News

Relief Is (Hopefully) Coming to Georgia Businesses Via Governor Kemp’s Tort Reform Package

Posted on by Matthew Haan

Last year, I wrote about two bills in the Georgia General Assembly aimed at updating premises liability laws in our state.[1] Those bills ultimately did not pass, but new bills introduced this session indicate that lawmakers at the Capitol remain focused on refining premises liability laws. Of particular interest is Senate Bill 68.[2] SB 68, among other things, seeks to create a specific cause of action in Georgia for negligent security claims, which are currently evaluated under traditional premises liability standards. By reevaluating the standard for negligent security claims and defining when third-party conduct is “reasonably foreseeable” to a property owner, SB 68 would ultimately limit a property owner’s liability to situations where the property owner failed to keep its premises safe.

SB 68 is part of a much larger tort reform project first announced by Governor Brian Kemp at his January 2025 State of the State address. Governor Kemp has made tort reform one of his top priorities in an effort to balance the legal landscape in our state. On January 30, Governor Kemp announced his tort reform package. In addition to the premises liability changes, the governor’s plan includes:

  • Limitations on damages in personal injury actions where a plaintiff can only recover the amount of medical bills actually paid (or will actually be paid in the future), rather than recover the value of medical services charged by providers before adjustments are made by insurance companies.[3]
  • The ability to bifurcate trials so a jury must determine liability before hearing any evidence related to damages.[4]
  • Closing a loophole that previously allowed plaintiff’s counsel to double recover their attorneys’ fees and costs.[5]

Governor Kemp’s tort reform package, if passed, would also amend the Georgia Civil Practice Act by limiting a plaintiff’s ability to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit. Currently, a plaintiff can unilaterally dismiss his lawsuit at any time before the first witness is sworn at trial. The reformed law would only allow a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss (without permission of the court) within sixty days of a defendant’s motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, whichever occurs first, eliminating a tactic used by plaintiffs where they force defense counsel to rack up defense costs and expose defense strategies only to dismiss and refile in more favorable venues.[6] The updates to the Civil Practice Act also include changing the law to mimic the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to allow a defendant to file a motion to dismiss without having to simultaneously file an answer.[7]

The attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP are experienced litigators who have handled numerous cases involving the laws that are the subject of Governor Kemp’s tort reform package. If you need assistance in assessing your potential liability on a claim or how new laws in Georgia could impact your business, please contact Matthew Haan (mhaan@fh2.com; 770-771-6835) or visit FH2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris can help.

_______________________________

[1] https://www.fh2.com/potential-developments-in-premises-liability-laws/

[2] S.B. 68, 2024–2025 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025) (available at https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/69756).

[3] S.B. 68, 2024–2025 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025), § 7.

[4] S.B. 68, 2024–2025 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025), § 8.

[5] S.B. 68, 2024–2025 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025), § 4.

[6] S.B. 68, 2024–2025 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025), § 3.

[7] S.B. 68, 2024–2025 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2025), § 2.

Corporate Transparency Act Deadline Now Set for March 21st – UPDATED 3/5/2025

Posted on by Andrew Hazen

UPDATE (March 5, 2025)

The U.S. Department of Treasury announced on March 2, 2025 that it would not enforce any penalties or impose any fines for failure to comply with the current filing deadline for the submission of beneficial owner reports (March 21, 2025), and also announced that it planned to propose new rules in the coming months that would “narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only”, and presumably, eliminate future filing requirements for “domestic reporting companies”.  See https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0038.

UPDATE (February 27, 2025) 

Following a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, beneficial ownership reporting requirements are back in effect. The new deadline for most reporting companies to submit their initial or updated beneficial owner report is Friday, March 21, 2025. Reporting companies that have already submitted their initial beneficial owner report need not resubmit, unless the submitted information has changed.   Click Here for FinCEN Notice

If you need assistance in assessing your business’s responsibilities under the CTA, please contact Andrew Hazen (ahazen@fh2.com; 770-771-6818) or visit fh2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP can help.

____________________________

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (31 U.S.C. § 5336; “CTA”), the underlying beneficial owner reporting rule (31 C.F.R. 1010.380), and stayed the January 1, 2025 compliance deadline to file beneficial owner reports.[1] The scope of the injunction is nationwide, unlike the injunction issued in the NSBU v. Yellen case by the Northern District of Alabama earlier this year.[2]

UPDATE (December 31, 2024)

On December 23, 2024, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction of the Corporate Transparency Act’s beneficial owner reporting deadlines and requirements, effectively reinstating the original reporting deadlines (although FinCEN subsequently extended certain deadlines by a few weeks). However, on December 26, 2024, a different panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an order[3] vacating the Court’s December 23, 2024 order, thereby reinstating the preliminary injunction issued by the district court. Accordingly (and as confirmed by FinCEN), the CTA deadlines are stayed (for now) and business owners “are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN.”[4]

Business owners will need to stay tuned for further developments as the Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. and National Small Business United cases make their way through the federal appellate courts.

If you need assistance in assessing your business’s responsibilities under the CTA, please contact Andrew Hazen (ahazen@fh2.com; 770-771-6818) or visit fh2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP can help.

_______________

[1] See Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-478 (E.D. Tex.).

[2] See National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.).

[3] See https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-40792..pdf.

[4] See https://fincen.gov/boi (“Alert [December 27, 2024]”).

 

 

FTC Non-compete Rule: Yes, My Non-compete is Enforceable (For Now)

Posted on by Anne Marie Simoneaux

On August 20, 2024, a Texas District Court gave employers and employees the long-awaited answer to questions surrounding the enforceability of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Non-Compete Clause Rule banning non-competition clauses (the “Rule”).[1]

In Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the Court set aside the Rule with a nationwide effect.[2]

Consistent with the reasoning stated in its preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Rule,[3] the Court reasoned that “the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious.”[4]

The Court’s decision to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement and deny the FTC’s Motion for Summary Judgment is appealable. Whether the FTC will continue to push for the non-compete ban through an appeal is undetermined.

For now, non-compete clauses will remain in effect and employers no longer need to comply with the Rule’s September 4, 2024 effective date.

If you need assistance in assessing your business’s non-compete agreements, please contact Andrew Hazen (ahazen@fh2.com; 770-771-6818) or Anne Marie Simoneaux (asimoneaux@fh2.com; 770-771-6811) or visit FH2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris can help.

 

________________________

[1] For additional discussion about the language of the Rule, see FTC Noncompete Rule: Is My Noncompete Unenforceable?  See Non-Compete Clause Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 38342, 38342–506 (May 7, 2024) [to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 910]. The Rule is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09171/non-compete-clause-rule.

[2] Memorandum Opinion and Order at 1–2, 26–27, Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E (N.D. Tex. August 20, 2024).

[3] See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 12–23, Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024).

[4] Memorandum Opinion and Order, supra note 2, at 26.

Potential Developments in Premises Liability Laws

Posted on by Matthew Haan

Georgia General Assembly Activity Indicates Potential Developments in Premises Liability Laws

Every July 1 in Georgia, new laws signed by the Governor go into effect. Although a number of new laws went into effect last month, equally important are those laws that were up for consideration but never made it to Governor Kemp’s desk for signature.

Premises liability claims in Georgia have been a hot topic in the Georgia General Assembly and in the appellate courts for a number of years, but recent developments indicate that more changes may be coming soon. Two competing proposed bills considered during the 2023-2024 Regular Session that were not enacted demonstrate this.

First, Senate Bill 186 (LC 46 0844S), titled the “Georgia Landowners Protection Act,” sought to protect landowners from liability in a premises liability action where the plaintiff’s injuries are “the result of willful, wanton, or intentionally tortious conduct of any third party,” so long as the third party is not an officer, director, employee, or agent of the landowner, unless the plaintiff establishes certain criteria related to the landowner’s knowledge and conduct at the time of the incident.[1] The bill also sought to eliminate constructive notice to a landowner when third-party criminal acts occur on a landowner’s property.[2] In other words, SB 186 would have insulated landowners from liability in seemingly the majority of third-party criminal act premises liability cases unless the plaintiff could establish that certain action (or inaction) by the landowner contributed to the incident. Senate Bill 186 did not make it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Second, House Bill 1371 (LC 49 1935S) took a much more conservative approach and proposed to protect landowners from liability in a premises liability action where the injuries arose from third-party criminal activity and the plaintiff came upon the landowner’s property “without express or implied invitation” or came onto the property to commit criminal activity.[3] O.C.G.A. § 51-3-3 already provides that landowners owe no duty of care to trespassers “except to refrain from causing a willful or wanton injury.”[4] Therefore, House Bill 1371 simply represents a clarification that already exists in Georgia law. House Bill 1371 passed in the House, but the Senate tabled it before the Bill made it to a vote in the Senate.

These two bills indicate that significant changes in Georgia premises liability law may be coming soon. In the last year, some justices on the Supreme Court of Georgia have signaled a potential review of the longstanding “plain view doctrine,” which provides that a plaintiff cannot recover for injuries caused by open and obvious, static conditions located where it is customarily found and in plain view.[5] A September 2023 concurring opinion authored by Justice Andrew Pinson questioned the current legal standard that distinguishes between static conditions and “transient foreign substances” in premises liability claims.[6]

The attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP have litigated numerous premises liability claims for landowners and will, therefore, continue to monitor the changing landscape governing these types of claims in Georgia. If you need assistance in assessing your potential liability on a premises liability claim, please contact Matthew Haan (mhaan@fh2.com; 770-771-6835) or visit FH2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris can help.

____________________________________

[1] S.B. 186, 2023-2024 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2023).

[2] Id.

[3] H.B. 1371, 2023-2024 Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2023).

[4] O.C.G.A. § 51-3-3(b).

[5] Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 743 (1997).

[6] Givens v. Coral Hospitality-GA, LLC, S22G1043 (September 14, 2023).

FTC Noncompete Rule: Is My Noncompete Unenforceable? (Updated 7/25/24)

Posted on by Anne Marie Simoneaux

On May 7, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a final rule effectively banning the use of many non-competition clauses (the “Rule”).[1] The Rule will become effective on September 4, 2024 (“Effective Date”) barring intervention by any of the Federal District Courts currently considering legal challenges to the Rule.[2]

Currently, non-competition clauses in employment agreements, as well as standalone non-competition agreements, are subject to varying degrees of enforceability depending on state law.[3] Given the FTC’s perceived failure of the existing “case-by-case and State-by-State approach,” the FTC introduced a proposed rule in January 2023 to proactively govern the enforceability of non-competition agreements at the federal level (the “Proposed Rule”).[4]

The FTC believes that implementation of the Rule will allow employees to pursue better employment opportunities, increase competition for workers, increase wages, and bolster entrepreneurship and innovation.[5] The FTC estimates the Rule will increase workers’ earnings in the aggregate between $400 billion and $488 billion per year.[6] In Georgia, specifically, the FTC estimates that 3 million workers will be covered by the Rule and experience an increase in total earnings of over $2 billion per year.[7]

The Rule requires employers to: (1) discontinue the use of non-competition agreements for certain workers, and (2) notify employees subject to existing non-competition agreements of their rescission and invalidity, where the existing non-competes do not qualify for one of the limited exceptions to the Rule (see below for more details).

  • The Rule effectuates this change by deeming it an “unfair method of competition”[8] for an employer to enter into or enforce a non-competition agreement with certain workers.[9] Worker is defined broadly to include employees, independent contractors, externs, volunteers, etc.[10]
  • In addition to the prohibition on new non-competition agreements, the Rule also requires employers to rescind existing non-competition agreements via notice to employees by the Effective Date.[11] The Rule prescribes a methodology for delivering the notice and provides model language.[12]

Under the Rule, a non-competition agreement means a standalone agreement or contractual term within a broader agreement (e.g., an employment agreement) that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from seeking or accepting employment, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.[13] The FTC intends this to be a functional test, applying not only to those contractual terms labeled “non-competition” within an agreement, but also to those terms that have the same effect as a non-competition agreement.[14]

The Rule has a few limited exceptions:

  • Senior executive exception: For senior executives, the Rule only prohibits entering into and enforcing non-competition agreements entered into after the effective date of the rule.[15] Senior executive is generally defined as a worker in a policy-making position, including, for example, a president or CEO, who receives total annual compensation in excess of $151,164.[16]
  • Sale of a business exception: Non-competition agreements are permissible in conjunction with the sale of a business, of a person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of the assets of a business.[17] The sale of the business must be “bona fide,” meaning the transaction must not be entered into for the purpose of evading the Rule.[18]
  • Existing cause of action exception: The Rule also excepts enforcement of non-competition agreements after the effective date if the cause of action related to non-competition agreement accrued prior to the effective date.[19]

Additionally, the definition of non-competition agreement under the Rule  excludes other types of covenants restricting a worker’s post-employment actions like non-disclosure or non-solicitation agreements.[20] Further, the FTC’s rules do not apply to certain types of entities, including certain non-profits.[21] Accordingly, the Rule does not wholly prohibit the use of non-competition agreements in all scenarios.

The Rule is currently subject to litigation questioning its enforceability.[22] On July 3, 2024, a Texas federal court granted a preliminary injunction challenging the Rule’s enforceability, holding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in establishing that the FTC lacked authority to issue the Rule and that the Rule is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.[23] Notably, the Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission preliminary injunction only enjoins enforcement of the Rule for the plaintiff and plaintiff-intervenors in that case.[24] All other employers subject to the Rule will be required to comply with the Rule’s requirements unless and until a nationwide injunction is issued.[25] A nationwide preliminary injunction could come from the Ryan court, which will enter a final, appealable decision before August 30, 2024, or from a Pennsylvania federal court considering a challenge to the Rule, which is expected to issue a decision before the end of July.[26]

Pending a decision regarding the Rule’s enforceability, employers must evaluate whether they are: (a) required to provide notice to employees and contractors subject to  existing non-competition agreements of those agreements rescission and invalidity; and (b) limit the use of non-competition agreements going forward.

If you need assistance in assessing your business’s responsibilities under the Rule, please contact Andrew Hazen (ahazen@fh2.com; 770-771-6818) or Anne Marie Simoneaux (asimoneaux@fh2.com; 770-771-6811) or visit FH2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris can help.

____________________

[1] Non-Compete Clause Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. 38342, 38342–506 (May 7, 2024) [to be codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 910] [hereinafter Final Rule]. The Final Rule is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/07/2024-09171/non-compete-clause-rule.

[2] Final Rule at 38342.

[3] Non-Compete Clause Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 3482, 3493–94 (Jan. 19, 2023) [hereinafter Proposed Rule]. The Proposed Rule is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/19/2023-00414/non-compete-clause-rule.

[4] Final Rule at 38343; Non-Compete Clause Rulemaking, FTC (Jan. 5, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/non-compete-clause-rulemaking.

[5] Final Rule at 38433.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 38505.

[8] 16 C.F.R. § 910.2(a). Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, “unfair methods of competition” are unlawful. Final Rule at 38348. The Act gives the FTC authority to make regulations carrying out this provision, and the FTC cites this as its authority to define this new category of unfair competition. Id.

[9] 16 C.F.R. § 910.2(a).

[10] 16 C.F.R. § 910.1.

[11] 16 C.F.R. § 910.2(b).

[12]  Id.

[13] 16 C.F.R. § 910.1.

[14] Final Rule at 38361.

[15] 16 C.F.R. § 910.2(a)(2).

[16] 16 C.F.R. § 910.1.

[17] 16 C.F.R. § 910.3(a).

[18] Id. at 38438.

[19] 16 C.F.R. § 910.3(b).

[20] Final Rule at 38634.

[21] Final Rule at 38357.

[22] See Bryan Koenig, Chamber OK’d To Intervene Against FTC Noncompete Rule, Law360 (May 10, 2024), https://www.law360.com/articles/1835663/chamber-ok-d-to-intervene-against-ftc-noncompete-rule.

[23] Memorandum Opinion and Order at 12–23, Ryan LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 3:24-CV-00986-E (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2024).

[24] Memorandum Opinion and Order, supra note 23, at 32.

[25] Id.

[26] See id.; Koenig, supra note 22.

 

 

 

GEORGIA’S [POTENTIAL] CERTIFICATE OF NEED REFORM

Posted on by Anne Marie Simoneaux

Georgia’s Certificate of Need (“CON”) program,[i] administered by the Georgia Department of Community Health (“DCH”) Office of Health Planning, controls the creation and expansion of health facilities in Georgia.[ii] With the goals of measuring need, controlling costs, and guaranteeing access to healthcare, the CON program regulates most health care facilities in Georgia, including hospitals and long-term care facilities.[iii]

In recent years, states have begun enacting legislation repealing or limiting the applicability of CON laws.[iv] For example, in 2019, Florida amended its CON requirements for many types of health facilities to limit its regulation to nursing homes, hospices, and intermediate care facilities for the developmentally disabled.[v] Similarly, South Carolina repealed its CON requirements for most health facilities, notably excluding nursing homes.[vi]

Georgia followed suit with the Georgia General Assembly considering legislation to change the CON requirements during the 2023 legislative session.[vii] Critics of the CON program argued that it is outdated and stifles access to healthcare in rural areas.[viii] While no changes were made to the CON program during the 2023 legislative session, both the Senate and House created special study committees tasked with reviewing Georgia CON laws and recommending reform for the 2024 legislative session.[ix]

The Final Report of the Senate Certificate of Need Reform Study Committee recommended sweeping changes to Georgia’s CON program.[x] Finding that the CON laws prevented competition and limited advancement in health care delivery, particularly in rural communities, the Senate Committee proposed that the legislature fully repeal Georgia’s CON laws.[xi] And if not a full repeal, the Senate Committee recommended limiting the scope of the program by removing certain facility types and bed expansion from CON regulation and eliminating the cost thresholds.

Following the Senate Committee’s recommendation, the Senate will again consider legislation altering the CON requirements this legislative session. The Senate read and referred SB 442 on January 31, 2024, to the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities committee.[xii] The bill repeals all existing CON requirements for any new or existing health care facilities in counties with a population of less than 35,000.[xiii] Also, on January 8, 2024, the Senate recommitted last year’s proposed legislation addressing CON reform, SB 162, to the same committee.[xiv] The current version of SB 162 limits the certificate of need program to a narrower set of health care facilities, including skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, personal care homes, and home health agencies.[xv]

FH2’s corporate team will continue to monitor proposed CON legislation and other Certificate of Need developments in Georgia and is available to assist healthcare providers with Certificate of Need questions and issues, including how these changes may impact both operations and asset transfers and sales for healthcare providers in Georgia. If you have questions regarding Georgia’s Certificate of Need reform and its potential impacts on your business, please contact Andrew Hazen (ahazen@fh2.com; 770-771-6818) or Anne Marie Simoneaux (asimoneaux@fh2.com; 770-771-6811) or visit fh2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP can help.

_________________

[i] See O.C.G.A. § 31-6-40 to 31-6-50; Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. § 111-2-2.

[ii] Certificate of Need (CON), Ga. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, https://dch.georgia.gov/divisionsoffices/office-health-planning/certificate-need-con (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).

[iii] See Certificate of Need (CON), supra note ii; O.C.G.A.§ 31-6-2(17).

[iv] See, e.g., Certificate of Need State Laws, Nat’l Conference of State legislatures (Jan. 1, 2023), https://www.ncsl.org/health/certificate-of-need-state-laws.

[v] See Certificate of Need State Laws, supra note iv; Hedy Silver Rubinger & Charmain A. Mech, No Need for Certificate of Need: Florida Eliminates Certificate of Need Review for Specialty Hospitals, Arnall Golden Gregory (June 22, 2021), https://www.agg.com/news-insights/publications/no-need-for-certificate-of-need-florida-eliminates-certificate-of-need-review-for-specialty-hospitals/.

[vi] Partial Repeal of Certificate of Need (CON) Program, S.C. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Control (June 8, 2023), https://scdhec.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/CON-DHEC-Board-Presentation-Jun-8-2023.pdf.

[vii] See SB 162, Ga. Gen. Assembly, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/64324 (last visited Feb. 7, 2024); SB 99, Ga. Gen. Assembly, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/64040 (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).

[viii] See, e.g., Donovan J. Thomas, Georgia Laws for Opening or Expanding Hospitals Getting Review by State Senate, AJC (June 13, 2023), https://www.ajc.com/news/health-news/georgia-laws-for-opening-or-expanding-hospitals-getting-review-by-state-senate/N7QEGENJRNFCLBQNFSHLFBSMXU/; Greg Bluestein, Ariel Hart & Zachary Hansen, A Burt Jones-backed Hospital Overhaul Draws Scrutiny, AJC (Mar. 20, 2023), https://www.ajc.com/politics/burt-jones-family-could-benefit-from-new-hospital-overhaul/V6FQ67MLBNAHJNL7YPDOZ6SEBQ/.

[ix] See SR 279, Ga. Gen. Assembly, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/65179 (last visited Jan. 31, 2024); HR 603, Ga. Gen. Assembly, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/65620 (last visited Jan. 31, 2024).

[x] Final Report of the Senate Certificate of Need Reform Study Committee (SR 279), Ga. State Senate Office of Policy & legislative Analysis, 14 (Nov. 29, 2023), https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/CONFinalReport11.29.23.pdf [hereinafter Senate Committee Final Report]. Note that the House report did not specify any recommendations. See Final Report: House of Representatives Study Committee on Certificate of Need Modernization, House Budget & Research Office (Dec. 11, 2023), https://www.house.ga.gov/Documents/CommitteeDocuments/2023/Certificate_of_Need/HR_603_Final_Report_w_signatures_12.11.23.pdf.

[xi] Senate Committee Final Report, supra note x, at 14.

[xii] SB 442, Ga. Gen. Assembly, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/66565 (last visited Feb. 7, 2024); Senate First Readers: Thirteenth Legislative Day, Ga. Gen. Assembly, 4 (Jan. 31, 2024), https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/senate-calendars/20232024/first-readers-2024-ld13.pdf?sfvrsn=b7d427d4_2.

[xiii] SB 442 (as introduced LC 33 9624), Ga. Gen. Assembly, 1–2, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/66565 (select “Current Version”) (last visited Feb. 7, 2024).

[xiv] See also SB 162, supra note vii.

[xv] SB 162 (as introduced LC 33 9350), Ga. Gen. Assembly, 6, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/64324 (select “Current Version”) (last visited Feb. 7, 2024)

Corporate Transparency Act (Updated 2/1/24)

Posted on by Friend, Hudak & Harris

THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT: NEW OWNERSHIP REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL AND MID-SIZED BUSINESSES

by Andrew Hazen, Matthew Haan and Anne Marie Simoneaux
FH2 Corporate Practice Team
Updated February 1, 2024

On January 1, 2024, the requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) will take effect. Under the CTA, many small and mid-sized businesses will be required to file reports disclosing information about their business and its ownership. Pre-existing entities have until January 1, 2025, to file all necessary reports, while entities created during the 2024 calendar year must file the reports within 90 days from creation. Thereafter, entities created after January 1, 2025, will have 30 days to file their initial reports.

Compliance with the CTA requires an entity to determine whether it is required to file a report and what information it must disclose, including who qualifies as the “beneficial owners” of the entity. Notably, compliance also requires filing updated reports any time there is a change to any information previously reported pursuant to the CTA.

What is the Corporate Transparency Act?

The CTA is federal legislation requiring reporting of entity information to support national security and law enforcement activities to counter money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other illicit activity.  The CTA introduces new requirements for certain businesses and other corporate entities, defined as “reporting companies”, to disclose information about the entity and its “beneficial owners” to the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). 31 U.S.C. § 5336.

What is a reporting company?

Most small businesses will be required to report with FinCEN. The term reporting company is defined broadly in the CTA to include any corporation, limited liability company, or other entity that is created through filings with a secretary of state or similar office under the law of a state. It also includes entities that are formed under the laws of a foreign country and registered to do business with a state office.

What entities are exempt from reporting requirements (i.e., not a reporting company)?

There are 23 types of entities exempt from the reporting requirements. Notable exemptions include those for banks, insurance companies, tax-exempt entities, securities reporting issuers or certain other entities subject to regulatory oversight. Additionally, an entity that qualifies as a “large operating company” is exempt, meaning it (i) employs more than 20 full-time U.S. employees, (ii) filed a federal U.S. income tax return for the prior year showing more than $5 million of revenue, and (iii) operates in physical location in the U.S.

What must reporting companies disclose to FinCEN?

The report required by the CTA seeks information about the reporting company, including its full legal name, any trade or dba name, current U.S. address, jurisdiction of formation, and IRS TIN (EIN).

Additionally, for each beneficial owner, the reporting company must provide that person’s full legal name, date of birth, current address, a unique identifying number, and an image of an identifying document. Finally, for entities created on or after January 1, 2024, the report must also include this information about a reporting company’s company applicant.

Who are beneficial owners and company applicants? 

The term beneficial owner is defined to include an individual who, directly or indirectly, either (1) exercises substantial control over an entity, or (2) owns or controls twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the ownership interests of an entity.

Ownership interests can mean any of the following: equity, stock, or voting rights; capital or profit interests; convertible instruments; options or other non-binding privileges to buy or sell any of the foregoing; and any other instrument, contract, or other mechanism used to establish ownership. An individual exercises substantial control over a reporting company if the individual meets any of four general criteria: (1) the individual is a senior officer; (2) the individual has authority to appoint or remove certain officers or a majority of directors of the reporting company; (3) the individual is an important decision-maker; or (4) the individual has any other form of substantial control over the reporting company. For example, this could include an entity’s President, CFO, CEO, COO, general counsel, or other offices with similar functions.

The term company applicant is any individual who directly filed (or directed or controlled the filing of) the application to form the reporting company under state law.

A reporting company can have multiple beneficial owners, and FinCEN expects each reporting company to have at least one beneficial owner. Each reporting company must have at least one company applicant and at most two.

When must a reporting company file its report?

For reporting companies existing as of January 1, 2024, reports must be filed within one year, by January 1, 2025. Reporting companies formed after January 1, 2025, have 30 days after formation to file their reports.  FinCEN extended the deadline for reporting companies formed in 2024.  Reporting companies formed on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2025, have 90 days after formation to file their reports.

If there is any change in the information reported to FinCEN, the reporting company must file an updated report no later than 30 days after the date on which the change occurred. This includes reporting a change in beneficial owners, such as a new CEO or a sale that changes who meets the ownership interest threshold of 25%, and changes to a beneficial owner’s information, such as an address change.

How to file the report?

Starting on January 1, 2024, reports must be filed electronically using FinCEN’s secure filing system, available here. There is no filing fee.

What are the penalties for non-compliance with the CTA?

Failure to comply with the reporting requirements can result in civil and criminal penalties. These penalties can include civil penalties of up to $500 for each day that the violation continues, as well as  criminal penalties including imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

How does FinCEN use the report once filed?

FinCEN will store reports in a database with security measures and only share this information with authorized users for purposes specified by law. This includes access by certain government agencies who request the information for purposes related to national security, intelligence, and law enforcement. FinCEN also allows limited access for financial institutions will also have access to beneficial ownership information in certain circumstances, with the consent of the reporting company.

Most prudent businesses today carry at least certain standard insurance coverages to protect against risks and liabilities arising out of the conduct of their business. These threshold coverages usually consist of a Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy, coupled with a workers’ compensation and employer’s liability policy and a commercial automobile liability policy. However, the provision of technology-related products and services entails certain unique risks not faced by the “ordinary” business, and a business engaged in providing those products and services (and their customers) run the risk of a very unpleasant surprise when a claim is made and the business discovers that these standard insurance products may not provide coverage. As such, businesses that provide technology-related products and services – from software development and licensing to IT professional services and data hosting – should be aware of additional insurance products that are available to insure against the risks that are unique to their business operations.

Compliance with the CTA requires a business to determine whether it is a “reporting company”, and if so, what information it must disclose, including who qualifies as the beneficial owners of the business. If you need assistance in assessing your business’s responsibilities under the CTA, please contact Andrew Hazen (ahazen@fh2.com; 770-771-6818), Matthew Haan (mhaan@fh2.com; 770-771-6835), or Anne Marie Simoneaux (asimoneaux@fh2.com; 770-771-6811) or visit fh2.com to learn more about how the attorneys at Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP can help.

Andrew K. Hazen, Partnerahazen@fh2.com About the Author: Andrew Hazen
Partner, Corporate practice leader
Andrew focuses his practice on corporate, transactional, and real estate matters. Andrew also serves as outside general counsel to a number of closely-held businesses in a variety of industries, including healthcare, long-term care and senior living, manufacturing and distribution, construction, agriculture, and commercial real estate. For more information about Andrew click here.
Matthew D. Haan, Associatemhaann@fh2.com About the Author: Matthew Haan
Associate
Matthew brings his large law firm experience to FH2’s diverse and expanding corporate and litigation practices. Matthew concentrates his practice on business litigation, business transactions, labor and employment, corporate and real estate matters. For more information about Matthew click here.
Anne Marie Simoneauxasimoneaux@fh2.com About the Author: Anne Marie Simoneaux
Associate
Anne Marie represents clients in all aspects of general commercial litigation and business transactions. She regularly assists clients in the healthcare, insurance, manufacturing, commercial real estate, and telecommunications industries with contract drafting, asset purchases and divestitures, and other corporate and outside general counsel matters. For more information about Anne Marie click here.

Contact us for additional information:

Friend, Hudak & Harris, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Three Ravinia Drive, Suite 1700
Atlanta, Georgia 30346
Tel: 770.399.9500 | Fax: 770.395.0000
www.FH2.com

Disability Lawsuits Are On The Rise. Is Your Business In Compliance?

Posted on by Ben Byrd

One Atlanta resident has filed over a hundred lawsuits against businesses in Georgia and Florida in the past 10 years. Another has sued 120 different Atlanta-area businesses just since 2015. What do these lawsuits have in common? In each case, the plaintiff suffers from a physical disability and claims that the business has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by preventing the plaintiff access to the business establishment.

These plaintiffs are not alone. Hundreds of plaintiffs have filed similar accessibility-based suits across the country. Experts say these suits already number in the thousands, and will only become more prevalent as time goes on. So how does the ADA apply to your business, and what can you do to protect your business against an ADA claim?

What is the ADA, and to whom does it apply?

In 1990, Congress passed the ADA in an attempt to eliminate a variety of barriers, both literal and figurative, that people with disabilities face every day. One section of the ADA, Title III, requires businesses that operate “public accommodations” to not discriminate against the disabled. In particular, the ADA requires the proprietors of such businesses to remove “architectural barriers” and “communication carriers” that prevent the disabled from equally enjoying the accommodations, if the removal of the those barriers is “readily achievable.”

So what is a “public accommodation”? A public accommodation is any private business that provides goods or services to the public. It includes restaurants, theaters, hotels, and any type of shopping center. But the statute is not limited just to retail-type establishments. It also includes professional offices, such as law offices and medical practices, as well as any other “service establishment.”  Even a publicly-accessible website may be a public accommodation to which the ADA applies (more on that below).  In short, if members of the public are coming to your property (or website) to transact any sort of business, you should expect to be subject to the ADA.

Importantly, there is no exception for accommodations that were built before the ADA became law. All public accommodations must comply with the ADA (though the requirements for compliance may differ based on various factors discussed below).

What does the ADA require?

Again, the ADA requires businesses to remove any barriers that would prevent a person with disabilities from enjoying a public accommodation if removal of the barrier is “readily achievable.” The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), which is charged with enforcing the ADA, publishes a set of standards called the “ADA Standards for Accessible Design” (the “Standards”) which provide, in minute detail, guidance for the design of public accommodations. The Standards cover everything from the size and location of wheelchair-accessible parking spaces to the height of toilet-paper dispensers.

Newly constructed facilities, first occupied on or after January 26, 1993, must meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the DOJ’s Standards. If any part of an existing facility has been altered or renovated since January 1992, it too must comply with the Standards.

For older facilities, the law is trickier. If the public accommodation pre-dates the ADA, the DOJ Standards still act as a guide, but a property owner does not have to meet those Standards unless doing so is “readily achievable.” Whether meeting a given Standard is readily achievable depends both on the cost of the alteration and the resources of the property owner. Bigger, wealthier property owners will be expected to make changes that smaller property owners are not. In the end, whether a change is “readily achievable” can only be decided on a case-by-case basis, and this fact gives rise to much litigation.

We noted above that the ADA’s definition of a “barrier” includes “communication barriers” as well as “architectural barriers.” Because of this, a new generation of ADA plaintiffs claim that a business’s website is also a public accommodation and must comply with the ADA. In particular, these plaintiffs claim that a business’s website be reasonably accessible to the blind, such as by providing means to navigate the site through sound instead of by sight. Neither the ADA nor the DOJ Standards addresses websites expressly, and the federal courts are divided on the questions of whether, and how, the ADA should apply. (In the absence of express federal guidance some courts assess website accessibility by reference to the independently-developed Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG)). Nevertheless, more than a thousand such suits were filed in 2018 alone.

What if I am merely a tenant in a building owned by someone else?

By its own terms, the ADA applies to “any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” So when a business owner leases space for its business, both the business and the business’s landlord are liable for violations of the ADA inside the space leased by the tenant-business. In contrast, when a violation is in a common area of a multi-tenant commercial building, such as a parking lot or an elevator, the courts generally agree that any ADA violations are the responsibility of the landlord alone.

How do these lawsuits work?

The ADA authorizes any person who has been discriminated against as a result of a violation of Title III to sue the business responsible for the violation in federal court to have the barrier removed. The ADA primarily allows the plaintiff to obtain an injunction – that is, a court order – requiring the offending property owner to remove any barrier that violates the ADA. Business owners are often shocked to discover that they have been sued for a laundry list of alleged violations. While these violations may seem minor, if a public accommodation does not meet the ADA, the law is clear that a patron may seek an injunction to bring the premises into compliance.

The statute does not provide for the plaintiff to receive monetary damages to compensate for the alleged discrimination itself, but it does allow the plaintiff, if successful, to recoup any reasonable legal fees and expenses that he incurred in the process of bringing the suit. And that, as they say, is the rub. The ADA does not require a potential plaintiff to give a business owner any prior notice before filing suit. So by the time the alleged offender is aware that anyone is claiming there is a problem, the plaintiff has already incurred legal fees, court costs, and possibly hired an expert in ADA compliance. All of these expenses are recoverable from the business owner if the plaintiff is successful in court.

None of this is to say that there is no defense to an ADA complaint. For example, it is not uncommon for a plaintiff to complain about a condition that is not, in fact, a barrier to entry. And even if a given condition would be a violation of the current Standards, it may be that the building pre-dates the ADA and removing the offending condition is not “readily achievable.”  On rare occasions, a plaintiff’s claims are downright fraudulent. For example, the plaintiff may have never set foot in the defendant’s establishment and, even if he did, he may have no plans to ever return. In short, it is possible to defeat an ADA claim on its merits.

But for every hour a business spends litigating the merits of a claim, the plaintiff’s expenses accumulate and increase the potential liability to the defendant.  For this reason, many business owners who are sued under the ADA seek to negotiate a quick settlement with the plaintiff rather than fight it out in court. In practice, very few of these claims go all the way to a trial.

If this process does not strike you as being especially fair to the accused business owner, you are not alone. The recent surge in ADA accessibility suits has caused some rumblings for reform in Congress. While at least one bill has been introduced to amend Title III, no such bill has passed and the statute will stay the same for the foreseeable future.

What can a business owner do?

Some industry observers suggest that if you maintain a “public accommodation” it is just a matter of time before you are the target of an ADA suit. Given that, what can a diligent business owner do now, before she is sued, to put her business in the best position to prevent or defend against a future claim?

  • First, check your insurance coverage. Many liability policies cover ADA claims, but just as many don’t. If you are not sure whether your policy covers ADA claims, talk with your insurance broker.
  • Second, hire a consultant knowledgeable in the ADA and disability issues to audit your business now, before you are the target of a lawsuit, to help identify any areas that might give rise to a claim later on and, if feasible, remedy them before a claim is brought.  If you are sued, you will likely have to hire one of these professionals to evaluate the plaintiff’s claims and advise you about where you may have compliance issues, at a time when you are also incurring liability to the plaintiff for his or her legal expenses, court costs and expert fees – so hiring a compliance consultant before you are sued may ultimately be more economical for your business in the long run.

In the end, if you are sued, always contact your lawyer immediately. Accessibility claims are technical by their very nature, so seeking professional guidance as early as possible is essential.

If you need assistance in assessing your business’s responsibilities under the ADA or responding to a claim that you have violated the ADA, please contact Ben Byrd at bbyrd@fh2.com or (770) 399-9500 to discuss further.

The FCC Establishes a Database Aimed at Reducing Robocalls: New Safe Harbor for Businesses, Additional Obligations for Telecom Providers

Posted on by Joel Thomas

“Robocalling” – a term that broadly describes automatically-dialed calls, caller ID spoofing, recorded calls, and telemarketing – has become one of the biggest challenges for both callers and consumers.  According to robocall blocking service provider YouMail, 47.8 billion robocalls were placed in 2018.  Atlanta was once again the city in the U.S. receiving the most robocalls, with about 2.1 billion annually.  Rounding out the top five, were Dallas, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and its implementing rules restrict the making of telemarketing calls, the use of automatic telephone dialing systems, and the use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages, without the express consent of the dialed party.  A telemarketing call is also defined broadly to include text messages sent to wireless subscribers.  The requirements under the TCPA apply to all telemarketers, as well as all businesses that use automated phone equipment to interact with consumers, for example, to provide appointment reminders, account notifications, or other general business communications.

The North American Numbering Plan Administrator estimates that about 35 million numbers are disconnected and made available for reassignment to new customers each year.  This reassignment process means that a caller who previously obtained the express consent to call a given number may call that number without realizing that the number has been reassigned to a new party who has not given express consent to receive the call – which could lead to legal liability for the caller under the TCPA.

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has said that unwanted calls to reassigned numbers are a major problem.  Despite that there are existing tools available to address this issue, the FCC has determined that none are comprehensive.  Further, none appear to have adequately curbed the problem of making unwanted calls to reassigned numbers.

As a result, in December 2018, the FCC ordered the creation of a database that will enable callers to verify whether a telephone number has been reassigned before calling that number.  Those callers that rely on the reassigned numbers database will be provided a safe harbor from TCPA liability where the caller has prior express consent to make the call to the number that the database erroneously reported as not having been disconnected.  In addition, the FCC’s new rules will impose new reporting obligations on telecommunications service providers.

Businesses should look to use the reassigned numbers database because it will likely reduce both their potential liability for making unlawful calls to reassigned telephone numbers and operational costs as a result of targeted calling.  Telecommunications service providers should ensure that they are prepared to comply with the new recording and reporting obligations.

Permanent disconnection and aging. The FCC ordered the creation of a comprehensive database of numbers that have been permanently disconnected so businesses like banks and pharmacies that call customers frequently may avoid calling reassigned numbers.  Callers will be able to query the database before making a call to determine whether the number has been permanently disconnected.

“Permanent disconnection” means that a subscriber has permanently relinquished a number, or the provider has permanently reversed its assignment of the number to the subscriber so that the number is no longer associated with the subscriber for active service in the service provider’s records.  Permanent disconnection does not include instances where the phone number remains associated with the subscriber such as, for example, temporary disconnections for non-payment or when a consumer ports a number to another provider.

In the order, the FCC also adopted a minimum telephone number aging period of forty-five (45) days, establishing a minimum period of time a number must remain out of use before reassignment to a new customer.  Before this change, telecom providers could reassign telephone numbers to another consumer almost immediately.  The FCC reasoned that the more quickly a number is reassigned from one consumer to another, the less likely callers are to learn of the reassignment and the more likely a caller is to misdirect a call to the reassigned number.

Contents and use of the database.  The FCC will limit the contents of the database to the date of the most recent permanent disconnection for the affected telephone number.  The data made available to callers in response to a query will be limited to either “yes”, meaning the number has been reported as disconnected since the date the caller provides; “no”, meaning the number has not been reported as disconnected since the date the caller provides; or “no data”, meaning there is no information available for the number requested.

To ensure that the database is available to the widest number of users and accessible to any size caller, it will have the ability to process low volume queries, for example, via a website interface, or high-volume queries through a batch process or standardized application interface.  This means that a small dental office that texts their patients appointment reminders and a large outbound call center making thousands of calls each day can each use the database in a manner that works best for their respective operations. However, users of the database will be required to certify that they are using it solely to determine whether a number is permanently disconnected.

Safe harbor for users of the database.  Callers that use the database are granted a safe harbor from TCPA liability for calls made to numbers for which they had obtained prior express consent but, at the time of the call, relied on the database to determine that the number had not been reassigned.  The safe harbor shields the caller from liability if the database returned an inaccurate result.

Projected costs for users of the database.  Use of the database is voluntary, and those that choose to use it will be assessed a user fee.  In addition to the user fee, the FCC estimates the startup cost for callers to be one day of development and three days of testing for a single full-time engineer, resulting in about $2,160 for larger companies that would invest in the information technology resources to integrate with the reassigned numbers database.  Smaller companies are expected to have lower startup costs as a result of using an internet/web-based interface.

Service provider obligations and administration of the database. The order also requires all service providers that use the North American Numbering Plan to provide to the database administrator information about telephone number disconnections.  Those providers that do not receive their numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator or the Pooling Administrator (for example, resellers and most VoIP providers) may delegate their reporting obligation to the service providers through which they obtain numbers.  The database administrator will be selected by the FCC through a competitive bidding process at a later time.

Similarly, toll free numbers, which are administered by the Toll Free Numbering Administrator, will also be included in the database.  The obligation to report the permanent disconnection status of toll free numbers will fall to the Toll Free Numbering Administrator.

Beginning 30 days after the rules are approved by the Office of Management and Budget, providers will be required to keep records of their permanent disconnections on a going-forward basis.   In addition, providers will be required to report their permanent disconnections to the database administrator on the 15th day of each month, with the exact start date to be announced by the FCC once the database is operational.   However, small providers (those providers with 100,000 or fewer domestic retail subscriber lines) will be granted a limited extension of six months from both the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

While the timeframe for implementing the database and the foregoing changes is uncertain, this looks to be beneficial to all stakeholders once operational.

If you have any questions about how these recent developments may affect your liability under the TCPA or reporting obligations, please contact Joel Thomas at jthomas@fh2.com or (770) 399-9500.

FH2 Litigators Again Recognized by Super Lawyers®

Posted on by Friend, Hudak & Harris

Both of our litigators, Mike Reeves and Ben Byrd, have again been recognized as Georgia Super Lawyers for 2019.  Their primary area of practice is Business Litigation. Mike has received this recognition many times.  This year marks the third time Ben Byrd has been included in the list of Super Lawyers.  He was included among Georgia Rising Stars in 2014.

For more information on Mike, his practice and his accomplishments, Click Here.        For more information on Ben, his practice and his accomplishments, Click Here.