Categories
Business & Corporate Law

The Corporate Transparency Act: What It Is and What It Means for Your Small Business

The Corporate Transparency Act: What It Is and What It Means for Your Small Business

Madison Shaner

Share Post:

On January 1, 2021, as part of the federal Anti-Money Laundering Act (the “AMLA”), Congress enacted the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) in an effort to increase corporate transparency. The CTA requires certain companies to file information on their businesses, including “beneficial ownership” information, with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). The impact of the CTA on companies and those who would be required to report information has not been clear. However, on December 7, 2021, FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish the regulations that would implement the CTA, and provide additional clarity on which businesses would be considered “reporting companies” under the CTA.

Which companies are subject to reporting requirements?

Almost all types of domestic and foreign business entities are included in the CTA’s definition of “reporting companies”. This includes limited liability companies and corporations. That being said, the CTA allows for a number of exemptions for companies that will not be required to make CTA filings. However, these exemptions apply only to large entities and entities that are already subject to various reporting requirements due to size or industry regulations.

Companies that are considered “large operating companies” are not required to make filings under the CTA. The proposed rules clarify that “large operating companies” are those that: (1) employ more than 20 employees on a full-time basis in the United States; (2) filed Federal income tax returns in the prior year demonstrating more than $5,000,000 in gross receipts or sales in the aggregate (including receipts or sales from entities owned by the entity and through which the entity operates); and (3) has an operating presence at a physical office within the United States. The CTA additionally does not require filings for subsidiaries of exempted entities, meaning entities whose ownership interests are entirely owned or controlled by an exempt entity. Subsidiary entities that are partially-owned by exempt entities, are, however, not exempted.

What does a reporting company have to report?

Reporting entities will be required to disclose basic information regarding the entity itself, including the company’s full name, any trade name (or D/B/A), business street address(es), the jurisdiction of formation, and taxpayer identification information (EIN). In addition to entity information, reporting entities are required to report information on their beneficial owners. Meaning that each reporting entity will be required to report the name, birthdate, address, and unique identifying number from an acceptable identification document (such as a passport or driver’s license) with an image of the document. The beneficial owner information must be provided for each company applicant and beneficial owner of the entity. Beneficial owners are defined by the CTA as “any individual who, directly or indirectly” exercises “substantial control” over the reporting company or “owns or controls” at least 25% of the “ownership interests” of the reporting company.” 

While the CTA doesn’t define “substantial control” or “ownership interests,” the proposed regulation clarifies that “substantial control” is viewed through the lens of three specific indicators: (1) service as a senior officer of a reporting company; (2) authority over the appointment or removal of any officer or dominant majority of the board of directors of a reporting company; (3) direction, determination or decision of, or substantial influence over important matters of a reporting company (e.g. sale, lease or transfer of principal assets of the company, entry into or termination of major contracts, major expenditures and investments, compensation of senior officers). The proposed regulations also take an expansive view of what constitutes an “ownership interest” to include both equity in the reporting company and other types of interests, such as capital or profits interests, convertible instruments, warrants or rights, or other options to acquire equity, capital, or other interests in a reporting company.

When do reporting companies have to report their information?

When reporting companies are required to comply with the CTA depends on the date of the company formation. After FinCEN’s regulations become final, new reporting companies will be required to report the information about their beneficial owners upon formation or within fourteen days thereof. Any existing company formed prior to the effectiveness of the FinCEN regulations will be required to report its information within two years of the promulgation of the new regulations. Reporting companies will also need to update their information within a year of any change of beneficial ownership.

Who will be able to see and access information regarding beneficial ownership?

The beneficial owners of consumer facing companies may be concerned about the accessibility of their personal information given the reporting requirements. This concern is largely unfounded, however. The reporting information will be kept in a secure, private, database maintained by FinCEN. The database of reporting information will not be publicly available, and ownership information will be available upon requests only from federal law enforcement agencies; state, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies authorized by court order; a federal agency on behalf of a foreign country if such request is pursuant to an international agreement; or a financial institution for customer due diligence purposes authorized by the reporting company.

The current proposed rulemaking is one of three to implement the CTA. Companies should begin evaluating whether they will fall within the reporting requirements and who within their entity structure may be considered a beneficial owner based on this initial proposed rulemaking.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ASSOCIATE

Madison (Maddie) Shaner joined Milgrom & Daskam as an Associate in 2019. Her practice focuses on corporate and real estate transactions. Prior to joining Milgrom & Daskam, Maddie was an associate at Tyson, Gurney & Hovey, LLC where she conducted oil and gas title examination and assisted in drafting drilling and division order title opinions for upstream oil and gas clients

More Articles

Business & Corporate Law

The Small Business Reorganization Act and Its Prolonged Adoption Through June of 2024

Chapter 11 bankruptcy code generally provides businesses with avenues and protections to reorganize and restructure obligations. This form of bankruptcy is very often more favorable than chapter 7 bankruptcy because it allows business owners to stay in the driver’s seat while attempting to negotiate a plan that complies with the bankruptcy code. In contrast, filing a chapter 7 petition results in full relinquishment of control of the business and the appointment of a third-party trustee whose primary obligation to is to liquidate estate assets for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

Read More »
Business & Corporate Law

Beneficial Ownership Disclosure: New Reporting Requirements for Small Businesses

On September 30, 2022, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its highly anticipated Final Rule establishing a beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) of 2019. These rules significantly change the obligations of business entities to disclose previously private information regarding the ownership and control of these entities. The primary purpose of the CTA, enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 is to protect the US financial system from being used for illicit purposes, including preventing corrupt actors, terrorists, and criminals from hiding assets in anonymous shell companies. Background for this rule was addressed in prior blog posts including The Corporate Transparency Act (1/31/22) and FinCEN and Real Estate (8/2/22).

Read More »
Miscellaneous

When Shares are Not Cares

As attorneys representing startups, Milgrom & Daskam knows that early-stage businesses often have many needs and not much capital to meet them. This often results in startups bartering for services using whatever currency they have. Sometimes this results in interesting exchanges (two hundred pounds of Valencia oranges in exchange for a logo design being our personal benchmark); more often it results in founders giving away the most freely available form of credit they have—equity in their company.

Read More »
Categories
Copyright Law

Important Legal Issues for Buyers and Sellers of NFTs

Important Legal Issues for Buyers and Sellers of NFTs

Jason Fisher

Share Post:

WHAT ARE NFTS?

NFTs are the latest digital asset to have taken the world by storm. Similar to cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Ethereum, NFTs are recorded on a blockchain ledger to verify ownership. However, while a cryptocurrency’s tokens are interchangeable and indistinguishable, each NFT is a unique asset such as a particular document, image, or video.

POTENTIAL FOR INFRINGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT

Those who buy and use or resell NFTs should be particularly aware of the potential for infringement. Generally, NFT marketplaces verify sellers to ensure authenticity, however, this does not eliminate the possibility that a NFT is infringing another’s intellectual property rights. As a result, buyers should always conduct their own due diligence.

Last July, Opensea, a leading marketplace for the resale of NFTs,  delisted a seller after receiving a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) notice alleging infringement. The delisted seller, “CryptoPhunks” was parodying NFTs created by, “CryptoPunks”, a very well-known seller who submitted the DMCA notice. Reactions to the CryptoPhunks delisting were mixed with many accusing the platform of censorship. What many critics may not realize is that Opensea was protecting not only themselves but potential purchasers of CryptoPhunks NFTs.

Under Section 504 of the Copyright Act, any person who sells an infringing work can be liable for statutory damages between $750 and $30,000 per infringement. This applies whether or not the seller knew that they were selling infringing material. With this, CryptoPunks would have been able to bring a claim against any person who bought and resold a NFT from CryptoPhunks based on alleged infringement.

Further, the Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement Act (the “CASE Act”), which passed  in late 2020, is designed to streamline the process by which CryptoPunks or other owners of allegedly infringed property can bring these claims. By providing a cheaper and less expensive framework for copyright litigation, the CASE Act incentivizes rightsholders to enforce their rights in situations which previously would not be worth the hassle of federal court and is likely to increase NFT-related enforcement actions.

When deciding whether to purchase NFTs, all potential buyers should consider the possibility of infringement and the potential for personal liability . Some risky parodies may provide resale value —and a good laugh—but ultimately will not be worth the headache of defending an enforcement action.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

ASSOCIATE

Jason focuses his practice on corporate governance, commercial finance, commercial contracts, and employment law. He advises clients on all aspects of general corporate matters and strategic business decisions including organization structure, operating/shareholder agreements, and private debt and equity offerings.

More Articles

Copyright Law

Should You Seek Foreign Intellectual Property Protection?

If you plan to conduct business abroad or have an online business that reaches customers abroad, you should consider seeking international intellectual property protection. Intellectual property protection is often limited to the country where you conduct business and/or where you file for protection with the respective foreign intellectual property office. For example, a U.S. trademark registration will not protect you against trademark disputes that arise in other countries. As another example, a U.S. patent prevents others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing your patented invention in the U.S., but does not prevent others from doing the same in other countries.

Read More »