View HPSS Law eBlast Newsletters to stay up-to-date on industry news
CURRENT HPSS LAW NEWS
7-2-25 HPSS NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT
The Department of Labor Once Again Revisits the Misclassification Issue: Independent Contractor versus Employee
On May 1, 2025, the Department of Labor released a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) addressing how Wage and Hour Division will apply its analysis to determine whether a worker is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act or an independent contractor. The issue of whether an individual is properly classified as an independent contractor or as an employee under the law is commonly referred to as the misclassification issue.
In 2024, the Biden administration issued a final rule which specified that the proper analysis involved applying a multi-factor “economic reality” test in making these determinations. The 2024 rule overturned a rule from the previous Trump administration which was widely considered more favorable to businesses. The May Field Assistance Bulletin announced that DOL will no longer apply the 2024 rule, consistent with positions DOL has taken in recent litigation in which DOL declared that it is reconsidering the 2024 rule, including whether to rescind the regulation. The text of the FAB can be found here.
This latest action does not rescind the rule (which technically remains in effect), but it does reflect a change in the enforcement position that DOL will take in these cases. DOL will revert to using the analysis set forth in Fact Sheet #13 (July 2008) (link here), which listed the following as significant factors:
The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal's business.
The permanency of the relationship.
The amount of the alleged contractor's investment in facilities and equipment.
The nature and degree of control by the principal.
The alleged contractor's opportunities for profit and loss.
The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor.
The degree of independent business organization and operation.
Employers need to continue to carefully evaluate whether their workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. This latest action by DOL may offer some flexibility, but the landscape remains unsettled and subject to change. If you have questions about classification of your workers, you can email Philip Siegel here or Scott Calhoun here. We will continue to monitor changes in this area.
Supreme Court Levels Playing Field and Eliminates Extra Burden for “Reverse” Discrimination Cases – What It Means for Construction Employers
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that will reshape how discrimination claims are litigated in the workplace, including in the construction industry. Historically, courts in several circuits (including the 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits) required majority-group employees (typically white, male, or heterosexual workers) to clear an extra hurdle when bringing Title VII claims. They had to show “background circumstances” proving their employer was the rare case that discriminates against the majority.
The Supreme Court has now struck down that requirement, holding it conflicts with the plain language of Title VII, which provides equal protection to “every individual”—regardless of majority or minority status. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized “There is no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.”
What This Means for Contractors:
Potentially Increased Exposure to Discrimination Claims: Employers in construction (an industry still largely dominated by white and male employees) may see an uptick in claims by majority-group workers who feel they were treated unfavorably due to race, sex, or sexual orientation.
No More “Background Circumstances” Requirement: All Title VII claims now follow the same burden of proof, regardless of the employee’s demographic background. A white male superintendent, for example, claiming he was passed over in favor of a minority candidate, now has the same legal standard as any other claimant.
Risk of “Majority-Group” Hostile Work Environment Claims: While this case involved a promotion decision, the logic may soon extend to claims of workplace harassment or exclusion by majority employees—claims which may previously have been dismissed more quickly.
The Case: Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, alleged she was discriminated against by the Ohio Department of Youth Services after being demoted and passed over for promotion in favor of LGBTQ colleagues. Lower courts applied the heightened “background circumstances” test and dismissed her case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the test was improper. While the Court didn’t explicitly address affirmative action, this ruling—alongside the 2023 Harvard and 2024 Muldrow decisions—suggests the justices are narrowing the permissible scope of diversity-based decision-making. Contractors implementing DEI initiatives should proceed with caution and legal review.
Should You Change Your Practices?
Now more than ever, it’s critical to:
Ensure employment decisions—hiring, promotion, termination—are based strictly on qualifications, performance, and documented business needs.
Apply anti-discrimination policies uniformly to all employees, regardless of perceived status.
Train foremen, superintendents, and office staff on equal treatment obligations under Title VII.
Review and revise any policies or statements that suggest hiring preferences based on race, sex, or other protected traits—however well-intended.
For more information, please reach out to Philip Siegel at pjs@hpsslaw.com(404-469-9197) or Mark Husted at mah@hpsslaw.com (256-453-7506).
A Cost-Plus Contract Does Not Establish an “Agreed Sum” under the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law
One of a variety of routinely utilized contract types that are within the toolkit for construction is a “cost-plus” contract. Generally, under a cost-plus contract, the contractor is reimbursed for the actual cost of the work performed plus the contractor is paid a fee. One of benefits of a cost-plus contract for a contractor, in its most basic form, is that the risk of cost overruns is borne by the owner. However, the uncertainty of the total amount that will ultimately be paid for the work by the owner under a cost-plus contract creates a wrinkle under the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law for contractors that, if not properly addressed when filing a mechanic’s lien, can result in the contractor’s lien rights being extinguished.
This was the situation addressed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in the unpublished decision of PW Campbell Contracting Co. v. Yetter[1] issued on April 14, 2025. In summary, the Superior Court decided that a “cost-plus” contract does not establish an “agreed sum” under the Mechanic’s Lien Law. Accordingly, for a contractor to perfect a lien when work is performed under a cost-plus contract, the statement of mechanics’ lien claim must include a detailed statement of the kind and character of the labor and material furnished and the prices charged for such labor and material. In short, the claim should describe the work in detail and have the invoices for the work attached, otherwise, it will not be enforceable.
To understand the basis of this decision, one must recognize, as both the trial court and the Superior Court did, that the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law establishes different requirements to perfect a lien based on whether the person or entity performing the work is a “contractor” or a “subcontractor.” One of the differences between the requirements for a “contractor” versus a “subcontractor” is the contents of the statement of mechanics’ lien claim. Presuming all other statutory requirements are met, a contractor’s statement of mechanics’ lien claim if “under a contract or contracts for an agreed sum” is sufficiently stated if it identifies the contract and includes a general statement of the kind and character of the work.[2] In all other circumstances, however, the statement of mechanic’s lien claim must include “a detailed statement of the kind and character of the labor or materials furnished, or both, and the prices charged for each thereof.”[3]
In P.W. Campbell, PW Campbell Contracting Company (PWCC) entered into design-build contract with a homeowner for the design and construction of a porch, pool house, and other improvements to the home. Although the title of the contract classified it as a “lump sum” agreement, a lump sum amount was only established for the design portion of the work. The contract stated that the construction costs were to be paid at “the cost of the work, plus 25%.” Disputes arose between PWCC and the homeowner, which led to PWCC filing a mechanic’s lien for the unpaid amounts it claimed were due for the construction work performed. PWCC attached the design-build contract it entered into with the homeowner to its statement of mechanics’ lien but it did not attach invoices or any other documentation supporting the calculation of the amounts PWCC claimed were due and owed. PWCC’s position was that invoices or other documentation was not required, because it was a “contractor” performing work under a contract for an “agreed sum.” PWCC argued that the statement of mechanics’ lien claim substantially complied with the Mechanics’ Lien Law because the contract established the “agreed-upon framework pursuant to which PWCC charged the [homeowner].”
There was no dispute that PWCC was a “contractor” under Mechanics’ Lien Law, as it contracted directly with the homeowners for design and construction. However, both the trial court and the Superior Court decided that the “cost-plus” payment arrangement set forth in PWCC’s contract with the homeowner did not constitute an “agreed sum” under the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Accordingly, PWCC was required to provide a detailed statement of the kind and character of the work with the prices charged therefore in its statement of mechanics’ lien claim. Having failed to do so, PWCC’s mechanics’ lien was found invalid for a failure to comply with the Mechanics’ Lien Law.
As it has repeatedly done in its decisions on the Mechanics’ Lien Law over the last several years, the Superior Court quoted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Terra Firma Builders, LLC v. King[4], stating “a contractor seeking the benefit of the lien must judiciously adhere to the requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Law it order to secure a valid and enforceable lien.” The Superior Court once again reminds the construction industry that the Mechanics’ Lien Law is filled with traps for the unwary and any one of those traps can lead to a mechanics’ lien for amounts that may be undisputedly due and owed being extinguished.
If you have questions about this article or need guidance in relation to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law, please contact J.T. Gallagher at jtg@hpsslaw.com or call the firm’s Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania office at 610-484-4459.
[1] PW Campbell Contracting Co. v. Yetter, No. 910 WDA 2024, 2025 WL 1099644 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 14, 2025).
[2] 49 P.S. § 1503(5) (emphasis added).
[3] 49 P.S. § 1503(6) (emphasis added).
[4] 249 A.3d 976, 983 (PA. 2021).
Trump Administration Makes Minor Changes to Form I-9
On April 2, 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced minor changes to Form I-9, which is the document that requires employees to prove both their identity and work authorization status at the commencement of their employment. The changes to the Form were made to align with statutory language, according to USCIS. The revised Form has an edition date of 01/20/25 and an expiration date of 05/31/2027. The revised Form can be downloaded through this link.
Among the updates to the Form are the following:
Renaming the fourth checkbox in Section 1 to “An alien authorized to work”
Revising the descriptions of two List B documents in the List of Acceptable Documents
Adding appropriate statutory language and a revised DHS Privacy Notice to the instructions
In addition to the revisions to the Form I-9, on April 3, E-Verify updated the Citizenship Status selection during case creation to reflect this statutory language. The selection “A noncitizen authorized to work” was updated to “An alien authorized to work.”
OSHA’s Proposed Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard Moves Forward
As previously noted in our E-blast from August, 2024, on July 2, 2024, OSHA released a proposed rule addressing the heat hazard for the workplace, in both indoor and outdoor settings. You can link to the proposed rule here. The rule was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024, which commenced a 120 period for the public to offer comments on the rule.
With the comment period closing, on November 29, OSHA announced that it was extending the period for submitting comments on its proposed Heath Injury and Illness Prevention Standard in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings by 15 days. Comments were accepted through January 14, 2025. The public comments are available for viewing through this link.
Also on November 29, OSHA announced that it would be holding a public hearing on the proposed rule. The public hearing began on June 16, 2025 and continued through July 2. Details regarding the hearing process and post-hearing procedures are available on OSHA’s website which you can access via this link.
On June 18, 2025, the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) provided testimony at the OSHA’s informal public hearing regarding the proposed standard, voicing concerns about the feasibility and real-world implications of the proposed rule, particularly for small and mid-sized businesses. NRCA highlighted several key issues with the proposed rule, including the need for maximum flexibility and a performance-based standard; the onerous full-time monitoring responsibilities; and initial and high heat trigger temperatures that are too low and do not account for local environmental conditions. According to NRCA, many of these requirements would be unworkable and could divert resources away from other critical safety initiatives. Instead, NRCA urged OSHA to adopt a performance-based standard that allows employers to tailor heat safety protocols to the conditions and hazards faced by their workforce. The association cited successful industry practices—such as voluntary heat stress training, rest and hydration breaks, and job-site-specific hazard analysis—as more effective and realistic than prescriptive regulatory mandates.
It remains to be seen whether OSHA’s proposed rule will survive under the Trump administration. We will continue to provide our readers updates on the proposed rule, as it works its way through the process.
Firm News
We are excited to announce that Chambers USA has again nationally recognized our firm as among the top 2% of professionals globally. Chambers is the market leader in legal research.
Hendrick, Phillips, Salzman & Siegel also received a spot in BCG Attorney Search’s 2025 BCG Top Law Firm Rankings. Drawing on input from over 450,000 attorneys nationwide, including peers, general counsel, and current and former employees, our firm was selected among fewer than 3% of U.S. law firms.
03-11-25 HPSS NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT
Corporate Transparency Act Update - On Again, Off Again - What Now?
Since the beginning of the year, owners of businesses covered under the Corporate Transparency Act have been subjected to a dizzying flurry of court decisions, bureaucratic pronouncements, and even proposed legislation. The BOI filing requirements were on, then off, then on again. Just last week, as we were preparing an update to announce that all filing requirements were on, with a deadline of March 21, things changed again.
On February 27, FinCEN, the government agency responsible for collecting the information on the BOI reports and enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act, announced that it will NOT take any enforcement action related to the act’s filing requirements until it issues new rules, with new filing deadlines and standards. FinCEN intends to issue a new interim final rule no later than March 21. FinCEN will then solicit public comment on proposed changes to the existing requirements prior to further proposed rulemaking.
Meanwhile, litigation continues in a number of courts related to the constitutionality of the Act, and several different proposed bills are being considered by Congress, with the possible consequences of either repealing the Act, extending deadlines, or even modifying applicability of the statute.
As of this writing (and of course things may change, and probably will), any company which would otherwise be required to file BOI reports under the Corporate Transparency Act by March 21, NO LONGER has to meet that deadline. But you should remain vigilant and be prepared to pivot, depending on further developments. We will of course update you as we can.
If you have further questions about how the Corporate Transparency Act may affect your business, please contact Scott Calhoun. You can e-mail Scott by clicking here.
Beware of the ICE Investigator!
President Trump has made it clear that immigration enforcement and deportation actions will increase under his presidency. In just the first few weeks of his administration, there was a noticeable uptick in activity by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That level of activity is expected to remain consistent, with the possibility of an increase in worksite visits from ICE, particularly in the construction industry. Indeed, it is anticipated that the Trump Administration will increase Form I-9 audits to 12,000 a year (by comparison, the Biden Administration averaged less than 500 Form I-9 audits a year).
Employers in the construction industry need to be prepared if ICE arrives at a worksite. If the purpose of the ICE visit it to announce its intention to conduct a Form I-9 audit, the employer will have three days to produce the Forms for audit. In order to avoid a fire drill attempting to organize the company’s Forms and make necessary corrections before the Forms must be produced, construction industry employers would be wise to conduct their own self-audit without waiting for ICE to arrive. It is much easier to make necessary corrections without the pressure of having to do it company-wide over a three day period. But what if the purpose of ICE’s visit is to meet and interview your employees to determine whether your employees are legally in the United States? Are you required to allow ICE access to your employees?
Employers are not required to allow ICE access to non-public areas of the worksite, unless the ICE agents have a search warrant signed by a federal judge allowing them access. This holds true even if the ICE agents have an administrative warrant from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the arrest of an employee (employers are not required to provide ICE access to non-public areas in response to an administrative subpoena from DHS). Construction employers can require the agents to obtain a search warrant signed by a federal judge as a condition to access non-public areas of the worksite. Construction employers will not, however, be able to deny the ICE agents access to public areas of a worksite.
If the ICE agents do have a search warrant, access must be granted. In those instances, legal counsel should be contacted immediately. The employer should make a copy of the search warrant. The ICE agent should be accompanied by the employer during the search, and the employer should object if the scope of the search exceeds what is permitted by the warrant.
During the search, the employer is under no obligation to answer any questions. Similarly, employees also have the right to remain silent (although, the employer should not instruct the employee not to answer ICE’s questions or to flee the worksite). It is ok for the employer to tell its employees it is up to them whether to speak with the ICE agents. In response to an administrative warrant seeking an employee, it is important that employers know they are under no legal obligation to bring the employee to the ICE agents. Indeed, the employer is under no legal obligation to let ICE know whether the employee is even working that day.
It is important that all employers in the construction industry prepare for a Form I-9 audit and the possibility of ICE showing up at one of its worksites, with or without a search warrant. If you would like assistance in conducting your own Form I-9 audit, or if you have any questions about the company’s rights and the rights of its employees in the event of a worksite raid, please contact Philip Siegel. You can e-mail Philip by clicking here, or you can call him directly at (404) 469-9197.
OSHA'S Penalty Amounts Increase for 2025
On November 3, 2015, then President Obama signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Act) into law. The Act was a two-year deal that was negotiated quickly to avoid a default on our nation's debt. Budgets often contain obscure changes to laws that are not easily identified. However, this Act was unique because it contained a provision that allowed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to increase its maximum penalties for the first time in 25 years. Importantly, the Act does allow OSHA to annually adjust the maximum penalty amounts to reflect inflation, similar to other government agencies.
For 2025, penalties for an other-than-serious violation, a serious violation, and a failure-to-abate violation increased to $16,550, which represents a $419.00 increase over these same penalties in 2024. Willful and repeat violations now have a maximum penalty amount of $165,514 per violation, which represents an increase of $4,191.00 over last year's maximum penalty amount for willful or repeat violations.
In light of this increase in OSHA penalty amounts, it is a good time to revisit your company safety program to make sure you are taking those steps necessary to defeat a citation based on the unforeseeable employee misconduct defense. To establish the affirmative defense of unforeseeable employee misconduct, an employer must show that it (1) established work rules designed to prevent the violative conditions from occurring; (2) adequately communicated those rules to its employees; (3) took steps to discover violations of those rules; and (4) effectively enforced the rules when violations were discovered.
While most construction contractors have work rules, provide training, inspect their jobsites, and discipline employees who violate safety rules, it is absolutely imperative that documents are maintained that provide evidence of the same, and that the company's safety program, especially its disciplinary component, is effective such that violations are truly unforeseeable. Even verbal reprimands should be documented. All documents which would support the affirmative defense of unforeseeable employee misconduct should be well organized and stored in a safe place for easy access in the event the company is cited for an OSHA violation.
New Employee Exempt Standard for Minimum Wage and Overtime Under FLSA
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision clarified the civil litigation standard that employers must follow in instances they want to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Previously, U.S. Courts of Appeals were split as to whether preponderance or clear and convincing evidence burden should apply to prove an exemption under the FLSA. Under the preponderance evidence standard, an employer must prove that it is far more likely than not that an employee is exempt. Under the clear and convincing evidence standard, the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable.
Two employee minimum wage and overtime classifications exist under the FLSA: exempt or non-exempt. A non-exempt employee is entitled to a federal minimum wage, as well as overtime pay at a rate of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked beyond 40 hours per workweek. An exempt employee must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and paid on a salary basis. If there is a dispute regarding an employee’s exempt status, the employer bears the burden of proving that an exemption applies.
In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, several sales representatives of E.M.D. Sales, Inc. (“EMD”) sued EMD in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for allegedly failing to pay them overtime in violation of FLSA. While EMD did not dispute that the sales representatives were not paid overtimes, EMD argued that the sales representatives were not entitled to overtime pay because they fell within the FLSA’s “outside salesman” exemption. Generally under the FLSA, “outside salesman” is a provision which exempts employees whose primary duty is to make sales and who customarily and regularly work away from their employer’ place of business.
The District Court ruled in favor of the employees finding that EMD failed to demonstrate that the sales representatives qualified as exempt outside salesmen based on the clear and convincing evidence standard. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit upheld the use of clear and convincing evidence standard. Following Fourth Circuit’s decision, EMD appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Fourth Circuit’s decision and found that the default standard of evidentiary proof in civil litigation is the preponderance of evidence, not clear and convincing evidence standard. The Supreme Court noted that there are three exceptions to this default standard: (1) when a statute establishes a higher standard of proof, (2) when the Constitution requires a heightened standard, and (3) in certain “uncommon” cases where the government seeks to take an unusual coercive action. None of these exceptions applied to E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera. Further, the Supreme Court declined to engage in a policy debate when the sales representatives argued that a higher evidentiary burden should apply due to FLSA’s focus on the public’s interest in ensuring workers receive a fair wage, the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay rights are not waivable, and employers exercise greater control over relevant evidence. The Supreme Court stated that sales representatives’ arguments do not qualify for a heightened standard when applying the statute as written. The Supreme Court’s decision brings uniformity to the standard that lower courts should apply.
Employers should be vigilant when classifying their employees as it is the employers’ burden to defend their employees’ exempt classifications when a challenge arises. The evidentiary standard is not the only factor that determines an employee’s exempt status so each employer must pay attention to the totality of factors when determining an employee’s exempt status. Please note that E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera’s decision only applies to the federal FLSA. Some states and local jurisdictions have their own more stringent wage and hour laws governing employee classification than the FLSA’s requirements. Therefore, employers must pay attention to federal, state, and local employee classification laws.
If you have any further questions regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, please email Elina V. Gutsaeva by clicking here.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law Decisions Emphasize the Legal and Practical Importance of Strict Adherence to the Statutory Requirements
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued two decisions in January 2025 addressing certain actions statutorily required for the perfection of liens under the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law of 1963 (“Mechanics’ Lien Law”). Although the cases were decided along different lines and, in one of the case, substantial compliance with the Mechanics’ Lien Law was found sufficient, they both serve as a clear reminder that strictly adhering to letter of the Mechanics’ Lien Law, and all other jurisdictions’ lien laws, is an absolute must. Any failure to strictly comply with the statutory procedures invites a challenge to a lien’s validity, increasing the legal costs a claimant is forced to incur, and may invalidate a lien, striping a claimant of security for the amounts they may be undeniably due and owed.
First, on January 7, 2025, the Superior Court, in Celtic Conversions, LLC v. Birch Tree Investments, LLC[1], affirmed the trial court’s finding that Celtic’s lien was invalid because the lien was not filed until after the property where the work was completed was sold by the owner who had hired Celtic to an “innocent purchaser.” Notably, the Mechanics’ Lien Law plainly states that, “if the property be conveyed in good faith and for a valuable consideration prior to the filing of a claim for alterations or repairs, the lien shall be wholly lost.” 49. P.S. § 1303(c). Thus, Celtic’s filing of the lien was a clear failure to strictly adhere to the requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Law. In fact, the trial court found that Celtic had wholly ignored the Mechanics’ Lien Law, “ensnaring an innocent purchaser in three years of litigation,” and awarded the property owner its attorneys’ fees to defend against what the trail court held was an arbitrary lien. The Superior Court upheld the award of attorneys’ fees.
Second, on January 24, 2025, the Superior Court, in Clark Property Maintenance, LLC v. Peak Real Estate Solutions[2], reversed the trial court’s decision striking Clark Property Maintenance’s (“CPM”) lien for failure to file an affidavit of services in strict compliance with the Mechanic’s Lien Law. CPM had filed a sheriff’s return of service instead of the affidavit of service required by the Mechanics’ Lien Law. The Superior Court held that the filing of a sheriff’s return of service satisfied the notice requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Law and substantially complied with the Mechanics’ Lien Law as to the form of notice. Although the trial court was reversed and CPM is now able to proceed in the trial court to prove its entitlement to enforce the lien, its failure to file an affidavit of service in strict compliance with the Mechanics’ Lien Law left its lien subject to challenge and forced an appeal that may have otherwise been unnecessary.
Materialmen and mechanics’ lien laws in Pennsylvania and throughout the country require strict adherence to their specific statutory requirements and are filled with traps for the unwary. Proactive development of state specific operational procedures for ensuring compliance with the lien laws throughout performance of the work on each construction project performed is vital to protect a contractor’s lien rights.
If you have questions about this article or need guidance in relation to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law, please contact J.T. Gallagher at jtg@hpsslaw.com or call the firm’s Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania office at 610-484-4459.
[1] Celtic Conversions, LLC v. Birch Tree Investments, LLC, No. 2562 EDA 2023, 2025 WL 40590 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2025).
[2] Clark Prop. Maint., LLC v. Peak Real Est. Sols., LLC, 2025 PA Super 15 (Jan. 24, 2025).
Firm News
We are very proud to announce that Martin Salzman and Philip Siegel have been named Super Lawyers in the 2025 edition of Georgia Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
02-04-2025 HPSS NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT
We moved!
We are excited to announce the relocation of our Atlanta office.
Effective February 1, 2025, our new Atlanta address is:
2100 Riveredge Pkwy | Suite 1150 | Atlanta, GA 30328
We look forward to welcoming you to our new space!
01-23-2025 HPSS NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT
Supreme Court Reinstates Corporate Transparency Act (For Now)
On January 23, 2025, the United States Supreme Court imposed a stay on the national injunction that had been in place against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act. This latest twist in the saga means that FinCEN is once again allowed to enforce the Act’s provisions, most importantly the filing requirements of Reporting Companies. We anticipate that FinCEN will provide a new deadline which, at this point, should be followed by all Reporting Companies.
This ruling does not spell the final conclusion of the legal jousting, but as a practical matter, it does mean that all Reporting Companies will be required to submit a Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) Report to the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), providing details identifying individuals who are associated with the reporting company. Please be watchful of the new deadline and be sure to file timely if required.
We will continue to monitor and provide updates as new information becomes available. If you have further questions about how the Corporate Transparency Act may affect your business, please contact Scott Calhoun. You can e-mail Scott by clicking here.
RECENT PODCASTS