildings

Many of you have inquired about the reporting requirements imposed by the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”).  And we have been delaying a definitive response so we could assess political and legal developments related to the CTA’s enforcement.  Here is the latest development:

On December 3, 2024, a federal court in Texas imposed a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the CTA and staying the Act’s compliance obligations.  See Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, 4:24-cv-00478-ALM.  The Texas Top Cop Shop is one of many challenges to the constitutionality of the CTA pending in courts across the nation.  As the Texas Top Cop Shop and the other cases move forward, the question of whether the CTA will survive will be answered at some point in the future.  For the time being however, the takeaway is that currently reporting companies do not need to file beneficial ownership reports.

It must be noted that the nationwide preliminary injunction is temporary in nature and a final decision on the enforceability of the CTA’s reporting requirements will depend on a number of factors, including the incoming Presidential administration, Congressional action or inaction on the matter, and whether the preliminary injunction issued in Texas Top Cop Shop is made permanent.  We are continuing to monitor the latest developments.  At the same time, all business owners should continue to watch the news related to this Act and make individualized determinations on their reporting requirements and compliance.

If you have questions or concerns regarding the Corporate Transparency Act and its impact on your company, we are available to address any such questions.

*** The foregoing is a broad analysis provided for informational purposes only and does not represent a legal advice for any specific client or their situation.  As a result, it may not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you need legal advice you must contact our office directly regarding your specific situation. ***

Although more and more pet owners are turning to CBD products to treat their pets, new action by the FDA is a stark reminder that those CBD pet products found on-line and in stores are considered illegal at the federal level. Less than a month after the USDA published draft final rules to permit the “legal” production and interstate shipment of hemp and CBD throughout the country, the FDA issued warning letters to thirteen companies in nine states for selling various pet food, treats and animal drugs containing CBD. The FDA found that these products were either unapproved animal drugs or adulterated animal foods due solely to the presence of CBD in the products.

Notably, several of these companies are located in states where marijuana sales and possession have been legalized, including California and Colorado. In both the warning letters and an accompanying updated consumer alert, the FDA stated that, based on a lack of supporting scientific information related to use of CBD in food products:

“the FDA is also indicating today that it cannot conclude that CBD is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) among qualified experts for its use in human or animal food.”

This determination is significant because any animal (or human) food products that contain ingredients or additives that are not GRAS are considered to be adulterated and may not legally be sold. Predictably, this determination has already lead to the filing of a class action lawsuit against a Colorado-based CBD product manufacture that makes CBD dog treats and other products. Moreover, intentionally marketing adulterated human or animal food products may lead to fines or even criminal prosecution for executives of the offending company.

The warning letters identified the offending pet products by name as well as the two specific violations: selling (1) unapproved new animal drugs and (2) adulterated animal food products. The adulterated food violation was based on using CBD as an ingredient or additive when is not GRAS.

With respect to the unapproved animal drugs, the FDA identified numerous disease claims that companies made on their websites and social media (including Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook). The FDA defines disease claims as those indicating that the product “is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in animals and/or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of animals.” Examples of disease claims related to these CBD products include relief from anxiety, pain, allergies, seizures, and neurological issues, and treatment of cancer and arthritis. It is noteworthy that all of these warning letters targeted companies that made one or more such explicit disease claims. While this certainly does not suggest any enforcement discretion to allow companies to market CBD-infused pet products without such express disease claims, it does indicate that those who explicitly make such claims are more likely to be the target of enforcement actions. While the FDA’s actions are certainly a blow to the already-growing CBD industry, they expressly recognized “the significant public interest in CBD” and emphasized that it continues to explore pathways for various types of CBD products to be lawfully marketed. To that end, the FDA promised to work together with stakeholders and industry to fill in the knowledge gaps about the quality, science, and safety (including toxicity and drug interactions) of many CBD products.

Somewhat ironically, while the FDA is cracking down on sale of pet products containing CBD, hemp and CBD may be legally produced once the new USDA hemp rules become final.

While it appears very likely that CBD products will someday be cleared for wide-spread sale by federal regulators, that day has not yet come. Many industry participants thought that CBD products became legal when the Hemp Farming Act was passed as part of the 2018 Farm Bill in December 2018, but the path to market has not yet opened for many finished CBD products. The USDA has finally published its draft final rules that will govern the “legal” production of hemp and CBD throughout the country when finalized. But with this long-awaited step forward, there remains the significant step backwards presented by the FDA in over a dozen warning letters issued this past week.

That is, while these new USDA rules allow production of hemp and CBD, they do not alter the FDA’s continued prohibition against using CBD in food, beverages or nutritional supplements. On November 25, 2019, FDA announced that it had issued warning letters to fifteen companies for illegally selling various products containing CBD in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). Just as significantly, the FDA also announced that, based on current data, it cannot conclude that CBD is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in human or animal food. This is noteworthy because no food, beverage or nutritional supplements may be marketed in the US unless all of its ingredients are GRAS. While these actions are certainly a blow to the already-growing CBD industry, the FDA expressly recognized “the significant public interest in CBD” and emphasized that it continues to explore pathways for various types of CBD products to be lawfully marketed. To that end, the FDA promised to work together with stakeholders and industry to fill in the knowledge gaps about the quality, science, and safety (including toxicity and drug interactions) of many CBD products. The ironic result is that, although CBD may now be legally produced under the new USDA hemp rules, it may not be used in food, beverage, nutritional supplement, or pet products despite growing demand and use by consumers.

Since the Farm Bill distinguished “hemp” (containing 0.3% or less THC by dry weight) from “marijuana” (more than 0.3% THC), hemp is now considered an agricultural commodity instead of a controlled substance. But because hemp and marijuana are both versions of the cannabis plant, the USDA needed to develop a stricter regulatory scheme to closely monitor this new commodity. Thus, the new rules generally include requirements that typically apply to other agricultural crops, such as reporting crop acreage, as well as stringent testing requirements to assure that the hemp products do in fact contain 0.3% or less THC.

The ironic result is that, although CBD may now be legally produced under the new USDA hemp rules, it may not be used in food, beverage, nutritional supplement, or pet products—despite growing demand and use by consumers.

The new hemp rules contain both the general requirements for states wishing to submit their own rules for USDA approval and similar USDA rules that will apply for states that do not have approved rules and that do not otherwise prohibit hemp production. Although individual states may prohibit the production of hemp in its jurisdiction, it may not prohibit interstate travel of hemp grown elsewhere across its borders. So far, eleven states and ten tribes have now submitted plans to USDA for review, but none have been approved yet. Notably, Colorado has not submitted a plan to USDA for approval.

Generally, the USDA regulatory plan requires applicants to provide detailed information about the land where hemp is grown, a detailed protocol for periodic inspection and sampling and methods for testing THC concentration, a protocol for disposing of non-conforming plants (those with too high THC concentration), and enforcement procedures for violations of federal hemp laws. Here’s what hemp producers should know about these new rules:

  • Producer’s license. Just as food & beverage manufacturers have to register their facilities with the FDA, the USDA will require hemp producers to register their production facilities. Unlike typical facility registrations, the hemp registration must include identification of all “key participants” in the business as well as a criminal history for each. Licenses are good for three calendar years and are not transferable.
  • Land requirements. Once licensed, hemp producers must provide specific crop acreage and location (using geospatial location for all areas, including greenhouses and buildings) where hemp is produced. This information will be used by inspectors when inspecting the facilities and sampling product.
  • Sampling. Each licensed producer will be inspected once annually within 15 days of estimated harvest, by a USDA-approved agent or law enforcement. The expense for inspecting and sampling (set at $152 per hour and estimated to be between $450 and $525 for an average 24-acre farm) must be paid by the Producer. Inspectors must examine all growing areas and obtain representative samples of each product lot. Inspectors will also estimate and note the height, density, and maturity of all plants and verify that each growing area contains plants of like variety. Samples must include the flower or bud of the plant from the top 1/3rd of the plant. For lots of less than an acre (including greenhouses), the inspector will sample at least one plant, and will sample at least one plant per acre for lots and greenhouses between 2-10 acres.
  • Testing. Although the USDA is still taking comments and considering revisions, it will require testing to be performed by USDA-approved and DEA-certified labs that are either approved under a to-be-developed Laboratory Approval Program or have ISO 17025 accreditation. All samples will be tested (again at Producer’s expense of $162 per hour). Testing will use gas or liquid chromatography with detection to derive total THC from the sum of the THC and THCA (THC Acid) content on a dry weight basis.
  • Disposal. If test results show that the product is marijuana (THC content of over 0.3%), then the Producer must dispose of the entire non-compliant lot, using a USDA-approved entity or law enforcement in accordance with CSA or DEA regulations. The Producer must document disposal, which may consist of documentation provided by reverse-distributor or using USDA reporting requirements, and provide this documentation to the USDA.
  • Compliance and Enforcement. The USDA will periodically conduct random audits of Producers no more than once every three years, either by reviewing requested documentation or physical inspection of the Producer’s facility. USDA will provide a written summary from such audits and will also submit a notice of any violation found in the audit. The notice of violation will identify any violations found and will include a corrective action plan that must be completed by a set deadline. The Producer must also periodically report its compliance with the plan for two years thereafter. Three violations in a five-year period will result in a 5-year ban from producing hemp from the date of the third violation.

Shortly after these rules were published, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Jeffery Merkley, who were co-authors of the Hemp Farming Act, wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture to express concerns about certain aspects of these rules on behalf of hemp growers in Oregon and propose corrections for each. Specifically, the senators expressed concern about the requirement that testing be performed within fifteen days of expected harvest when Oregon’s current rules requires crop testing within 28 days of harvest. The letter also expressed concern about requiring testing to be performed by a DEA-registered laboratory even though hemp is now a legal agricultural commodity, which could cause unnecessary bottlenecks and delays. The letter also objected to the requirement that THC be tested using specific methods and include conversion of THCA into THC when this requirement was specifically omitted from the 2018 Farm Bill. In addition, the senators sought to alter the sampling protocol to not require flowering tops, if not present, and to include more stalk material since Producers typically use the entire plant to produce CBD.

The comment period is still open for the new USDA rules, so it has not yet indicated what changes, if any, will be made in response to the concerns expressed by Senators Wyden and Merkley.

Although Mark Zuckerberg is testifying to Congress this week, the real message should be heard by manufacturers. No matter how well your company is humming along, making record profits, real danger may lurk beneath the surface. For manufacturers, the true lesson from Facebook/Cambridge Analytica debacle is that you cannot simply assume that all is well when profits are up. Hard times and soft product sales often bring sober assessment to uncover and address operational issues. But the time to critically asses your SOPs and practices is when things appear to be going well. Once any significant product problems inevitably arise, it’s too late. Even the most aggressive post-accident investigation and remedial action—or remorseful, take-responsibility statement by the company president—is no longer enough. Any prior failure to adequately discover and address the underlying causes of the problem will likely be viewed by investigators or the public (or, alas, future jurors) as callous and willful blindness meant to sacrifice safety for profit. In addition, the follow-up Congressional scrutiny may lead to a slew of hasty, stringent regulations meant to address the perceived corporate bad actions.

Even the most aggressive post-accident investigation and remedial action—or remorseful, take-responsibility statement by the company president—is no longer enough.

The answer: make regular, systemic risk assessments part of your company’s standard operating procedure. Thorough risk assessments can help your teams identify and evaluate critical areas to address, including regulatory compliance, industry standards, product packaging/labeling/warnings, quality control systems, product recall preparedness, and customer service practices. Proper systemic assessment of these diverse company functions and departments requires participation of diverse areas of your manufacturing team. For example, as part of your product recall preparedness assessment, ask your customer service department whether someone is keeping track of and adequately documenting customer complaints, press reports, and agency actions to identify potential problems from either your own or your competitors’ comparable products? More importantly, the management group overseeing the assessment, with help from legal counsel, must hear the input from the constituent departments and team members. Using this information and assessment exercise to identify and correct deficiencies in your SOPs will keep your company better prepared to discover and fix developing problems before disaster strikes—and hearings are called.