The Corporate Transparency Act: Nationwide Injunction Brings Relief to Businesses
Financial
In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant issued a nationwide injunction halting the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). This decision has far reaching implications for businesses, particularly those grappling with the complexities of compliance. Designed to curb money laundering and illicit financial activity, the CTA would have required businesses to report their beneficial ownership information to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) by January 1, 2025. However, the court’s decision has now paused these requirements, raising critical questions about federal authority and corporate governance.
The CTA, enacted as part of the Anti-MoneyLaundering Act of 2020, aimed to combat financialcrimes by increasing transparency. It mandatedthat companies, limited liability companies (LLCs),and other corporate entities disclose detailedinformation about their beneficial owners toFinCEN. Noncompliance could result in significantpenalties, including fines and imprisonment.【1】While well-intentioned, the Act faced substantialcriticism for its sweeping reach and potentialburdens on small businesses. Many argued thatthe law imposed onerous compliancerequirements, particularly for companies withlimited administrative capacity or complexinternational structures【2】【3】.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE
Judge Amos Mazzant’s ruling centered on theseparation of powers and Congress’s authorityunder the Constitution. Specifically, the courtexamined whether the CTA aligned withCongress’s constitutionally enumerated powers,such as regulating interstate commerce andaddressing foreign affairs【4】.Judge Mazzant concluded that the Act exceededthese powers, particularly by infringing on states'authority to regulate corporate governance.The ruling emphasized that states, not the federalgovernment, have historically managed corporateadministrative requirements. Forcing companies to report beneficial ownership data to a federalagency without clear constitutional authorizationundermines this principle【5】.Judge Mazzant also noted that the CTA’senforcement mechanisms conflicted with privacyconcerns. By requiring the disclosure of sensitivefinancial information without adequate safeguards,the law raised significant constitutional issues【6】
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR BUSINESSES
The injunction provides a much-needed reprievefor businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises that would have faced increasedadministrative burdens under the CTA【7】.Companies can now pause preparations for compliance, saving time and resources.For foreign entrepreneurs and companies operating in the U.S., the ruling removes a major hurdle.Many Latin American businesses, for instance, hadexpressed concerns about the Act’s impact ontheir operations. The CTA would have requiredinternational firms to navigate a complex regulatory landscape, potentially discouraging investment in the U.S. market【8】.Additionally, the ruling highlights the importanceof states' role in regulating corporate entities.Businesses incorporated in states like Delaware,known for their business-friendly laws, will continue to benefit from their regulatory frameworkswithout federal interference【9】.
AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
For companies in Latin America, the injunctionagainst the CTA is particularly impactful.Entrepreneurs from countries like Mexico,Colombia, and Brazil had raised alarms about thepotential for overlapping compliance obligationsbetween U.S. federal requirements and their homecountries’ regulations. This decision alleviatesthese concerns and ensures that internationalbusinesses can focus on growth rather thannavigating new compliance mandates【10】.For instance, many Latin American firms rely onLLCs or Delaware corporations to access the U.S. market. The CTA’s reporting requirements wouldhave added significant complexity to thesestructures, potentially deterring cross-borderinvestment. The injunction preserves thesimplicity and efficiency of these entities,reinforcing the U.S. as a favorable destination forforeign entrepreneurs【11】
CONCLUSION
The injunction provides a much-needed reprievefor businesses, particularly small andmedium-sized enterprises that would have facedincreased administrative burdens underthe CTA【7】.Companies can now pause preparations forcompliance, saving time and resources.For foreign entrepreneurs and companiesoperating in the U.S., the ruling removes a majorhurdle. Many Latin American businesses, forinstance, had expressed concerns about the Act’simpact on their operations. The CTA would haverequired international firms to navigate a complexregulatory landscape, potentially discouraginginvestment in the U.S. market【8】.Additionally, the ruling highlights the importanceof states' role in regulating corporate entities.Businesses incorporated in states like Delaware,known for their business-friendly laws, willcontinue to benefit from their regulatoryframeworks without federal interference【9】.
REFERENCES
1. Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, Title LXIV, Sec. 6401.
Alvaro Jodar is an attorney licensed in Spain with a U.S. Law LL.M. from Fordham University, eligible to take the NY Bar. With extensive experience in intellectual property and tech transactions, Alvaro has advised both startups and established companies in Latin America on navigating complex U.S. venture capital and regulatory frameworks. Currently based in New York City, he offers a unique cross-border perspective, especially in startup-related law where U.S. and EU regulations intersect. Alvaro’s background includes working with esteemed firms like Across Legal and completing high-impact internships at Pfizer, Dunning Rievman & MacDonald, and Vazquez & Associates. Fluent in both English and Spanish, he brings a culturally attuned approach to his work, assisting clients with legal challenges across international markets.
1.png)
