Treasury Extends Corporate Transparency Act Filing Deadline After Fifth Circuit Grants Motion Staying Preliminary Injunction
December 24, 2024
On December 23, 2024, a panel of Fifth Circuit judges granted the government’s motion to stay the December 3 nationwide preliminary injunction ordered in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al.1 Shortly thereafter, Treasury announced an extension to the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) filing deadline to January 13, 2025, for companies that otherwise would have had to report by January 1, 2025.2 The Fifth Circuit decision stays the nationwide preliminary injunction pending appeal, which is being expedited to the next available oral argument panel. Treasury’s extension of the deadline provides additional time for companies to comply with CTA reporting requirements. After a three-week pause, reporting companies are once again required to comply with the CTA.
There are a number of other pending cases challenging the constitutionality of the CTA, including cases in Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio. As the Fifth Circuit noted, two district courts in Oregon and Virginia have denied motions for preliminary injunctions. In March of this year, in National Small Business United v. Yellen,3 a federal court in the Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and enjoined the government from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs. Notably, unlike the Texas Top Cop order, that injunction is limited to the plaintiffs in that case. The government appealed the decision, and oral arguments were held in the 11th Circuit on September 27, 2024.
*********
O’Melveny & Myers will continue to provide updates as circumstances evolve. We can help with any questions you may have about the CTA. Feel free to contact our team of experts.
1Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., E.D. Tex., Case No. 4:24-cv-00478-ALM; 24-40792.
2For additional information regarding extended deadlines, see https://www.fincen.gov/boi
3National Small Business United v. Yellen, N.D. Ala., Case No. 5:22-cv-1448-LCB.
This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Tracie Ingrasin, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York; Garrett Johnston, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in New York and Texas; AnnaLou Tirol, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California and the District of Columbia; Wenting Yu, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California and New York; Martin Mayo, an O'Melveny counsel licensed to practice law in California; and Connor Corbitt, an O'Melveny associate licensed to practice law in Texas, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.
© 2024 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.