Compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) is no longer voluntary. Businesses subject to the CTA, which includes the majority of entities formed or registered to do business in the United States, will have until March 21, 2025, to file their beneficial ownership information reports with the U.S. Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”).

On February 1, 2025, President Trump announced that tariffs of 25% will be imposed on goods imported from Mexico and Canada (with the exception of Canadian energy resources which will be subject to a 10% tariff). In addition, a 10% tariff will also be imposed on certain goods imported from China. The administration’s stated justification for this emergency action is to address the threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including fentanyl, that are flowing into the United States. While the details of the tariffs remain unclear, these tariffs will undoubtedly impact both the cost and availability of critical materials required for construction projects across the United States. Accordingly, all contractors would be wise to immediately evaluate applicable clauses in existing contracts that may offer some relief from the time and cost impact resulting from tariffs. Construction attorneys Tyler Lloyd and Steven Henderson take a look at what this will mean to the construction industry in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

GaBiz magazine names Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Bill Joseph as a 2025 Top Lawyer in Tax Law. The annual list of Atlanta’s top lawyers is based on a peer-review survey of attorneys within the state of Georgia conducted by Professional Research Services.

A trial over a trademark dispute relating to an unlicensed online retailer’s sale of apparel and other merchandise bearing historic or retro logos and images of universities has concluded. In 2021, the Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) brought suit against Vintage Brand (“Vintage”) for trademark infringement and other claims in federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, styled as The Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand, LLC et al., 4:21-cv-1091. Since that time, at least a dozen other schools have sued Vintage on similar grounds, but this was the first case to go to trial and it has been watched intently by the trademark world as a bellwether case in the sports merchandising industry landscape and perhaps beyond.