Mandatory Reporting Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act Are Back in Effect. Most Reports Must Be Filed by Mar. 21, 2025.

By Thomas J. Gironda

After a whiplash-inducing series of court orders, the mandatory Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) are now back in effect. Most covered Reporting Companies will need to submit their BOI information to FinCEN by Mar. 21, 2025, if they have not already done so.

As set forth in a Feb. 18, 2025, FinCEN alert, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order on that date, lifting a stay it issued on Jan. 7, 2024, which placed BOI reporting requirements on hold. As such, “BOI reporting is now mandatory.”

However, FinCEN acknowledged “that reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations,” which is why it is generally extending the deadline 30 calendar days from Feb. 19, 2025, for most companies.”

The new BOI reporting deadlines are as follows:

  • For the vast majority of reporting companies, the new deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI report is now Mar. 21, 2025. FinCEN will provide an update before then regarding any further modification of this deadline, recognizing that reporting companies may need additional time to comply with their BOI reporting obligations once this update is provided.
  • Reporting companies that were previously given a reporting deadline later than the Mar. 21, 2025, deadline must file their initial BOI report by that later deadline. For example, if a company’s reporting deadline is in April 2025 because it qualifies for certain disaster relief extensions, it should follow the April deadline, not the March deadline.

Reporting companies can report their beneficial ownership information directly to FinCEN for free using FinCEN’s E-Filing system, which is available at https://boiefiling.fincen.gov. More information is available at fincen.gov/boi.

If you have questions about the reinstatement of the injunction or the CTA generally, please contact Thomas Gironda at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

Ansell.Law’s Princeton Office Moves Into New Space

As a testament to our significant presence in New Jersey and commitment to delivering exceptional legal services, Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that our Princeton office has relocated to a fresh, modern space designed to better serve our team and clients. Our new offices are at 100 Canal Pointe Boulevard.

This move marks an exciting new chapter, providing more space and improved facilities. Our new offices also reflect our commitment to cultivating the best possible environment for collaboration, innovation, and client service. All phone numbers and email addresses remain the same, ensuring a seamless transition.

“I’m thrilled with our new offices,” said Partner David J. Byrne. “As we continue to grow and evolve, the modern space fuels the team’s dedication to providing excellent service to our clients. We’re looking forward to this next chapter and the opportunities it brings.”

In New Jersey, “Probate” Is Not a Dirty Word

By Adam Solan

Anyone who has administered a loved one’s estate or has thought about their own estate plan has undoubtedly heard the dreaded word “probate.” You may have heard horror stories about a friend of a friend whose grandmother’s estate was tied up in a probate nightmare and the time, energy, and expense it took to get out of it. Television and the internet are full of people advising on how to avoid this horrible process, most of which involves putting your property into a lifetime trust. 

However, I am here to tell you that, in New Jersey at least, probate is not a dirty word or as intimidating (or as costly) as it seems.

First, a little history. The term “probate” comes from the Latin words “probare/probatum,” meaning “to prove/having been proved.” For centuries in England, scribes would begin a will with a Latin paragraph following the word “probatum,” indicating that the will was authentic and signed in the presence of a trusted authority. Today, we have done away with Latin paragraphs in wills, but the intent of probate is the same: to “prove” the validity of the decedent’s will and to qualify an executor. 

“Unsupervised Probate” in New Jersey

Luckily, New Jersey has what is called “unsupervised probate.” Unlike some states where the court must approve all of the executor’s actions regarding the estate, the executor, once qualified, is allowed to act in the estate’s best interest without the court’s supervision. 

The qualifying process is also relatively simple; you bring the original will and death certificate to the county Surrogate’s Office, fill out an estate questionnaire, pay any fees, and generally receive your Executor’s Certificate in a few weeks. With that certificate in hand, you may begin administering the estate, which includes inventorying the estate property, paying debts, and ultimately distributing the property to the decedent’s beneficiaries.

If Probate in New Jersey Isn’t So Bad, Do You Still Need a Trust?

I’m often asked, “What about putting my property into a trust to avoid the probate process?” While it is true that putting property into a trust may remove it from your probate estate and thereby avoid the probate process, it is not a one-size-fits-all remedy. It can have some downsides, such as expense and loss of direct ownership of the property. Even if a trust is right for you, a will is often necessary to ensure certain types of property and assets go into the trust. The positives and negatives of establishing a living trust are outside the scope of this article, but the point is that a trust, while an excellent method of transmitting property from one generation to the next, is not always the answer and is not the right choice for everyone. 

Even though the process is relatively straightforward, many people find it intimidating, especially when they are grieving the loss of a loved one. That is where an estate planning attorney can come in. At Ansell.Law, our Wills, Trusts & Estates lawyers can help you create an estate plan that avoids probate where advantageous while also drafting an easy-to-authenticate will that clearly expresses your intentions regarding your property. We can also help guide you or your executor through the probate process to make it as painless as possible. In New Jersey, with our help, probate is nothing to fear.

Ansell.Law Welcomes Shannon Maroutian

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that Shannon Maroutian has joined the Firm’s Commercial Real Estate Department as an associate. Maroutian represents buyers, sellers, lenders, developers, lessors, and others in a wide range of commercial property transactions. She has substantial experience in complex real estate financing and is known for her meticulous attention to detail. Focusing on loans of up to $200 million secured by various types of real estate, Maroutian has represented lenders in real estate financing transactions, including mortgage loans, construction loans, and loans intended for securitization as commercial mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations.

“We are thrilled to welcome Shannon to the Firm,” said President and Managing Shareholder Michael V. Benedetto. “With her impressive legal, construction, and real estate background and commitment to delivering exceptional client service, Shannon will be an immediate asset to the Department. We look forward to the fresh perspective and energy she will bring to our Firm as we continue to expand our capabilities and offer innovative solutions to our clients.”

Maroutian earned her law degree at the McGill University Faculty of Law. She began her practice at a boutique real estate law firm in New York City before joining an AmLaw 100 firm as a real estate finance attorney. 

Ansell.Law Announces Three New Practice Group Leaders

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce the appointment of three new Practice Group leaders effective immediately. Partner Barry M. Capp leads the Labor & Employment group, Shareholder Anthony J. D’Artiglio heads the Bankruptcy group, and Associate Kelsey M. Barber assumes leadership of the Controlled Substances and Regulatory Law group.

As client demand for these practice areas has continued to grow, the Firm selected three leaders with significant capabilities and experience. These new roles further enhance the Firm’s commitment to nurturing talent from within.

Capp, a skilled litigator with over 25 years of experience, devotes his practice to labor, employment, construction, and complex commercial matters. Licensed in New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, he has extensive experience in state and federal courts. Several published decisions Capp achieved throughout his career involve novel and noteworthy legal issues.

D’Artiglio has served as Litigation Team Leader for North New Jersey since 2023 and became a Shareholder on January 1, 2025. Licensed in New York and New Jersey, his practice encompasses bankruptcy, commercial litigation, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. D’Artiglio assumes the group’s leadership from James Aaron, who led the practice successfully for many years and is now a Shareholder Emeritus.

Barber developed a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding the production, sale, use, regulation, and legalization of controlled substances as demand grew in this emerging area of law. She routinely helps clients understand their rights and opportunities and helps them navigate the complex regulations governing these substances to secure cannabis licenses in New Jersey and New York. Barber also enjoys a diverse practice, including civil and business litigation, contract law, and appellate matters.

Anthony J. D’Artiglio Elevated to Shareholder

Ansell.Law is pleased to announce that partner Anthony J. D’Artiglio has been elevated to Shareholder. Based in the Firm’s Woodland Park office, D’Artiglio’s practice comprises bankruptcy, commercial litigation, controlled substances and regulatory law, and labor and employment. An experienced and savvy litigator, he handles an impressive range of matters, including creditors’ rights, commercial lease disputes, class actions, Consumer Fraud Act claims, corporate and shareholder disputes, employment disputes, and a diverse array of property litigations. D’Artiglio also regularly represents business debtors and creditors in complex Bankruptcy matters throughout the country.

“Anthony is a superb attorney dedicated to delivering prompt and sound advice to clients,” said President and Managing Shareholder Michael V. Benedetto. “He is an inspiring leader, and we are delighted to welcome Anthony as our newest Shareholder.”

In 2023, D’Artiglio was named Litigation Team Leader for North New Jersey in recognition of his legal acumen and mentorship capabilities. He manages the Firm’s North New Jersey litigation presence, working closely with Firmwide Litigation Department Chair Lawrence H. Shapiro. D’Artiglio also leads the Bankruptcy Department, managing all aspects of the firm’s business debtor and creditor side bankruptcy work.

D’Artiglio is licensed in New York and New Jersey. Best Lawyers in America has recognized him as “One to Watch” since 2021. D’Artiglio was named a “Rising Star” by New Jersey Super Lawyers in 2024.

Mitchell Ansell Obtains Not Guilty Verdict in High-Profile Case That Falsely Accused Teacher of Molesting and Grooming Middle School Student

The Firm’s Layne Feldman Continues To Pursue Defamation Claims Arising Out of Baseless Allegations

In a case that attracted both widespread media attention as well as bomb and death threats, Mitchell Ansell secured a not guilty verdict on behalf of a Marlboro middle school teacher charged with harassment for allegedly molesting one of her students. Municipal Court Judge James M. Newman’s decision, coming shortly after a contentious November 21, 2024, bench trial, completely exonerated Jenna Sciabica, whom Ansell has represented since shortly after the March 13, 2024, incident that led to the charges. Ansell.Law’s Layne Feldman is currently pursuing defamation claims on behalf of Sciabica against the female student’s parents, school staff, and other individuals who made disparaging and false allegations against her online.

Noting that Sciabica had an impeccable record as a special education teacher and had become friends with the student’s mother when she was tutoring her two brothers at their home twice a week, Ansell said that charges of harassment by inappropriate touching were baseless and should never have been brought.

“Jenna is an exemplary educator and person who did nothing inappropriate, much less illegal, in her interactions with the student. I’m pleased the judge recognized the injustice of the charges,” Ansell said.

Sciabica was accused of touching the girl’s breast in a school hallway when another teacher and students were present. As stated in Sciabica’s defamation claims, the March 13 incident, which was captured on video, was a continuation of a conversation Sciabica had at the girl’s home when the girl’s mother asked Sciabica to comment on a dress that the girl was trying on that appeared to be too big in the chest. When she saw the girl in the hallway with a teacher and students present, Sciabica spoke with her about the dress. “She tapped the student’s chest with one hand, twice,” according to Sciabaca’s filing.

As reported in the Asbury Park Press, Marlboro Detective Michael Pecararo testified at the trial that the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office reviewed the case twice, both times finding that no sexual offense was committed in the hallway that day. His investigation lasted more than a month.

Ansell argued that for Sciabica to be found guilty, the prosecution had to prove there was intent to harass when the touching incident occurred. Since there was no evidence of any conscious objective to harass, the state had not met its burden, compelling a not-guilty verdict. Within hours after the conclusion of the trial, the judge agreed.

Feldman said that the false accusations made by the student’s mother, video of which was widely circulated online and loudly echoed by others in the community, have upended Sciabica’s life and devastated her career.

“The not guilty verdict, while more than warranted and welcome, does not change the fact that the individuals behind these outrageous claims have caused Jenna irreparable harm and distress that she has had to live with and will continue to live with going forward,” Feldman said.

“Death threats, harassment, and the trauma of the entire ordeal were all foreseeable consequences of these irresponsible, unsupportable claims,” she continued. “We hope that being vindicated in this case provides Jenna with some sense of justice, but we will continue to seek accountability from those who so cavalierly shattered her life.”

Texas Federal Court Issues Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Barring Enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act

By Thomas J. Gironda

Thanks to a federal judge in Texas, approximately 32.6 million American businesses just got a reprieve from the confusing and burdensome reporting obligations imposed by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). On Dec. 3, 2024, mere weeks before the Jan. 1, 2025 compliance deadline for many covered entities, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the federal government from enforcing the CTA, its implementing regulations, and its Reporting Rule. Per the ruling, “reporting companies need not comply with the CTA’s Jan. 1, 2025, [Beneficial Ownership Information] reporting deadline pending further order of the Court.”

The ruling in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. means that, for the moment at least, covered entities that were required to submit “Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) division on or before Jan. 1, 2025, do not need to do so. That deadline applied to reporting companies formed on or before Jan. 1, 2024. While the order did not expressly address the deadlines for entities formed in calendar year 2024 (90 days after formation) or those formed after Jan.1. 2025 (30 days after formation), the injunction effectively stays enforcement of those reporting obligations as well.

However, it is important to note that the injunction is preliminary, meaning that the constitutionality and enforceability of the CTA are far from settled questions. As the court noted, it “has determined that the CTA and Reporting Rule are likely unconstitutional for purposes of a preliminary injunction. It has not made an affirmative finding that the CTA and Reporting Rule are contrary to law or that they amount to a violation of the Constitution.”  

The court that issued the injunction could ultimately decide against issuing a permanent nationwide injunction, though that is unlikely. More likely, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will appeal the ruling and request a stay of the injunction pending the appeal. It did so in a previous case, NSBU v. Yellen, that found the CTA unconstitutional, though the ruling barring its enforcement only applied to the plaintiffs in that case. 

To date, neither the DOJ nor FinCEN has issued any statements in response to the injunction. Adding to the uncertainty regarding the future of the CTA, the change in administration coming on Jan. 20 means that even if the DOJ files an appeal, the new department leadership may change course and halt those efforts. 

The Bottom Line

As noted, there is a chance that an appellate court may stay the injunction. It could also limit its application to the plaintiffs in the case and may ultimately overturn the ruling. All of these would revive the CTA and its reporting deadlines. As such, covered entities that have yet to submit their BOI information to FinCEN may wish to prepare for such a possibility by conducting the due diligence needed to report their BOI. However, for the moment, covered entities can enjoy the holiday season unburdened by the reporting deadline they would have faced on New Year’s Day. 

 If you have questions about the injunction or the CTA generally, please contact Thomas Gironda at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

The Corporate Transparency Act: Your Business Is Probably One of the 36 Million That Needs To Comply With Its Mandatory Reporting Requirements. What You Need To Know and Do Now.

By Thomas J. Gironda

On January 1, 2024, approximately 36 million American business owners woke up to find a new, complicated, and potentially burdensome federal reporting obligation on their compliance plate. That was the effective date of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a law passed in 2021 as part of a major effort to stop money laundering and related crimes. The CTA attempts to accomplish this objective by requiring about 90% of American businesses to make mandatory and detailed disclosures regarding their “Beneficial Ownership Information” (BOI) to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) division.

Unless your business falls under one of the exemptions outlined in the CTA – and it probably doesn’t – you need to understand and comply (or have complied) with the CTA’s reporting obligations by the dates detailed below. Failure to do so comes with significant consequences, including hefty fines.

FinCEN issued its Final Rule implementing the CTA on September 29, 2022, clarifying what entities are subject to the Act’s reporting requirements and what specific information those entities must provide. Since then, FinCEN has published extensive, detailed, and regularly updated FAQs to provide much-needed clarity and guidance about who is subject to the law, what information must be reported, and when it must be reported.

While hardly comprehensive, the following overview can help you make sense of the CTA and provide the foundation for timely compliance.

Is Your Business a “Reporting Company” That Must Comply With the CTA?

Under the Final Rule, a “Reporting Company” is either a corporation, limited liability company or any other entity – no matter how small – created by filing a document (e.g., Articles of Incorporation) with a secretary of state or any similar office. This means that entities that can be established without such filings, like sole proprietorships and general partnerships, are not subject to the CTA’s reporting requirements.

Section(a)(11)(B) of the CTA contains a list of 23 entity types that are exempt from the law’s reporting requirements. Most exceptions apply to companies that already have ownership reporting obligations under other regulatory schemes, such as securities dealers, banks and other financial institutions, and public companies. 

These types of entities do not have to comply with the CTA’s BOI reporting requirements:

  • Banks.
  • Bank holding companies.
  • Credit unions.
  • Insurance companies.
  • Issuers of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or that must file supplementary and periodic information under Section 15(d) of the 1934 Act.
  • Brokers, dealers, and any other entities registered with the SEC under the 1934 Act.
  • Registered investment advisors under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
  • Public accounting firms.
  • Companies employing more than 20 people full-time in the U.S. or that filed a federal income tax return in the prior year showing more than $5 million in gross sales or receipts and have an operating presence in the U.S.
  • Any entity that:
    • Has existed for over one year.
    • Has not sent or received funds over $1,000 or experienced an ownership change in the previous 12 months.
    • Is not actively engaged in business.
    • Is not owned by a foreign individual

and

    • Does not otherwise hold any assets, including ownership interests, in any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity.

“Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners” Whose BOI Must Be Reported 

In addition to basic corporate information such as name, address, and tax ID number, Reporting Companies covered by the CTA must provide FinCEN with BOI for two categories of individuals: “Applicants” and “Beneficial Owners.” 

“Company Applicants”

The Final Rule defines a “company applicant” as “the individual who directly files the document that first creates the domestic reporting company” as well as “the individual who is primarily responsible for directing or controlling such filing if more than one individual is involved in the filing of the document.” Effectively, the person who established the entity by filing the necessary paperwork will likely be an “Applicant” whose BOI must be disclosed. 

“Beneficial Owner”

While identifying an Applicant is relatively straightforward, determining an entity’s “Beneficial Owners” can be far more complicated. 

The Final Rule defines a “Beneficial Owner” as any individual who, directly or indirectly, either:

  • Owns or controls at least 25 percent of the ownership interests of a reporting company or
  • Exercises “substantial control” over a reporting company.

The Final Rule and FinCEN’s FAQs discuss what qualifies as “ownership interests” and “substantial control” that would make an individual a “Beneficial Owner” under the CTA.

Substance of Reporting 

Non-exempt Reporting Companies must give FinCEN the following information regarding Applicants and Beneficial Owners:

  • Full legal name.
  • Date of birth.
  • Street addresses (identified as a current residential or business street address).
  • Non-expired state identification document or passport.

Compliance Deadlines

The Final Rule established different compliance deadlines for specific categories of covered entities. However, those original deadlines were modified in November 2023 for entities created or registered on or after the Rule’s effective date of January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2025, to “give those entities additional time to understand the new reporting obligation and collect the necessary information to complete their filings.”

Accordingly, new domestic or foreign Reporting Companies formed during calendar year 2024 must submit their BOI report within 90 days after the date of the entity’s formation (i.e., the filing date of its Articles or Certificate). Prior to the adoption of the Final Rule, all such entities had to file their reports within 30 days after the date of their formation.

For all covered entities formed either before or after 2024, the CTA’s deadlines for submitting BOI reports to FinCEN are:

  • Existing domestic or foreign Reporting Companies formed before January 1, 2024: On or before January 1, 2025 (one year after the effective date of the CTA.)    
  • New domestic or foreign Reporting Companies formed on or after January 1, 2025: Within 30 days after its date of formation (i.e., the filing date of its Articles or Certificate).

Penalties for Non-Compliance

There are significant penalties for non-compliance or fraud involving CTA reporting. Any person or entity that “willfully provides, or attempts to provide, false or fraudulent information or willfully fails to report when required” faces civil penalties of up to $500 per day for each violation, up to $10,000 in criminal fines, and up to two years in prison. 

Assistance With CTA Compliance

As noted, FinCEN has been updating its CTA FAQs regularly, and we recommend that business owners review that guidance for additional information and clarification regarding their compliance obligations. We also recommend that entities work with experienced and credible vendors who focus on assisting entities with preparing and filing required reports. Two such vendors are VCorp Services and CSC Global

If you have questions about the CTA, please contact Thomas Gironda at Ansell Grimm & Aaron.

The ABCs of Mandatory ADR for New Jersey HOAs

By Elysa Bergenfeld and Nicole Miller

For homeowners and condominium associations (“Community Associations”), disputes among owners or between owners and boards are as inevitable – and undesirable – as special assessments. They can lead to tension and hostility and, if not handled properly and diplomatically, can metastasize into costly and disruptive litigation that leaves a sour taste in everyone’s mouth.

New Jersey law recognizes that such conflicts are bound to happen and that litigation is rarely, if ever, the most productive way to resolve such issues. That is why both the New Jersey Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 et seq., and the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act (“PREDFDA”), N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq., require that Community Associations provide a “fair and efficient” alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism for unit owners to resolve “housing-related” disputes between each other or with the board.

Specifically, as stated in Section 14 of the Condominium Act (and in parallel language in PREDFDA):

An association shall provide a fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of housing-related disputes between individual unit owners and the association, and between unit owners, which shall be readily available as an alternative to litigation. A person other than an officer of the association, a member of the governing board or a unit owner involved in the dispute shall be made available to resolve the dispute. A unit owner may notify the Commissioner of Community Affairs if an association does not comply with this subsection. The commissioner shall have the power to order the association to provide a fair and efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes.

Importantly, a board must participate if an owner requests ADR based on a housing-related dispute. However, while a board must make ADR available to quarreling owners, a unit owner cannot compel another unit owner to participate in ADR. 

What Is a “Housing-Related” Dispute?

Community Association boards are not expected to be clearing houses for every possible gripe and grievance a unit owner has. Instead, as noted, the mandatory ADR procedures that boards must establish are only applicable and available to resolve “housing-related” disputes. Citing New Jersey public policy that favors arbitration over litigation whenever possible, courts have interpreted that term broadly, though not limitlessly.

In Bell Tower Condo. Ass’n v. Haffert, the court stated that “the term ‘housing-related disputes’ signifies that only disputes that arise from the parties’ condominium relationship are subject to the arbitration provisions” of the law. It noted several examples of matters that fall outside that definition, including:

  • An auto accident in the condominium parking lot;
  • A commercial dispute arising from a failed business venture between two unit owners;
  • A palimony claim asserted by one unit owner against another;
  • A legal or medical malpractice claim against another unit owner;
  • A crime or disorderly persons offense committed by one owner against another; or
  • Any other dispute that does not arise directly from the parties’ condominium relationship.

What Does Providing a “Fair and Efficient Procedure” Mean?

To satisfy the ADR requirement, boards can offer either mediation or arbitration. Both processes are overseen and conducted by an unbiased neutral third party who has no personal stake in the outcome. As such, neither the board nor any of its agents or employees can act as the neutral third party.

In a mediation, the neutral cannot impose a resolution on the disputing parties but can only work with them collectively and individually to bridge their differences and hopefully reach an agreed-upon solution. In an arbitration, the parties grant the neutral the authority to decide how the matter should be resolved. 

The neutral third-party arbitrator reviews evidence, hears arguments from the parties, and hears testimony from witnesses. Though the rules of evidence and procedure are typically less stringent than at a trial, they are often similar to those of a case tried in a court of law. Arbitration can be binding or non-binding.

What ADR Can’t Do

ADR is not a means to secure an order to stop a board from taking action or to force a board to act. That kind of relief can only be obtained through appropriate court proceedings. Similarly, ADR is not the means to obtain monetary damages against an association.

Additionally, matters within a board’s legitimate discretion are not subject to ADR because a court will not substitute its judgment for that of a board. Only alleged violations of governing documents or other legal obligations can be the subject of an ADR demand against a board.

If your Community Association board needs assistance or guidance regarding its ADR policies, programs, and procedures, please contact Nicole Miller or Elysa Bergenfeld at Ansell.Law.