Tag Archives: Matthew Bisanz

FinCEN Requires Reporting From Dissolved Companies

by Matthew Bisanz, Adam D. Kanter, Brad A. Resnikoff, and Marcella Barganz

Photos of the authors.

From left to right: Matthew Bisanz, Adam D. Kanter, Brad A. Resnikoff, and Marcella Barganz. (Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown LLP)

On July 8, 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued interpretive guidance explaining that the beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirement applies to certain legal entities that have been dissolved or otherwise ceased to exist after January 1, 2024. This new guidance dramatically expands the reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and raises significant issues regarding compliance and liability for noncompliance.

The new guidance is effective immediately. Persons who own or manage entities that will dissolve in 2024, or have already dissolved this year—or which were not dissolved irrevocably—should review the guidance to determine their reporting obligations.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Declares the Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional

by Gina Parlovecchio, Brad Resnikoff, Matthew Bisanz, and Daisy Gray

From left to right: Gina Parlovecchio, Brad Resnikoff, Matthew Bisanz, and Daisy Gray (Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown LLP).

On March 1, 2024, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama declared the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional, and suspended its enforcement against the plaintiffs in that case. While most companies remain subject to its requirements for now, this decision may presage more broadly applicable relief through subsequent judicial or administrative action.

The CTA requires many entities conducting business in the United States to disclose beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a law enforcement arm of the US Department of Treasury. The court, in enjoining the CTA’s enforcement against the plaintiffs, found that the CTA exceeds constitutional limits on Congress’s power. In the wake of the decision, FinCEN announced that it intends to respect the court’s decision and will not enforce the CTA beneficial ownership requirements against the plaintiffs, but its silence as to other parties implies that everyone else must continue to comply.

In this Legal Update, we discuss the case, National Small Business Association, et al. v. Yellen, FinCEN’s response, and our predictions for what will come next.

Continue reading →

Overhaul of Regulatory Capital Requirements Proposed by US Banking Regulators

by Matthew Bisanz, Jeffrey P. Taft, Andrew Olmem, Anna T. Pinedo, Angela M. Ulum, Stuart M. Litwin, Jerry R. Marlatt, Brian L. Kuhl, and Eric M. Reilly

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Matthew Bisanz, Jeffrey P. Taft, Andrew Olmem, Anna T. Pinedo, and Angela M. Ulum.
Bottom left to right: Stuart M. Litwin, Jerry R. Marlatt, Brian L. Kuhl, and Eric M. Reilly.
(Photos courtesy of Mayer Brown)

On July 27, 2023, US federal banking regulators issued proposals to (i) significantly revise the risk-based regulatory capital requirements for certain midsize and larger US banking organizations (the “Capital Proposal”) and (ii) change the method for calculating the capital surcharge for globally systemically important banking organizations (“G-SIBs”) (the “G-SIB Surcharge Proposal”).[1] These proposals are of critical importance because the amount of capital a bank must maintain with respect to any particular loan, investment or activity is typically a significant – if not the most significant – factor in determining whether the relationship is profitable or even feasible.[2] Comments on both proposals are due by November 30, 2023.

Continue reading →