February 2025 - GKG Law

Corporate Transparency Act Update

Posted on February 21, 2025 by Heather Holland

Earlier this week the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Smith, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00336 (E.D. Tex.), stayed its preliminary injunction enjoining the reporting rules contained in the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”). Accordingly, and absent any changes between now and the updated deadline, the majority of Reporting Companies (as defined in the CTA) are now required to file their initial, amended, or corrected beneficial ownership information reports (“BOI Reports”) by Friday, March 21, 2025.

Why This Matters: The beneficial ownership information reporting requirements of the CTA are now mandatory. Potential penalties for noncompliance could be severe. The new filing deadlines to comply with the CTA are:

For most reporting companies, the new deadline to file an initial, updated, and/or corrected BOI Report is now Friday, March 21, 2025.
Reporting Companies formed or registered on or after February 18, 2025 must file within thirty (30) days from the date of creation or registration.
Reporting Companies previously provided with extended deadlines due to disaster relief should follow their later deadlines.

Interestingly, in its notice, FinCEN also noted that during this period, it “would assess its options to further modify deadlines, while prioritizing reporting for those entities that pose the most national security risks,” and that it intends to review the CTA’s reporting rule to reduce burdens for lower-risk, small business entities. This remains a rapidly evolving issue and we anticipate further updates between now and March 21, 2025. We will continue to review and monitor the situation and keep you apprised of the latest developments. Please feel free to reach out to Rich Bar (rbar@gkglaw.com) or Frank Beninato (fbeninato@gkglaw.com) if you have any questions.

GKG Law Wins Major Victory for NVO Against Shipper Who Refused to Pay Detention and Demurrage Charges

Posted on February 18, 2025 by Heather Holland

GKG Law Wins Major Victory for NVO Against Shipper Who Refused to Pay Detention and Demurrage Charges

By John H. Kester

GKG Law recently prevailed in an action brought against a non-vessel operating common carrier (“NVO”) before the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC” or the “Commission”) by a shipper alleging violations of the Shipping Act of 1984 and the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (“OSRA 2022”). The shipper had refused to pay more than $1 million in detention and demurrage charges and was seeking a refund of more than $1 million of such that it had paid the NVO.

The Complainant had wrongly contended that the NVO was contractually responsible for all detention and demurrage charges assessed, while GKG asserted that the NVO was only responsible for any such charges it caused to accrue. GKG also presented evidence that much of the delays triggering the charges at issue were caused by systems failures at the shipper’s own warehouse.

In an Initial Decision issued in January 2024, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, Erin Wirth, flatly rejected the complaint, holding that the shipper had failed to establish that the NVO had violated the Shipping Act, and explicitly recognized that pursuant to Commission rules and regulations, the NVO was entitled to pass through detention and demurrage charges to its customers, unless the charges were attributable to the NVO. After a thorough review of extensive invoices and related correspondence dating back over a period of years, the Presiding Judge concluded that the NVO had acted reasonably and exercised due diligence in passing through the detention and demurrage charges at issue. Judge Wirth also recognized that passing through such charges was consistent with the parties’ negotiated rate agreements and in compliance with the NVO’s tariffs. The Initial Decision further recognized, as had been pointed out by GKG, that the shipper’s reliance on certain OSRA 2022 provisions was misplaced given that the shipments at issue predated enactment of OSRA 2022.

Following the Presiding Judge’s Initial Decision, the shipper filed Exceptions to the full Commission. The Commission rejected the Complainant ‘s Exceptions to the Initial Decision in its entirety. Instead, the Commission affirmed the initial Decision and dismissed all of the Complainant’s claims with prejudice.

Both the Initial Decision and the subsequent Commission Order affirming it mark a major victory for NVOs and confirm their ability to pass-through detention and demurrage charges to those parties ultimately responsible for payment of the charges.

Please contact us if you have any transportation-related (or other litigation-related) issues. Brendan Collins may be reached by telephone at (202) 342-6793 or by email at bcollins@gkglaw.com; John H. Kester may be reached at (202) 342-6751 or by email at jkester@gkglaw.com; Rachel Amster may be reached at (202) 342-2542 or by email at ramster@gkglaw.com.

GKG Law Wins $1.2 Million Award For International Logistics Company Against Its Former Employee For Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Breach of Contract, and Commission of Business Torts.

Posted on February 11, 2025February 11, 2025 by Heather Holland

GKG Law’s litigation team recently prevailed on behalf of an international logistics company in a complaint filed in New Jersey claiming misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of federal and New Jersey law, breaches of contract and various business torts by a former employee of the logistics company while he was still employed. On January 23, 2025, the court entered a $1.2 million judgment in our client’s favor after a jury determined that the defendant violated federal and New Jersey trade secrets laws, breached his employment contract, and committed various business torts. The jury awarded over $800,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages due to the willful and malicious conduct of the defendant. The court’s final judgment determined that the defendant spent the final months of his employment trying to help a competitor of his employer set up a competing business and that this conduct was willful and malicious. Thus, the court also granted a request for attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation totaling over $320,000.

Please contact us if you have any transportation-related (or other litigation-related) issues. Brendan Collins may be reached by telephone at (202) 342-6793 or by email at bcollins@gkglaw.com; Oliver Krischik may be reached at (202) 342-5266 or by email at okrischik@gkglaw.com; Rachel Amster may be reached at (202) 342-2542 or by email at ramster@gkglaw.com.