Corporate Law

Subscribe to Corporate Law via RSS

As of our last client update on the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) litigation (see CTA client alert), the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, lifted a nationwide injunction issued by a Texas trial court in Texas Top Cop Shop v. Bondi that had blocked CTA enforcement, but another nationwide injunction issued by another Texas trial court in Smith v. United States Department of the Treasury continued to stall CTA implementation. Now, the new Trump Administration, in its first formal actions related to the CTA litigations, (i) on February 5, filed a notice of appeal and motion to stay the injunction in Smith, and (ii) on February 7, filed a brief supporting the constitutionality of the CTA in Texas Top Cop Shop. Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Top Cop Shop to lift the injunction against CTA enforcement, we believe the government’s effort to stay the injunction in Smith is likely to succeed.Continue Reading Trump Administration Continues Defense of Corporate Transparency Act, Indicates FinCEN’s Flexibility On Deadlines And Scope

The long and winding road of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) litigation (as discussed in our most recent CTA client alert) has taken another turn, and this time companies are driving blind. On New Year’s Eve, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction imposed by a Texas court and let the law go into effect while the legal contest over the constitutionality of the law is pending. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court resoundingly agreed with the DOJ. In an 8-1 ruling, the nation’s highest Court lifted the stay on enforcement of the statute. One might assume that the Supreme Court ruling ended the injunction issue, but a separate order issued by a different federal judge in Texas blocking enforcement of the statute nationwide remains in place.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Initial Injunction Against Enforcement Of Corporate Transparency Act, But A Separate Injunction Continues To Halt Implementation 

2025 promises to be another turbulent year for boards of directors. On the heels of a historically unprecedented election, companies are still ramping up compliance with the ambitious agenda of the outgoing administration while simultaneously bracing for the changes promised by the next one. Against that backdrop, colleagues from across Cleary’s offices have zeroed-in on the impact of the issues that boards of directors and senior management of public companies have faced in the past year, as well as on what can be anticipated in the year to come.Continue Reading Selected Issues for Boards of Directors in 2025

In our prior notes of December 4, 9, and 13, 2024, we reported that (1) a district court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction halting implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), (2) the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) acknowledged that companies need not file CTA mandated disclosures while that injunction remained in effect. Subsequently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to stay the injunction pending appeal. The district court rejected that motion, but on December 23, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the government’s motion, staying the district court’s injunction and expediting briefing of the appeal. In so doing, the Court concluded that the government had “made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits in defending CTA’s constitutionality.” In addition, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ warnings that “lifting the . . . injunction days before the compliance deadline would place an undue burden on them,” reasoning that the plaintiffs filed suit only months ago and the injunction had been in place mere weeks, whereas businesses have had “nearly four years . . . to prepare since Congress enacted the CTA, as well as the year since FinCEN announced the reporting deadline.”Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Pauses District Court CTA Injunction; FinCEN Extends Filing Deadline to January 13, 2025

We want to make you aware that yesterday, a Texas federal district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the effectiveness of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations, which require certain companies (including certain non-U.S. companies registered to conduct business in the United States) to disclose beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.Continue Reading Federal District Court Enjoins Enforcement of U.S. Corporate Transparency Act

As outlined in our prior update, on December 3, 2024, a Texas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its implementing regulations from taking effect nationwide. Continue Reading DOJ Appeals CTA Injunction; FinCEN Suspends Filing Requirement

Earnout provisions in acquisition agreements can be a useful tool in bridging the valuation gap by deferring portions of the purchase price until certain post-closing milestones are achieved, and they are particularly common in developmental-stage pharmaceutical transactions.  Practitioners should take note of the September 5, 2024 opinion in Shareholder Representative Services LLC v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in which the Delaware Court of Chancery held a buyer, Alexion, liable for breach of contract both for its failure to use commercially reasonable efforts to achieve milestones for which future earnout payments may have become due and for its failure to pay an earned milestone payment to selling securityholders of Syntimmune, Inc.[1]Continue Reading Delaware Court of Chancery Finds Buyer Failed to Use Commercially Reasonable Efforts in Pharma Milestone Payment Case

On August 14, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the “District Court”) issued a decision ordering a permanent injunction against rules promulgated by the Missouri Securities Division, colloquially referred to as Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules, requiring that broker dealers and investment advisers disclose to and obtain written consent from customers if their investment decisions or advice “incorporate[] a social objective or other nonfinancial objective” (the “Rules”).  The District Court held the Rules were preempted by both the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 (“NSMIA”) and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The District Court also held the Rules violated the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech and were unconstitutionally vague.  The decision highlights the limits of U.S. state power in policing the social objectives broker dealers and investment advisers incorporate into their practice and, if not overturned on appeal, suggests that broker dealers and investment advisers may face less legislative pushback, at least at the state level, in pursuing environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) objectives in the future.Continue Reading District Court Holds Missouri’s “Anti-ESG” Rules are Preempted by Federal Law, Violate First Amendment, and are Unconstitutionally Vague[1]

On Friday, March 15, 2024, the Council of the European Union reached an agreement on a final version of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”). The vote on an earlier version of the CS3D had been postponed several times after some Member States announced that they were going to abstain from voting. After further changes and compromises, the now agreed version obtain the required majority amongst Member States. The last step for the directive to enter into force now is for it to be approved by the European Parliament. The CS3D seeks to integrate human rights and environmental concerns into business operations and to promote sustainable and responsible business behavior along the supply chain and require the remaining Member States to implement the due diligence requirements it sets out into law.Continue Reading Update on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive

In a February 28, 2024 opinion, the Delaware Court of Chancery confirmed an arbitrator’s award resulting in a seller of a $40 million company unexpectedly having to pay a buyer over twice that amount – $87 million – in a customary post-closing purchase price adjustment. The adjustment seems to have resulted from an ambiguity in the purchase agreement involving a drafting technicality in the definition of “Closing Date Indebtedness” and seller and buyer taking a different view of the pre- and post-closing accounting treatment of indebtedness of a joint venture in which the target company held a one-third interest due to an internal reorganization conducted at buyer’s request. Despite the court’s view that the award was economically divorced from the intended goals of the purchase agreement, it awarded summary judgement for the buyer, concluding that the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority. The case illustrates the importance of understanding the accounting implications of legal drafting in the customary purchase price adjustment sections of a purchase agreement, as well as the choice of what type of dispute resolution mechanism is selected by the parties for purchase price adjustment disputes.Continue Reading Raw Deal: Seller Ordered to Pay Buyer Over Twice the Purchase Price in Post-Closing Purchase Price Adjustment Dispute