Posts By: Chris Wielinski

Cokinos | Young Dallas Secures $3.8 Million Judgment in Securities Fraud Case

A significant legal victory was achieved on January 21, 2025, when Judge James P. Fallon of the 15th Judicial District Court entered a $3,820,200.25 judgment against Michael W. Wright and Wright Drilling & Exploration, Inc. The judgment follows a jury verdict delivered on September 24, 2024, after a week-long trial.

Plaintiffs Charles Hardwick, Randall Schwimmer, Kim Parker, Lance Schwimmer, and Rodney Warren prevailed in their case against the Defendants, who were found liable for securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in connection with oil and gas joint ventures operated by Michael W. Wright.

Cokinos | Young Principal Anderson Sessions, alongside Fernando Bustos, of The Bustos Law Firm, and Kelly Hollingsworth, of Mims Ballew & Hollingsworth, led a consolidated trial team that represented the Plaintiffs in a coordinated prosecution against the Defendants and more than a dozen sham oil & gas joint venture entities. Their compelling case exposed the egregious misconduct at the center of the dispute, highlighting the importance of fiduciary accountability and corporate transparency in such ventures.

The case marks a decisive stand against fraudulent practices in the oil and gas sector, reinforcing the integrity of joint ventures and investor agreements.

R. Anderson Sessions

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Are the Floodgates of Change Opening for Tort Liability in Texas?

A case will soon be argued before the Supreme Court of Texas which is worthy of the attention of all Texas construction and real estate lawyers and their clients. Cause No. 23-0808, Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ricky Ellisor et al.  involves flood damage claims related to the construction of a major industrial facility. The Court’s decision could profoundly affect all construction and real estate development industries in Texas as well as tort law in general.

Background and Summary of the Case

In 2013, Tenaris purchased a former grass farm near Bay City and began constructing a massive seamless pipe manufacturing facility. Several years later in 2017, following the unprecedented and historic rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, properties near the facility were flooded. The affected property owners sued Tenaris in negligence and claimed the construction of the pipe manufacturing facility had altered local drainage patterns and was the cause of the unprecedented flooding. A judgment in favor of the plaintiffs was appealed by Tenaris. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment despite the plaintiffs’ failure to meet longstanding and traditional Texas standards to establish causation in a complex tort case.

Issues Before the Court

Two main issues are presented before the Texas Supreme Court. In its opinion, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals created a new exception to the “but-for” causation standard. Tenaris Bay City Inc. v. Ellisor, No. 14-22-00013-CV, 2023 WL 5622855 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 31, 2023, pet. granted). Second, the Court of Appeals’ opinion eroded the traditional standard that expert testimony is required to prove complex, technical issues. City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005).  If the Court upholds the opinion of the Court of Appeals, the bar for expert testimony and causation will be substantially lowered, resulting in additional risk to be borne by virtually any Texas contractor, developer, or party involved with alteration of the ground surface.   

Causation Standard Issue

Under Texas law, proximate cause has two components which must be demonstrated with competent evidence: (1) foreseeability and (2) cause-in-fact. Traditionally, the “cause-in-fact” element of proximate cause requires a showing of both but-for causation (meaning that the harm would not have occurred but for the act or omission in question) andthat the act or omission in question was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. The Supreme Court has historically only allowed for an exception, or “carve-out,” to the traditional cause-in-fact standard in a few narrow situations. These carve-outs have historically only been recognized in cases when obtaining proof of but-for causation is not practically possible or such proof otherwise should not be required. This exception has historically only been applied in toxic tort litigation situations such as asbestos cases when multiple, concurrent acts of negligence combine over time to cause an injury to the plaintiff. This exception was created by the courts because toxic tort plaintiffs with obvious damages often have extreme difficulty in pinpointing the precise, individual causes of their injuries. Because the claimants’ illnesses are clearly associated with prolonged asbestos exposure, the Court did not require proof of specific events or types of asbestos exposure in order to establish causation.  Now, by extending this relaxed causation standard exception to apply to flood damage claims, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals has essentially thrown out traditional causation standards and opened up the carve-out exception to an entirely new class of plaintiffs. If the Texas Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals’ lowered causation standard, the floodgates will be opened to allow plaintiffs to bring potentially successful damage claims without ever having to appropriately prove causation. In such a situation, flood-damage plaintiffs could potentially bring successful claims against any party involved in the development of real property without ever having to prove the traditional causal link between a contractor or developers’ actions and the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

Expert Testimony Issue

The second issue addresses expert testimony requirements in certain negligence claims. Traditionally, plaintiffs have been required to provide expert testimony in support of claims involving scientific or technical issues, including ones involving hydraulic engineering and hydrology. The Court has long held that expert testimony is required whenever scientific and technical issues are involved with questions of causation. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals departed from the traditional expert testimony requirements in Tenaris holding that expert testimony is no longer necessary and may be substituted with simple, lay opinion testimony. Even though the plaintiff’s purported expert witness in the Tenaris case admitted he had failed to conduct a detailed flooding analysis and could not determine what caused the flooding in the plaintiffs’ homes, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence of proximate cause. Once again, the causation bar has been lowered. If the Supreme Court upholds the opinion of the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, a potentially unlimited number of plaintiffs could recover tort damages based on nothing more than personal, lay opinion testimony regarding causation. Under this new standard, a property owner who claimed his home was flooded by nearby construction activities could properly support his damage claims with nothing more than his personal opinion that nearby construction or development was the cause of the flooding.  

Consequences For the Industry

 The issues presented in Tenaris may have potentially dire consequences for the construction and real estate development industries in Texas. As Texas continues to see exponential growth, real estate development (especially in areas proximately located near water or flood plains) will undoubtedly experience an increase in litigation exposure. Under the potential new standard, plaintiffs will be able to survive summary judgment with arguably little more than vague personal opinions. “My property never flooded before that nearby project was built,” could be enough to support a claim. Further, if the Court abolishes the but-for causation standard in flood damage tort cases, plaintiffs will no longer be required to demonstrate a solid causal link between damages claimed and the activities of nearby contractors and developers. A homeowner downstream or downhill from a development, whose area is hit by historic rainfall, will not have to prove whether his damage was due to the development or construction activities. We must keep our eyes on this case which is scheduled to be argued on February 19.

For further information please contact Peter Wells and Mason Grayson.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Tim Delabar Elected a Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation

Cokinos | Young is pleased to congratulate Tim Delabar on his election as fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation.

Fellows of the Foundation are selected for their outstanding professional achievements and their demonstrated commitment to the improvement of the justice system throughout the state of Texas. Selection as a Fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation is restricted to members of the State Bar of Texas. Each year one-third of one percent of Texas attorneys are invited to become Fellows. Election is a mark of distinction and recognition of Tim’s contributions to the legal profession.

The Texas Bar Foundation is the largest charitably funded bar foundation in the country. Founded in 1965 by lawyers determined to assist the public and improve the profession of law, the Texas Bar Foundation has maintained its mission of using the financial contributions of its membership to build a strongjustice system for all Texans. To date, the Texas Bar Foundation has distributed more than $28 million throughout Texas to assist nonprofit organizations with a wide range of justice-related programs and services. For more information, contact the Texas Bar Foundation at www.txbf.org.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Proper Fit, Safer Workplaces: New PPE Rule Takes Effect January 15, 2025

Workplace safety takes a significant step forward as a new Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) rule goes into effect on January 15, 2025. This regulation emphasizes the importance of proper fit when it comes to PPE, ensuring that workers are adequately protected in hazardous environments. By prioritizing fit alongside function, the rule aims to reduce workplace injuries, enhance comfort, and promote a culture of safety across industries. Here’s what you need to know about this pivotal update and how it impacts employers and employees alike.

§ 1926.95 Criteria for personal protective equipment.

(c)  Design and selection.  Employers must ensure that all personal protective equipment:

  • (1)  Is of safe design and construction for the work to be performed; and
  • (2)  Is selected to ensure that it properly fits each affected employee.

Large or Small, PPE MUST FIT

OSHA finalized its revision to its personal protective equipment standard for construction to explicitly require that the equipment must fit properly.  This rule becomes effective January 15, 2025.

Section 6(b)(7) of the OSH Act, 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(7), authorizes OSHA to include requirements for protective equipment within its safety and health standards. Employees wear PPE to minimize exposure to hazards that can cause severe injuries and illnesses in the workplace. These injuries and illnesses may result from contact with chemical, radiological, physical, electrical, mechanical, or other hazards. PPE includes many different types of protective equipment, such as hard hats, gloves, goggles, safety shoes, safety glasses, welding helmets and goggles, hearing protection devices, respirators, coveralls, vests, harnesses, and full body suits.

I know this is somewhat obvious and you don’t need to be reminded, but the folks out in the field often overlook the importance of properly fitted PPE.  I have seen too many instances of injuries that were caused by ill fitted hard hats, goggles, gloves, and FRC.    

If PPE does not fit properly, it can make the difference between an employee being safely protected, having inadequate protection, or being dangerously exposed.

In some cases, ill-fitting PPE may not protect an employee at all, and in other cases it may present additional hazards to that employee and to employees who work around them. For example, sleeves of protective clothing that are too long or gloves that do not fit properly may make it difficult to use tools or operate equipment, putting the wearer and other workers at risk of exposure to hazards, or may get caught in machinery, resulting in injuries to the wearer such as fractures or amputations. The legs of protective garments that are too long could cause tripping hazards for the worker with the improperly fitting PPE and could also impact others working near that worker. Protective clothing that is too small may increase a worker’s exposure to hazards by, for example, providing insufficient coverage from dangerous machinery or hazardous substances.

The issue of improperly fitting PPE is particularly important for different sized workers.  Standard-size PPE doesn’t accommodate varying body sizes or shapes.  After January 15, don’t let this issue result in a citation or even worse – an injury.

If you have any questions or would like to schedule a consultation to discuss how these updates may impact your business, please don’t hesitate to contact Patrick Garner.

W. Patrick Garner

Cokinos | Young Promotes Six Attorneys to Principal

Cokinos | Young is proud to announce the promotion of six exceptional attorneys in 2025. Abigail Chacon, Shannon Gatlin, Tres Gibbs, Derek Kammerlocher, Kevin Moczygemba and Amy Rauch have been elevated to Principal. These advancements reflect their dedication to their clients, commitment to the Firm, and unwavering pursuit of excellence in service.

“This year’s class of Principals represents the best of Cokinos | Young,” said founding partner Gregory Cokinos. “Their tireless dedication, exceptional skill, and leadership set the standard for our firm’s future.”

“Each of these attorneys embodies the values and vision of C|Y,” added founding partner Marc Young. “We are thrilled to celebrate their well-deserved success and look forward to seeing their continued impact on our clients and the legal profession.”

Please join us in congratulating these outstanding individuals on this important career achievement!

Abigail Chacon has defended General Contractors and Subcontractors involving construction defect matters throughout Central and South Texas. She’s also represented defendants regarding commercial disputes, personal injury, premises liability, and product liability matters. Abigail is experienced in all aspects of litigation in federal and state courts and arbitration. In her career, Abigail has gained extensive courtroom experience and successfully briefed, argued motions, and handled depositions and trial preparation.

Before moving to Austin, Texas, in 2020, Abigail practiced law in Edinburg, Texas as a Criminal Defense Attorney, representing clients in various cases ranging from misdemeanors to felonies.

Shannon Gatlin is the firm’s sole attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Shannon began his legal career as a Briefing Attorney to Justice William J. Boyce of the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston. Shannon has extensive experience briefing cases before state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels, including the United States Supreme Court.

Tres Gibbs focuses his litigation practice on complex business and construction disputes as well as bankruptcy matters and creditors’ rights. Tres has represented plaintiffs and defendants in state, federal, and bankruptcy court across Texas and in other states. Tres takes pride in understanding his clients’ business and personal needs, in addition to their legal ones, and develops practical and efficient solutions to meet them. Tres’s experience covers a wide variety of disputes in the construction, real estate, energy, financial, and corporate sectors.

Derek Kammerlocher has devoted his career and practice to serving as an advocate for clients in the construction industry, including developers, contractors, design professionals, material suppliers, and insurance companies involved in the construction process. Based on his knowledge of the industry and specific experience, Derek helps his clients achieve their dispute resolution goals in payment, contract, defect, and insurance disputes, as well as other areas that often impact the construction industry such as employment and personal injury disputes. Derek takes an individualized and tailored approach to each representation to ensure the satisfaction of each client’s specific goals.

Kevin Moczygemba helps clients in commercial litigation and in the defense of serious personal injury cases. He has extensive experience handling matters involving breach of contract, construction defect, fraud, and other business torts, mechanics liens, and personal injury. Kevin also has significant experience working with government contracts. After law school, he served as a Presidential Management Fellow with the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile System Center where he gained invaluable insights into the government’s contracting process. Kevin also served as an Assistant Attorney General with the Texas Attorney General’s Office where he brought cases against government contractors for fraud, kickbacks, and other regulatory violations.

Amy Rauch practice focuses primarily on insurance coverage issues. In that regard, she regularly provides insurance advice to clients in the construction industry, including contractors, owners, and subcontractors. This includes advising clients on insurance and indemnity provisions in contract documents at the outset of their projects to help them manage and transfer risk, as well as advising them in disputes with their insurance companies following a claim. She frequently leads the pursuit of defense and indemnity from additional insured carriers on behalf of general contractor and subcontractor clients and has successfully obtained a defense from one or more additional insured carriers for those clients in multiple construction defect and employee injury cases.

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

The Corporate Transparency Act Had a Very Exciting Holiday Week!

If you and your family are having a busy, eventful and hectic Christmas or Hanukkah week, consider the topsy-turvy week the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) has had. Spoiler alert: The CTA is once again on hold.

Eariler this Month

In early December, when shoppers were already growing weary of peppermint spice and endless Christmas carols, a federal district court in Sherman, Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction (“Injunction”) blocking all enforcement of the CTA. The Injunction, issued on December 3 in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland(“TTCS”), was primarily based on the court’s determination that the CTA is “likely unconstitutional” because it exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. The Injunction was an early holiday gift for the privately-owned companies formed before 2024 (“pre-2024 companies”) — all 20 million or so of them – that faced an impending January 1, 2025 reporting deadline under the CTA. But for the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), which administers the CTA, the Injunction was a big, dusty bag of coal.  FinCEN soon appealed the Injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) and filed an emergency motion seeking a temporary stay (pause) of the Injunction, until FinCEN’s appeal can be heard.

Excitement on Capitol Hill

In the week before the holidays, the nation’s Capitol was a center of excited, bustling activity — not because of upcoming holiday festivities, but because the federal government was about to shut down. Congress could only avert a shutdown by passing a “continuing resolution” (“CR”) to fund the government for  a few more months. And when the first version of the CR was unveiled, and eagerly unwrapped by lobbyists and journalists with the excitement of small children on Christmas morning, it was found to contain another CTA present:  a one-year extension of the reporting deadline for pre-2024 companies, to January 1, 2026. But politics intervened, and the stripped-down CR that was ultimately enacted on December 20 contained no CTA relief. (But at least the government was saved!)

It’s December 23rd in New Orleans

As New Orleanians prepared to celebrate the holidays with appropriate joie de vivre, three judges of the Fifth Circuit had more serious business to attend to. A Fifth circuit motions panel was considering FinCEN’s emergency motion for a stay of the TTCS court’s nationwide Injunction against the CTA. They — or at least two of them — found themselves unpersuaded by the TTCS court’s conclusion that the CTA is “likely unconstitutional,” and instead decided that the CTA is likely constitutional. For that reason, the motions panel granted FinCEN’s request for a stay of the Injunction. Because the stay temporarily paused the Injunction, and because the Injunction itself had temporarily paused the CTA, staying the Injunction had the effect of reviving the CTA. And reviving the CTA meant that pre-2024 companies suddenly had nine days in which to meet the January 1, 2025 reporting deadline.

FinCEN’s Heart Grows Larger

FinCEN was overjoyed that the Injunction had been stayed. But it knew that Christmas and Hanukkah were nigh, and requiring companies to prepare CTA filings over the holidays would simply be cruel. So, just as the Grinch’s heart grew three times in Whoville, FinCEN announced later on December 23 that pre-2024 companies would have an extra dozen days (until January 13, 2025) to file, and it also granted extensions for some categories of companies formed in late 2024.

The Twist Ending

Ever since O. Henry’s The Gift of the Magi, twist endings have been a favorite feature of many holiday stories — and this tale of the CTA’s exciting holiday week is no exception. Late on December 26, the Fifth Circuit — presumably acting through the merits panel that will hear FinCEN’s appeal of the Injunction —vacated (terminated) the motion panel’s stay of the Injunction.

This perhaps lacks the punch of discovering that Bruce Willis had been dead all along, but it’s still a twist. The Injunction temporarily paused the CTA.  The stay of the Injunction temporarily paused the Injunction. Vacating the stay terminated the stay. The result is that the Injunction is once again in effect, and the CTA is once again on hold. While the Injunction remains in effect, companies do not have to make CTA filings. This is the case not only for pre-2024 companies, but also for companies formed in 2024 (or, soon, in 2025).

What Happens Next?

It’s tempting to say “who knows?” in light of the CTA’s recent twists and turns. What we expect to happen next is the Fifth Circuit will consider the merits of the TTCS court’s nationwide Injunction. The Fifth Circuit has scheduled briefing by the parties during February, and oral argument before a Fifth Circuit merits panel on March 25.

There are also other CTA events on the horizon:

  • The TTCS court will, eventually, receive briefing and hear oral arguments on the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the CTA.
  • There are pending appeals to federal circuit courts of other decisions on the CTA’s constitutionality.  A federal district court in Alabama found the CTA unconstitutional (but did not issue a nationwide injunction), while federal district courts in Oregon and Virginia have found it constitutional. All of those cases are on appeal.
  • The Trump Administration could decide the CTA’s fate. Although the incoming Trump Administration is expected to have an anti-regulatory philosophy, and Project 2025 specifically called for the CTA’s repeal, there have been no official statements about the CTA from the incoming Administration. It could block the CTA in various ways if it chooses to do so: for example, by ending enforcement efforts, supporting Congressional repeal or relief, or dropping FinCEN’s defense of the CTA’s constitutionality in the Fifth Circuit and other federal circuit courts. But we currently do not know what the incoming Administration’s plans are for the CTA.

How Cokinos | Young can help

The corporate attorneys at Cokinos | Young are closely monitoring these CTA developments and will provide further updates as important events occur. In the meantime, if you would like to discuss what your company should do to comply with the CTA, please contact one of our following corporate attorneys:

Important Updates to USPTO Pricing and Rules for Federal Trademark Applications in 2025

Revised Fee Structure and Rules:

The USPTO recently announced changes to its fee schedule and trademark application process, beginning on January 18, 2025.

Notable changes include:

  • Elimination of TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard Applications: These filing options will be discontinued, and all applicants will use a new, redesigned application system.
  • New Base Application Fee: A uniform application fee of $350 per class will apply to all new trademark applications.
  • Higher Maintenance Fees: Renewal and maintenance fees will also see an increase of up to $125 per class, respectively.
  • Additional Fees for Certain Actions: Expect higher fees for extensions of time, petitions to revive abandoned applications, and amendments to applications.
  • Mandatory Specimen Updates: Enhanced requirements for evidence to prove actual use of the mark in commerce.
  • Faster Timelines for Office Actions: Shortened deadlines for responding to office actions, with reduced opportunities for extensions.

What This Means for You

These changes highlight the importance of proactive trademark management. Here are some steps to consider:

  • Review Your Portfolio: Evaluate pending applications and existing registrations to anticipate fee increases and compliance requirements.
  • File Early: If you’re planning new applications or renewals, consider filing before the new fee structure takes effect.

How We Can Help

Our team is here to help you navigate these changes and develop strategies to optimize your trademark protection. We offer:

  • Comprehensive reviews of your trademark portfolio
  • Guidance on specimen and compliance requirements
  • Support for timely filings and responses to USPTO actions

If you have any questions or would like to schedule a consultation to discuss how these updates may impact your business, please don’t hesitate to contact Lauren Aldredge with our Intellectual Property Team.

Lauren S. Aldredge


About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Corporate Transparency Act: Spotlight Turns to Congress and the Fifth Circuit

Following the issuance in early December of a nationwide preliminary injunction (the “Injunction”) pausing enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), attention has now shifted to Congress and to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”). As part of a stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown, Congress may enact a one-year extension of an impending January 1, 2025 CTA reporting deadline for companies formed before 2024 (“pre-2024 companies”). Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit is likely to decide very soon whether the Injunction against the CTA will remain in effect for now. We describe below how companies should prepare to respond to these possible developments.

Background

The CTA, a federal law that took effect in 2024, requires most privately-owned companies to confidentially report certain “beneficial ownership information” (“BOI”) about their 25%-or-more owners and other individuals with “substantial control.” The BOI reports are to be filed with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Implementation of the CTA was bifurcated:

  • Pre-2024 companies are required to file by January 1, 2025.  There are believed to be over 20 million pre-2024 companies that have not yet made their BOI filings. 
  • Companies formed during 2024 are required to file within 90 days of their formation. (For companies that are formed in 2025 and subsequent years, the period will be 30 days.)

Possible Congressional Action

Funding for the federal government runs out on Friday, December 20. As with many prior funding deadlines, Congress plans to pass a “continuing resolution” (“CR”) as a stopgap measure to keep the government funded for the next few months. On Wednesday, December 17, the House of Representative released a draft CR, which represented a bipartisan deal negotiated between leaders of the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate.  We refer to that draft as the “bipartisan CR.”

Like all CRs, the bipartisan CR included many “add-ons” that are not directly related to government funding. One of those add-ons would have provided partial CTA relief.  Buried deep within the bipartisan CR’s 1,500 pages was an amendment to the CTA that would have extended the reporting deadline for pre-2024 companies from January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026.

  • This would only have provided partial CTA relief, however, because it would only have extended the reporting deadline for pre-2024 companies. It would not have extended the 90-day deadline for companies formed during 2024 (or the upcoming 30-day deadline for companies formed during 2025 and later years). Nor would it have extended the CTA deadlines for updating or correcting BOI reports that have already been filed, whether by pre-2024 companies or those formed during 2024 or later.

The bipartisan CR, however, encountered strong opposition from conservative House members, Elon Musk and now President-Elect Trump. They opposed the bipartisan CR’s large add-ons and also insisted on including a debt-ceiling increase. Talks are currently underway in Washington to craft a substitute CR that will be acceptable to the major power blocs and that can pass in both houses of Congress. It is impossible to know if the one-year partial CTA relief will be included in the final CR. Such relief is presumably acceptable to Republican leaders, and is at least not opposed by Democratic leaders (who agreed to it in the bipartisan CR). But anything can happen in negotiations to finalize legislation, and that is particularly true for an add-on to a CR in the days and hours before (and sometimes after) a government shutdown.

Important Ruling Likely from the Fifth Circuit

Preliminary Injunction Against CTA

The proposed reporting extension in the bipartisan CR would provide simple and straightforward CTA relief for pre-2024 companies, at least for one year. But political considerations now render uncertain the fate of that simple and straightforward relief.

Meanwhile, a much more complicated CTA saga is playing out in the federal courts.  It began in Sherman, Texas, but the center of attention has now shifted to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans — the federal circuit court that hears appeals from Texas.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal courts around the country challenging the CTA’s constitutionality. One such case is Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. Mindful of the impending January 1, 2025 reporting deadline for pre-2024 companies, the plaintiffs in Texas Top Cop Shop (“TTCS) asked the court to issue an injunction protecting them against CTA enforcement until their case can be fully decided. On December 3, the court issued a preliminary injunction (“Injunction”) that is even broader than the plaintiffs requested. The Injunction applies nationwide, and it protects not only the TTCS plaintiffs but also everyone who is subject to the CTA. The Injunction temporarily blocks all enforcement of the CTA, both as to pre-2024 companies (facing the impending January 1, 2025 reporting deadline) as well as companies formed in 2024 (which are subject to a 90-day deadline).

The TTCS court did not rule that the CTA is unconstitutional. It issued a preliminary Injunction, rather than a permanent one, to provide temporary relief until it can consider the constitutional issues “on the merits” and make a final decision. But, in order to issue even the preliminary Injunction, the court was required to decide whether the TTCS plaintiffs had a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” The court concluded that they did, because it decided the CTA is “likely unconstitutional” as outside Congress’s constitutional authority.

It could take the TTCS court a few months to receive briefs, hear oral arguments, and issue a final decision “on the merits” as to whether the CTA is constitutional. But, in the meantime, the focus of attention in the TTCS case has shifted to the Fifth Circuit, where an important decision about the Injunction may be handed down very soon.

FinCEN asks the Fifth Circuit to “stay” the Injunction

FinCEN — the agency responsible for enforcing the CTA — has responded to the TTCS court’s Injunction by agreeing that companies do not have to make any BOI filings, or otherwise comply with the CTA, while the Injunction is in effect. But FinCEN strongly believes the CTA is constitutional, and it has therefore appealed the Injunction to the Fifth Circuit. In connection with that appeal, FinCEN has filed an emergency motion asking the Fifth Circuit to order a “stay,” or temporary pause, of the Injunction, until the merits of FinCEN’s appeal of the Injunction can be considered by the Fifth Circuit.

  • This illustrates how complicated the TTCS case has become. If the Fifth Circuit were to grant the requested stay, then the Injunction would be temporarily paused. And because the Injunction temporarily pauses the CTA, a stay of the Injunction would reinstate the CTA, including its January 1, 2025 reporting deadline for pre-2024 companies. In other words, FinCEN still hopes to require BOI reports by pre-2024 companies by the January 1, 2025 deadline, by convincing the Fifth Circuit to stay the Injunction before then.

The Fifth Circuit ordered the TTCS plaintiffs to file their reply to FinCEN’s stay motion, and FinCEN to file its response, on an expedited basis, and they have done so. This short-fuse schedule strongly suggests that the Fifth Circuit is considering whether to issue a stay pending appeal of the Injunction — or at least an “administrative stay” to give it more time to consider whether to issue a stay pending appeal — before the January 1, 2025 reporting deadline.  If the Fifth Circuit grants FinCEN’s request for a stay (or grants an administrative stay), the Injunction will be paused, and the CTA would be at least temporarily reinstated.  That would include the January 1, 2025 reporting deadline for pre-2024 companies.

Even if it declines to stay the Injunction, the Fifth Circuit will eventually consider FinCEN’s appeal of the Injunction. It could then either affirm the Injunction (leaving it in effect) — or it could strike down the Injunction by “lifting” it. “Lifting” the Injunction permanently ends the Injunction, while “staying” the Injunction only temporarily pauses it — but either would have the immediate practical effect of reinstating the CTA, including its reporting requirements.

No one knows if the Fifth Circuit will stay or lift the Injunction— or, on the other hand, if it will leave the Injunction in effect, thereby continuing to “pause” the CTA. The Fifth Circuit is a very conservative court, with a judicial philosophy that tends to distrust federal regulation. But it could potentially disapprove of a nationwide Injunction in a case where the plaintiffs themselves had not requested that sweeping protection.

If the Injunction is stayed or lifted, will companies have a “grace period” before they have to file BOI reports?

What we can say with certainty is that there will be very little if any advance warning of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. If the Fifth Circuit stays or (eventually) lifts the Injunction, therefore, companies will suddenly find themselves again subject to the CTA — and, in the case of pre-2024 companies, either facing an imminent January 1, 2025 reporting obligation, or theoretically an immediate reporting obligation after that date.

If that occurs, will companies be given a “grace period” in which to file their reports? No one knows for certain. As mentioned above, FinCEN is seeking an emergency stay from the Fifth Circuit in hopes of reinstating the January 1, 2025 deadline, so it may be unlikely to grant a grace period. Would the Fifth Circuit itself, if it stays or lifts the Injunction, grant companies a grace period? That is also impossible to know for certain, but granting a grace period of any type would not be consistent with normal Fifth Circuit practice.  And, even if FinCEN or the Fifth Circuit granted such a grace period, it is impossible to predict how long that grace period would be.

What should companies do while they wait for a Fifth Circuit decision on the Injunction, and how would Congressional action affect that advice?

As discussed above, it is possible that Congress may provide some CTA relief this week in a CR, although fast-moving political developments have now made that somewhat less likely. And, even if a final, enacted CR does contain any CTA relief, that relief will likely be limited to a one-year extension for pre-2024 companies (the same partial form of relief proposed in the bipartisan CR).

The government funding deadline expires at the end of Friday, December 20.  Therefore, barring a prolonged government shutdown, we should know very soon what Congress does in the final CR, and in particular if it includes any CTA relief. Once that information becomes available, we propose that companies take the approaches described below. (Again, they are based on the assumption that any Congressional CTA relief will consist of only a one-year extension that is applicable only to pre-2024 companies, which we refer to below as “partial CTA relief.”)

Pre-2024 companies

If Congress passes partial CTA relief:

No action is required at this time. You now have until January 1, 2026 to make your initial BOI filing.  (Happy holidays!)

If Congress does not pass partial CTA relief:

  • No action is required at this time if:
    • Your company has a simple ownership and management structure, and it will be easy for you to quickly compile BOI information from your 25%-or-more owners and other persons with “substantial control.” OR
    • Your company has already substantially completed the process of compiling its BOI information.
  • All other companies should seriously consider continuing the process of promptly compiling their BOI information. Not doing so constitutes a gamble that:
    • the Fifth Circuit will leave the Injunction in effect;
    • or, even if it stays or lifts the Injunction, FinCEN or the Fifth Circuit will grant a grace period for filing;
    • or, even if such a grace period is not granted, FinCEN (or the incoming Trump administration) will decide not to enforce penalties against companies that fail to make filings promptly after the Injunction is stayed or lifted (and that a technical violation of the CTA will not trigger adverse consequences under the company’s loan agreements, governmental and other contracts, procurement requirements, etc.). This may or may not be a reasonable gamble to make but, in any event, it is still clearly a gamble.

Companies formed during 2024

As stated above, we assume that any Congressional CTA relief will be only partial, benefitting pre-2024 companies but not companies formed during 2024. Therefore, companies formed during 2024 should consider the same approaches we have set out above under “Pre-2024 companies > If Congress does not pass partial CTA relief.”

Some companies (regardless of when formed) may decide to make voluntary BOI filings. For most companies, however, we recommend not making voluntary filings, and instead following the recommendations set forth above.

Finally, note that any partial CTA relief passed by Congress will not effect reporting deadlines for updating or correcting BOI reports that have already been filed. 

On the horizon

TTCS lawsuit

As mentioned above, the TTCS court issued the Injunction as just a preliminary, temporary measure until the court can consider the plaintiffs’ challenge to the CTA’s constitutionality “on the merits.” That will occur regardless of whether the Injunction is stayed or lifted by the Fifth Circuit, but it may not occur for a few months. When it does, the losing side can appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Other lawsuits challenging the CTA

In addition to TTCS, several other cases challenging the CTA’s constitutionality are making their way through the federal court system. A federal district court in Alabama ruled in March 2024 that the CTA was unconstitutional, but its ruling protected only the plaintiffs in that case. (That decision is on appeal to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in September and could rule at any time.) More recently, federal district courts in Oregon and Virginia have reached the opposite conclusion, affirming the CTA’s constitutionality. (Those decisions are also on appeal to their respective federal circuit courts.) None of those cases directly affects the TTCS case or the Injunction. But the differing results make it more likely that the constitutionality of the CTA may eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump administration

The upcoming change of Presidential administrations also may affect the CTA’s future. To our knowledge, President-Elect Trump has not publicly expressed a view on the CTA. Project 2025 called for its repeal, however, and the CTA may be inconsistent with the new administration’s general anti-regulatory philosophy. In that event, the new administration could effectively block the CTA in several different ways. But there are two important caveats: we do not know for certain what the new administration will do, and in any event it cannot take any official actions until January 20, 2025.

How Cokinos | Young can help

The corporate attorneys at Cokinos | Young are closely monitoring these CTA developments and will provide further updates as important events occur. In the meantime, if you would like to discuss what your company should do to comply with the CTA, please contact one of our following corporate attorneys:

Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Corporate Transparency Act

Yesterday, a federal district judge in Sherman, Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).  Judge Amos Mazzant held that the CTA is likely unconstitutional as outside of Congress’s power.  In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Mazzant stayed (temporarily suspended) the CTA’s impending compliance deadline of January 1, 2025.  The CTA would have required an estimated 32.6 million companies to file “beneficial ownership information” (or “BOI”) reports by that date with FinCEN, a U.S. Treasury Department enforcement body.  The case in which Judge Mazzant issued his ruling is Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland.

The Cokinos | Young corporate group is analyzing the ruling and will update this Client Alert with additional information as it becomes available.  If you would like to discuss this development further, please contact one of the following members of our corporate group:

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

Increased Minimum Salary Threshold Struck Down

On Friday, Nov. 15, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated and set aside the Department of Labor’s April 2024 rule raising the minimum salary amount that would qualify employees as exempt from overtime. This injunction applies nationwide to all employers.

So, what exactly does this mean for employers? First of all, it means that the increase of the minimum salary for the so-called “white collar” overtime exemptions set for January 1, 2025 – which would have raised the minimum to $1,128/week ($58,656/year) – will not go into effect. Similarly, the DOL’s proposal that this minimum salary threshold be automatically adjusted every three years also will not go into effect. The January 1 increase for the highly compensated employee (HCE) exemption that would have raised this minimum threshold to a whopping $151,164/year also is no more.

The more interesting aspect of the ruling concerns the portion of the rule that actually already went into effect on July 1, 2024, which raised the “white collar” minimum to $844/week ($43,888/year) and the HCE minimum to $132,964/year. Even though this increase has already been the law for four-and-a-half months, because the DOL rule was vacated it is to be treated by courts as if it never went into effect because the DOL lacked the authority to implement it in the first place. Thus, any employers who adjusted their pay practices to comply with the July 1 increase are no longer bound by law to keep those adjustments in place (though trying to “unring the bell” may prove very difficult and harm employee morale). Those employers who never made an adjustment and were technically violating federal law, meanwhile, just lucked into a “get out of jail free” card.

While it is widely expected that the DOL will file an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it is largely believed that any such appeal will be dropped once President-Elect Trump takes office in two months, and in any event the prospects for DOL success at the Fifth Circuit are slim.

After this ruling, what should employers do next, if anything? Even though this salary threshold rule appears dead, employers would still be well-advised to perform an audit of their classification of employees as exempt from overtime because the requirement that exempt employees meet certain job duties remains intact. And if an exempt employee does not satisfy the job duties requirement of at least one exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it does not matter how much they are paid or whether they are paid on a salary basis. Plus, it is possible that the Trump Administration issues a revised rule with a lower increase in the threshold like in 2019 when the DOL implemented the current $35,568/year threshold after courts blocked the Obama Administration’s attempt to nearly double the previous threshold to $47,476.

Shannon Gatlin (Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization) and the rest of the Employment Law Practice Group at Cokinos | Young continue to monitor legal challenges to other controversial employment law rules issued under the Biden Administration and stand ready to assist with your employment law needs, including audits of exempt classifications and pay practices.

J. Shannon Gatlin

About Cokinos | Young

Cokinos | Young has led Texas construction and real estate law for over three decades. And today, our 100+ dedicated professionals operate coast to coast and proudly handle all aspects of construction law for owner/developers, project managers, general contractors, design professionals, subcontractors, sureties, and lenders. We provide both dispute resolution and transactional services to clients through all phases of commercial, industrial, pipeline, offshore, civil, and residential construction. Our reputation was built on relentless commitment to client service and the industries we serve, and that remains our primary driver. Dedicated. Resilient. Expertise. That’s Cokinos | Young. Learn more at cokinoslaw.com.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you provide your consent.

Read More