Focused on Your Business Needs
PRACTICE AREAS
ASSOCIATIONS
The right attorney can properly assist you through any legal difficulty or transaction you encounter. Having well-respected counsel will properly guide you or your business through the litigation process, and can make the difference between attaining the information you need for effective resolutions, protecting your estate, or facing unexpected and undesirable outcomes and unwanted litigation. Located in Skippack, Pennsylvania, The Fleischmann Law Firm provides reliable representation you can depend on for your, business needs in Montgomery County and the surrounding areas.
With over three decades of experience, The Fleischmann Law Firm offers an objective and fair assessment, weighing all circumstances and options for solid recommendations to move forward. The Firm focuses on working in conjunction with clients to minimize any risk or liability while providing superior representation.
Always operating on high standards of integrity, cost-effectiveness and value, Firm clients are educated on the entire process from beginning to end, having the transparency a good attorney-client relationship demands. Attorney Craig J. Fleischmann and staff work diligently to achieve the results you need through personalized service for an in-depth approach to meeting goals and strategy.
Don’t leave any legal situation to chance! Be proactive and contact the Fleischmann Law Firm, P.C. today!
FinCEN Removes Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements for U.S. Companies and U.S. Persons, Sets New Deadlines for Foreign Companies
Alert: Alert [December 27, 2024]: Impact of Ongoing Litigation – Deadline Stay – Voluntary Submission Only FinCEN has issued the following alert regarding current status of BOI reporting: In light of a recent federal court order, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN and are not subject to liability if they fail to do so while the order remains in force. However, reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports. The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) plays a vital role in protecting the U.S. and international financial systems, as well as people across the country, from illicit finance threats like terrorist financing, drug trafficking, and money laundering. The CTA levels the playing field for tens of millions of law-abiding small businesses across the United States and makes it harder for bad actors to exploit loopholes in order to gain an unfair advantage. On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. , No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases that have challenged the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional. For that reason, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal. https://www.fincen.gov/boi
In a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court recently held that a consumer is not obligated to give a contractor written notice – or notice by any particular medium or means – when cancelling a home improvement contract within the three (3) day recission period. Case Background The ruling in Commonwealth, Office of Attorney General v. Gillece Services, LP , No. 861 C.D. 2023 (July 3, 2024) stemmed from a three-judge panel court that reviews civil actions the Commonwealth initiates through state government officers acting in their official capacity, that others bring against the Commonwealth, and appeals from state agency decisions. It affirmed Gillece’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office initiated the original case under the state’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), a law designed to restrict deceptive business procedures. The Attorney General alleged that the contractors sued would only cancel home improvement contracts unless the consumer hand-delivered a written request to the contractor’s employee or corporate offices. The Attorney General additionally alleged that the contractors further penalized customers by: entering their properties without permission and commencing work. failing to disclose that contractors would not honor verbal cancellation requests. failing to refund all payments within ten (10) business days of receiving the consumer’s cancellation request. misrepresenting to the consumer that, because they had not signed an emergency work authorization, their deposit was nonrefundable. The complaint asserted that these actions violated either the UTPCPL or the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA). UTPCPL, 73 P.S § 201-1, et seq. , bars unjust, fraudulent and otherwise deceptive business practices in sales and service contracts. HICPA, 73 P.S. § 517.7, et seq. , protects homeowners from fraudulent and deceptive home improvement contractor practices. HICPA works like an extension of the UTPCPL. Violations under HICPA are considered violations of the UTPCPL . Case Analysis The court addressed whether HICPA requires home improvement contractors to honor a customer’s non-written cancellation request. More specifically, the court questioned whether the UTPCPL’s written notice requirements applied to HICPA. In doing so, the court scrutinized two specific UTPCPL and HICPA provisions: UTPCPL, 73 P.S. § 201-7, which states that when a contractor sells or enters into an agreement for services or goods that cost twenty-five dollars ($25) or more, the consumer may cancel the contract or sale by notifying the seller, in writing, within three (3) full business days following the day on which they entered into the contract. HICPA 73 P.S. § 517-7(b), which permits an individual who signed a home improvement contract, to cancel the contract without penalty, no matter where they signed the contract, within three (3) business days. The court stressed that HICPA left out specific written notice requirements (unlike the UTPCPL which contains such directives). Strictly observing this omission, the court found that written notice is not required to cancel a home improvement contract. It did so despite HICPA’s specific reference to UTPCL provisions. Ultimately, for home improvement contractors, the decision indicates that they may no longer require written notices to rescind contracts and they can no longer rely upon the UTPCPL’s statutory language to ensure that their contracts are HICPA compliant. The Fleischmann Law Firm will monitor this matter and keep you updated on any changes or developments. The Fleischmann Law Firm, P.C. : The Fleischmann Law Firm specializes in business law and can guide your corporation through emerging contract laws and other rule and notice updates and changes. Its attorneys partner with you to minimize risk and liability, offer objective and fair assessments, and weigh all circumstances and options. They offer solid recommendations and provide superior representation. Attorney Craig J. Fleischmann and staff offer over thirty years of experience, integrity, cost-effectiveness, value, and integrity. Contact the Fleischmann Law Firm today.
