FinCEN Eliminates Corporate Transparency Act’s Reporting Obligations for U.S. Persons
On March 21, 2025, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released an interim final rule (Interim Rule) that broadly eliminates Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) for all U.S. reporting companies and all U.S. beneficial owners of foreign reporting companies. Under the Interim Rule, which FinCEN is implementing immediately, only companies created under foreign law and registered to do business in the U.S. will be required to submit BOI reports (unless otherwise exempt), and only foreign beneficial owners of such nonexempt foreign entities will be reportable.
Based on FinCEN’s estimates supporting the original BOI Rule (Original Rule), exempting all U.S. reporting companies shrinks the compliance universe by 99.8 percent.
How Did We Get Here?
The CTA whiplash, playing out in courts since early December, took a sharp turn by the government over the last month. On February 18, FinCEN restored the reporting obligations under the Original Rule after the last nationwide injunction against the CTA had been lifted at the government’s request. FinCEN gave reporting companies a grace period for compliance that would have ended, for most companies, on March 21.
Then, on February 27, FinCEN announced that it was suspending CTA enforcement pending a formal extension of the compliance deadlines beyond March 21. On March 2, the U.S. Treasury took this a step further, announcing the total suspension of CTA enforcement against U.S. persons and a rulemaking process “that will narrow the scope of the [BOI] rule to foreign reporting companies only.”
The Interim Rule puts this policy change into effect. The primary legal basis for this “narrowing” is a provision of the CTA that provides a regulatory process by which the U.S. Treasury may, subject to several statutory requirements, create additional exemptions from the BOI reporting obligations. In a court filing made after the March 2 announcement, the government elaborated on the policy change by noting the U.S. Treasury “intends to focus on foreign entities that could engage in illicit transactions from abroad.”
Policy Change or a New CTA?
Congress enacted the CTA to combat money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and other serious financial crimes by requiring tens of millions of private companies operating in the U.S. to identify their beneficial owners and disclose to FinCEN personal information about such companies and beneficial owners. FinCEN stores this information in a secure, nonpublic electronic warehouse for law enforcement purposes. Yet, FinCEN pegs the estimated number of reporting companies subject to the Interim Rule at less than 12,000 annually. Supporters of the CTA point to this fact, and findings made by Congress that bad actors conceal their ownership of entities in the U.S. to facilitate illicit transactions, in their criticism of the policy change. We could see judicial scrutiny of the Interim Rule if a plaintiff with legal standing decides to bring a case.
FinCEN is soliciting comments from the public on the Interim Rule, noting it “will assess the exemptions [in the Interim Rule], as appropriate, in light of those comments and intends to issue a final rule this year.” Among other unanswered questions, the Interim Rule does not address how BOI received by FinCEN from U.S. companies and their beneficial owners will be handled – nearly 16 million reports under the Original Rule were submitted to FinCEN prior to March 21.
Expect the CTA Saga to Continue
In addition to potential legal challenges to the Interim Rule, numerous cases challenging the CTA remain on court dockets and will continue to work their way through the legal process. Separately, some state legislatures have shown interest in developing their own versions of the CTA (which could be impacted by the ultimate resolution of the pending cases against the CTA), with New York having adopted the New York LLC Transparency Act (applicable to limited liability companies formed or registered to do business in New York and set to take effect January 1, 2026).
What Vice Chancellor Strine Got Wrong In Massey Energy Co.
Vice Chancellor Leo Strine famously wrote that “Delaware law does not charter law breakers”. In re Massey Energy Co., 2011 WL 2176479, at *20 (Del. Ch. May 31, 2011). Professor William J. Moon picks up on this theme in a forthcoming essay, Havens for Corporate Lawbreaking:
Yet even the fiercest defenders of the firm’s profit motive concede that the corporation’s profit-seeking function cannot justify breaking the law. As a matter of American corporate law, directors and officers are in breach of their fiduciary duties if they facilitate or engage in profit-maximizing illegal activities. Or so we thought.
Professor Moon’s essay calls out Nevada and the Cayman Islands as “corporate lawbreaking havens”. But are Vice Chancellor Strine and Professor Moon correct that Delaware does not charter corporate lawbreakers? I think not.
In JCCrandall, LLC v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 328 Cal. Rptr. 3d 828, 831 (Ct. App. 2025), review denied and ordered not to be officially published (Mar. 19, 2025), a California Court of Appeal pointed out the cannabis is illegal:
It is often said that cannabis is legal in California. The statement is not true. Under federal law, cannabis is illegal in every state and territory of the United States. (See Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. § 812 (c)(10); City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 377, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 656.) Article VI, paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, provides in part, “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Therefore, any Delaware corporation engaged in the cannabis trade is potentially violating the law. Are the directors and officers of these corporation breaching their fiduciary duties when they allow the corporation to engage in the business for which it was formed?
It might be argued that Vice Chancellor Strine was referring only to Delaware law, but the Massey case involved violations of federal law. Thus, it cannot be said that he was referring only to state laws. Does this mean that Delaware charters the breakers of some laws? If so, how do directors and officers know which violations will support a breach of fiduciary duty claim and which will not?
More fundamentally, the immensity and complexity of state and federal laws and regulations mean that it impossible for most corporations to comply fully with all laws and regulations. Therefore, Delaware does indeed charter law breakers. This is most certainly true.
OFSI Takes Enforcement Action Against UK Charities
On 14 March 2025, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) issued a “Disclosure” against UK-registered and regulated charities Sahara Hands, Peculiar Peoples’ Palace Ministries, and Impact Planet for breaching Regulation 36 (6) of the Counter Terrorism (International Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the Regulations) by failing to respond to OFSI’s requests for information (RFI).
In accordance with the Regulations, OFSI can request information from any person if it believes that person can provide details to establish (a) the nature, amount, or quantity of any funds or economic resources owned, held or controlled by a designated person; or (b) the nature, amount, or quantity of any funds, economic resources or financial services made available to or for the benefit of a designated person; or (c) the nature of any financial transactions entered into by a designated person. This information must be provided where OFSI believes it is necessary for monitoring compliance, detecting evasion, and investigating financial offenses under Part 3 of the Regulations. Information must be provided within a specified or reasonable time, or in accordance with any ongoing obligations.
OFSI made several attempts to contact the charities via email and post, but no response was received within the stated timeframes from any of the charities, which, according to OFSI, hindered its ability to monitor compliance with the Regulations.
OFSI assessed the breach as moderately severe, though it did not warrant a monetary penalty. Publishing details of the financial sanctions breach via the Disclosure regime was considered the suitable enforcement response, given the specific nature and circumstances of the violation. The Disclosure highlights that the charities’ failure to respond to the RFIs, despite OFSI’s repeated attempts at communication, and the importance of the RFIs for monitoring compliance with the Regulations, were aggravating factors in its decision. Although OFSI acknowledged that a failure by the charities to update their contact information could be viewed as a mitigating factor, it ultimately did not accept this as a valid excuse.
The Disclosure confirmed that all other charities contacted by OFSI complied with the Regulations by responding to the RFI. However, OFSI noted that it had identified multiple charities where contact information was not updated, or incoming correspondence was not regularly monitored. OFSI recommended that charities ensure contact information is up to date and incoming correspondence is regularly monitored.
Takeaway
The Disclosure highlights the investigative steps taken by OFSI and its commitment to enforcement beyond merely relying on self-reports.
OCC Eliminates “Reputational Risk” Category from Bank Supervision Criteria
On March 20, the OCC announced that it will no longer treat reputation risk as a standalone category in its supervision of national banks and federal savings associations. The decision marks a dramatic shift in the agency’s risk-based examination framework.
Under the updated policy, OCC examiners are instructed to discontinue separate assessments of reputation risk and instead evaluate any such concerns through other established risk areas—such as operational, compliance, or credit risk—when they present a tangible impact to bank safety, soundness, or fair treatment of customers. OCC staff have been directed to revise examination manuals and related documentation to eliminate references to reputation risk. This change follows the Senate’s introduction of proposed legislation that would prohibit all federal banking agencies from considering reputation risk in supervisory exams.
The concept of reputational risk has been around for decades, and involves the risk to current or projected financial condition and resilience arising from negative public opinion. The OCC’s exam manual states that “departure from effective corporate and risk governance principles and practices cast doubt on the integrity of the bank’s board and management. History shows that such departures can affect the entire financial services sector and the broader economy.”
Now, according to the OCC, the revised framework is intended to improve clarity and public confidence in the examination process. The OCC emphasized that removing the term does not reduce expectations for sound risk management, but instead to ensure that supervisory actions are grounded in objective and material risk considerations.
Putting It Into Practice: The OCC’s removal of reputation risk as a standalone category echoes recent comments from Acting Comptroller Hood, who emphasized that the agency will not push banks to debank entire categories of customers without assessing individualized risks (discussed here). We expect further actions from federal regulators as part of a broader shift in supervisory policy and priorities (previously discussed here, here, and here).
Listen to this post
CFPB Pushes Forward in Debt Relief Action
On March 13, the CFPB filed a brief in an Illinois federal court, reinforcing its arguments for a $43 million judgment against the founder of a now-defunct debt relief company. The CFPB contends that the company’s founder controlled its deceptive telemarking operations and should be held personally liable under the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, alleges that the company engaged in unlawful advance fees and deceptive practices targeting student-loan borrowers. According to the CFPB, the company:
Misrepresented its services. The company allegedly promised lower student loan payments, full debt forgiveness, and improved credit scores, but often failed to deliver these results.
Charged illegal upfront fees. Consumers were required to pay fees before receiving any debt relief services, in violation of federal law.
Failed to provide promised relief. Many consumers paid significant amounts for services that did not produce the advertised benefits.
In its brief, the CFPB reiterated its request for the full $43 million judgment, which includes $2M in consumer redress, arguing that it should be based on total consumer harm rather than net profits. The Bureau also seeks a $41M in civil penalty and rejected claims that its penalty request infringes on the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
Putting It Into Practice: Despite the CFPB’s recent withdrawal of several lawsuits (previously discussed here and here), its decision to proceed with this enforcement action indicates that certain regulatory priorities, including debt relief and Military Lending Act violations (previously discussed here and here), remain intact.
Listen to this post
FTC Signals Strong Stance on Civil Investigation Demands
In a March 10 blog post, the new Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to enforcing consumer protection laws through Civil Investigation Demands (CIDs).
A CID is a legally enforceable demand requiring recipients to provide requested documents, testimony, reports, or other information. The FTC issues CIDs to entities and individuals it believes may have violated the law, as well as to third parties who may possess relevant information.
The FTC expects full and timely compliance with CIDs, and failure to respond can lead to legal action, including judicial enforcement. While BCP may work with recipients to tailor requests or adjust response deadlines, recipients must initiate such discussions well in advance. Additionally, recipients are generally required to meet with FTC staff soon after receiving a CID. Although this requirement can be waived, the meeting provides a crucial opportunity to raise and address any compliance challenges.
Putting It Into Practice: The new BCP Director’s first blog post since his appointment highlights the FTC’s continued focus on financial institutions and fintech companies that engage with consumers. Businesses and individuals that receive a CID should
Act Promptly: Track all deadlines and contact the FTC staff identified in the CID to discuss compliance.
Seek Legal Counsel: Consult with experienced legal counsel to ensure appropriate and timely responses.
Engage Cooperatively: Proactively communicate with the FTC, as the agency may consider adjustments to requests or deadlines.
Listen to this post
New York Attorney General Proposes Bill to Expand Consumer Protection Law
On March 13, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the introduction of the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Business Practices Act). The proposed legislation seeks to extend the state’s existing ban on deceptive business practices to also prohibit unfair and abusive practices, aligning New York with 42 other states.
The bill, introduced in both state Senate and Assembly, would enhance enforcement capabilities for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and private consumers, including the ability to seek civil penalties and restitution for UDAAP violations. According to Attorney General James, the legislation is needed to tackle a host of consumer harms, including:
Subscription cancellations. Preventing companies from making it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel recurring payments.
Debt collection abuses. Prohibiting debt collectors from improperly seizing Social Security benefits or nursing homes from suing relatives of deceased residents for unpaid bills.
Auto dealer practices. Prohibiting car dealerships from withholding a customer’s photo identification until a sale is finalized.
Student loan servicing misconduct. Restricting student loan servicers from steering borrowers into costlier repayment plans.
Exploitation of limited English proficiency consumers. Addressing deceptive practices targeting non-English-speaking consumers.
Junk fees and hidden costs. Reducing unnecessary and deceptive charges in various industries, including healthcare and lending.
Artificial intelligence (AI) scams and online fraud. Strengthening enforcement against AI-driven scams, phishing schemes, and deceptive digital marketing practices.
The proposal has garnered support from former CFPB director Rohit Chopra and former FTC Chair Lina Khan, both of whom have emphasized the need for stronger state-level enforcement against deceptive and abusive business practices.
Putting It Into Practice: New York’s proposed legislation is the latest example of a growing trend among states taking a more active role in consumer protection enforcement (previously discussed here and here). This also highlights how some states are proactively responding to the CFPB’s state-level consumer protection recommendations from January, which encourage the adoption of the “abusive” standard (previously discussed here). With ongoing uncertainty surrounding the future of the CFPB, more states are likely to step in to fill the regulatory void by expanding their own consumer protection laws.
Listen to this post
OCC Signals Shift on Crypto and Debanking Under Acting Comptroller Hood
On March 18, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Rodney Hood reiterated the OCC’s commitment to ensuring fair access to banking services, including for cryptocurrency firms. Speaking at a retail banking industry conference, Hood stated that the OCC would not tolerate so-called “debanking” without individualized risk assessments. He emphasized that banks must evaluate businesses—including those in the crypto sector—based on objective criteria rather than categorical exclusions.
Hood’s remarks signaled several key potential policy shifts:
Leveling the playing field for crypto activities. Banks engaging with digital asset companies should be evaluated under the same supervisory frameworks as traditional financial services.
Firm Risk Management Expectations. While easing entry for crypto-related banking services, banks must still meet core regulatory requirements, including capital, cybersecurity, and BSA/AML compliance.
No Mandates on Account Closures. Hood reaffirmed that the OCC does not direct banks to open or close specific accounts and that such decisions should reflect each customer’s unique risk profile.
Fintech Expansion & Regulatory Innovation. The OCC plans to launch a fintech regulatory sandbox and recently granted a new fintech bank charter—the first in five years—as part of broader efforts to encourage responsible fintech innovation.
Putting It Into Practice: The OCC recently clarified that banks are authorized to provide crypto custody services, hold stablecoin reserves for issuers, and participate in blockchain networks to process and validate payments, including stablecoin transactions. These developments, along with Hood’s comments, reflect a broader policy shift under the second Trump Administration favoring cryptocurrency adoption and challenging alleged politically motivated banking restrictions (previously discussed here and here). In addition, Hood’s comments on de-banking follow efforts by states such as Florida and Tennessee to tack perceived “de-banking” of consumers with conservative ideologies (previously discussed here and here).
Listen to this post
New Ohio Transparency Pricing Rules for Hospitals Comes with Limits to Targeted Advertising
Starting April 3, Ohio hospitals will have to navigate new requirements under House Bill 173. This law mandates greater transparency in healthcare pricing. It also includes rules for selling or targeted advertising related to personal information hospitals collect from price estimator tools (discussed in more detail below). The law applies to hospitals in Ohio, which is any facility providing inpatient medical services for periods longer than twenty-four hours.
Transparent pricing for services
HB 173 requires hospitals to provide consumers with public pricing information for all hospital items and services. Hospitals need to create a digital list of all standard charges for their services. This list must be easy to access, free of charge, and cannot require any personal information from the user. These provisions are designed to help patients understand how much they will have to pay for medical services. Hospitals also have to offer information about “shoppable services” e.g., – services that can be scheduled in advance.
To meet this transparency requirement, hospitals either must provide a list of shoppable services, or provide an internet-based price estimator tool that helps patients estimate costs for these types of procedures.
Targeted advertising
For hospitals that decide to use a price estimator tool, there are restrictions on how personal information the tool collects can be used. Specifically, the law prohibits hospitals from using personal information collected from the use of the tool for targeted advertising. The law defines targeted advertising as displaying an ad that is selected based on personal data obtained from the use of a hospital’s internet-based price estimator tool by a person in Ohio. This means that hospitals cannot show consumers specific ads based on the information a person provides to estimate healthcare costs. Hospitals are also not allowed to sell personal information collected from price estimator tools. While “sell” is not defined under the law it is most likely to be interpreted closer to HIPAA definitions than state consumer privacy laws. Sell under HIPAA means direct or indirect renumeration in exchange for PHI.
The law provides specific exclusions for what is considered targeted advertising. Hospitals can still advertise based on a user’s direct request for information or their activities on the hospital’s own websites. Ads that are shown based on the context of a user’s search or visit are also excluded. Additionally, using data to measure how effective ads are is not considered targeted advertising. However, covered entities must continue to be mindful of OCR’s guidance with respect to the use of tracking technologies as well.
Putting it into Practice: Hospitals in Ohio may need to adopt new practices to remain compliant with the law. This includes making sure their websites provide easy-to-find pricing information for patients. Additionally, hospitals should confirm personal information from price estimator tools isn’t used for targeted advertising.
ESOP Transactions and the Duty to Monitor Revisited
Key Takeaways:
Board’s Duty to Monitor the Trustee: A company’s board of directors has a fiduciary duty to monitor the ESOP trustee’s actions in an ESOP transaction, ensuring that the trustee is acting in the exclusive interest of the ESOP participants and has sufficient information to make informed decisions with respect to the transaction.
Trustee Certification and Fairness Opinion: Historically, it has been standard practice for the ESOP trustee to provide a certification confirming several aspects of a transaction, including a financial advisor’s opinion on the adequacy of the deal consideration and the fairness of the transaction’s terms.
Role of Special Meetings: Based on recent caselaw, advisors have begun holding a special meeting with the board and trustee before the closing of the transaction to further support the position that the board has fulfilled its monitoring duty.
ESOP Transactions and the Duty to Monitor Revisited
While the Department of Labor has provided little guidance on the scope of the duty to monitor in the context of an ESOP transaction, since Bensen1 several practitioners have adopted the practice of having the ESOP sponsor convene a special meeting of the board of directors with the trustee shortly before the scheduled closing of the transaction. The purpose of the meeting is to aid the board in meeting its fiduciary duty to monitor the trustee. During the meeting, the board asks questions of the trustee regarding its due diligence process and ensures that the trustee has had access to and sufficient time to review the information that has been provided during such process to enable it and its advisors to analyze the financial condition of the company, determine its range of value and analyze other material terms of the proposed transaction.
What is the Duty to Monitor in an ESOP Transaction?
With respect to a selling shareholder or board member acting in a fiduciary capacity under ERISA by virtue of appointing a trustee or other fiduciary, generally the duty to monitor requires a review, at reasonable intervals, of the performance of the appointee(s) in such a manner as may be reasonably expected to ensure that their performance satisfies the needs of the ESOP.2 No single procedure is appropriate in all cases and the actions required to be taken to satisfy the duty to monitor will vary in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the particular transaction.3 In addition, the courts have found that the duty to monitor also requires a certain degree of self-education on the part of the sellers and directors of the company in order for them to ask the proper questions of the trustee and its advisors and to be knowledgeable enough to determine whether the trustee is discharging its fiduciary duties. To make matters a bit more complicated, this latter requirement itself triggers a duty to disclose all relevant information as some courts have noted that the board cannot reasonably rely on the acts of a trustee or other fiduciary if it knows that that trustee or other fiduciary does not have the proper information needed for them to perform their valuation and other duties.4
The Role of the Independent Trustee and Board Interaction
On the other hand, an important fact in the context of an ESOP transaction is that an independent trustee is engaged so that they act independently and are not influenced by management or the sellers. An independent trustee, for example, will never share with the company or the sellers the valuation that it relies upon for purposes of a transaction or the details of its valuation process. Therefore, a review by the board of the valuation as part of its duty to monitor is not possible. In addition, to ensure that the trustee maintains its independence the board should preclude itself from “meddling with the trustee’s performance of its duties.”5 In Fish, the company’s board of directors met with the independent trustee two times in the course of a four-month transaction. It otherwise generally relied on the company’s management team to negotiate with and provide information to the trustee. Ultimately, the court found that through this process the board satisfied its duty to monitor as it had gained a foundational understanding of the nature of the trustee’s responsibilities, a basic understanding of the work performed by the trustee and an awareness that the trustee was acting in the exclusive interests of the ESOP participants.
Trustee Certification and Fairness Opinion in ESOP Transactions
Further, it is standard practice in all ESOP transactions to require the trustee to provide the company with a trustee certificate through which the trustee certifies, in part, that it finds that the purchase price is not in excess of adequate consideration and that the transaction is prudent, in the interests of the ESOP participants and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the ESOP participants. It is also standard practice for the trustee, in making this certification, to rely upon and attach to the certificate a copy of the adequate consideration and fairness opinion of its financial advisor. This opinion by the financial advisor generally opines that (i) the price paid by the ESOP for the company stock does not exceed fair market value, (ii) the interest on any ESOP loan is not in excess of a reasonable rate of interest, (iii) the terms of the ESOP loan are at least as favorable to the ESOP as would be the terms of a comparable loan between independent parties and (iv) the terms of the overall transaction are fair to the ESOP from a financial point of view. This opinion will describe the transaction, and the various documents and information reviewed and relied upon by the financial advisor. Both the trustee certificate and the opinion are reviewed by the company and its advisors prior to the closing of the transaction. It stands to reason that in reviewing the trustee certificate and fairness opinion the company should be able to identify whether there are any errors or gaps in what the trustee and its financial advisor are relying upon. All of the information and documents reviewed by the trustee and its advisors, as described in the opinion, should provide the selling shareholders and the board with some assurance that the trustee has discharged its fiduciary duties.
Will A Special Meeting Sufficiently Fulfill the Duty to Monitor?
Not necessarily. As with all cases, facts play an important role and sufficient bad facts will inevitably undo the protection that even the best of processes can provide. Nonetheless, the insertion of this meeting into standard practice in connection with an ESOP transaction – and provided the company allows the trustee to operate independently and does not insert itself into the decision-making process – is likely to hold great weight as proof that the board of directors is properly monitoring the trustee and thereby discharging its fiduciary duty.
[1] Su v. Bensen, No. CV-19-03178-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. Aug. 15, 2024).
[2] See gen., 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8, Q&A 17.
[3] Id.
[4] See, e.g., Foster v. Adams & Assocs. Inc., No. 18-cv-02723-JSC, 2020 BL 250202, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2020)
[5] See, Fish v. Greatbanc Tr. Co., No. 09 C 1668, 2016 BL 330978, at *63 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2016).
Employment Law Update: New Compensation Limits and Statutory Payment Rates
Under the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2025 (the “Employment Order”), there will be changes to the compensation limits that apply to certain awards that Employment Tribunals can make and other amounts payable under employment legislation with effect from 6 April 2025. The Employment Order applies to England, Wales and Scotland.
The new limits will apply where the ‘appropriate date’ for the cause of action occurs on or after 6 April 2025. For example, in the case of unfair dismissal, the rates apply to all dismissals where the effective date of termination falls on or after this date. If the appropriate date (e.g., the date of dismissal) falls before 6 April 2025, the previous limits mentioned below will apply irrespective of the date on which the compensation is awarded.
Here is a brief overview of the changes which will take effect from 6 April 2025 under the Employment Order:
the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal is increasing from £115,115 to £118,223 (the upper limit remains the lower of a year’s salary or the maximum statutory limit of £118,223);
the maximum amount of a ‘week’s pay’ (for the purpose of calculating statutory redundancy payments and the basic award for unfair dismissal) is increasing from £700 to £719;
the limit on the compensatory award for failure to allocate and pay tips fairly is increasing from £5,000 to £5,135;
guarantee daily pay is increasing from £38 to £39; and
the minimum basic award in cases where a dismissal is unfair because of reasons to do with health and safety, working time, employee representative, trade union, or occupational pension trustees is increasing from £8,533 to £8,763.
Additionally, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 (the “Social Security Order”) will increase the rate of payment for a range of statutory leave entitlements, also with effect from 6 April 2025. Most of the statutory benefits will increase by 1.7% from the previous year’s rates, in line with inflation. These changes are part of the UK Government’s reforms seeking to greater support those in financial need.
Here is a brief overview of the changes which will take effect from 6 April 2025 under the Social Security Order:
Statutory sick pay is increasing from £116.75 to £118.75 per week.
The below payments are all increasing from £184.03 to £187.18 per week or 90% of the employee’s average weekly earnings, whichever is lower:
statutory maternity pay (after the first six weeks);
statutory adoption pay (after the first six weeks up to thirty nine weeks);
statutory paternity pay (up to two weeks from the date agreed with the employee);
statutory shared parental pay (up to thirty seven weeks);
statutory parental bereavement pay (up to two weeks per bereavement); and
maternity allowance (although the payment increase for maternity allowance will only apply from 7 April 2025).
The earnings threshold to be eligible for all the above payments is also increasing slightly from £123 to £125 weekly.
Maya Sterrie, trainee in the Employment Litigation practice, contributed to this article.
Mississippi Gaming Commission Meeting Report (March 2025)
The Mississippi Gaming Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Thursday, March 20, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at the Jackson office. Executive Director Jay McDaniel, Chairman Franc Lee, and Commissioner Kent Nicaud were all in attendance. Commissioner Jeremy Felder was absent. The following matters were considered:
LICENSING
The Commission approved the issuance of a license to the following:
SUZOHAPP Gaming Solutions, LLC, as a Manufacturer and Distributor
BetMGM, LLC, as a Manufacturer and Distributor
Beau Rivage Resorts, LLC d/b/a Beau Rivage, as an Operator
PNK Vicksburg, LLC d/b/a Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, as an Operator
Modern Gaming, Inc., as a Manufacturer and Distributor
Stadium Technology Group, LLC, as a Manufacturer and Distributor
FINDINGS OF SUITABILITY
The Commission approved findings of suitability for the following persons or entities:
James Michael Brendel – SUZOHAPP Gaming Solutions, LLC
Kristine Elizabeth Brendel – SUZOHAPP Gaming Solutions, LLC
Eric Alan Hession – Caesars Entertainment Inc.
Andrew Morgan Archibald – United Tote Company
OTHER APPROVALS
The Commission approved the following additional items:
IGT
Transfer of the Equity Interests and Securities of De Agostini S.p.A.
Pledges of Equity Interests and Securities
Imposition of Equity Restrictions, including Negative Equity Pledges
Guarantee of Securities and Hypothecation of Assets
Stadium Technology Group, LLC
Continuous Approval of Public Offerings and Private Placements
Pledges of Equity Interests and Securities
Imposition of Equity Restrictions including Negative Equity Pledges
Guarantee of Securities and Hypothecation of Assets
Magnolia Bluffs Casino LLC d/b/a Magnolia Bluffs Casino
Pledges of Equity Interests and Securities
Imposition of Equity Restrictions and including Negative Equity Pledges
Approval of Magnolia Bluffs Casino LLC to Become Under Common Control with SG Gaming Holdco, LLC
End of Other Approvals