If a French authority wants to know who really stands behind a company registered in the United States, can it find out? The answer sits where three layers of law meet: federal, state, international and they do not always line up.

The federal layer : FinCEN

The United States created a tool designed for precisely this purpose. The Corporate Transparency Act passed in 2021 as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 it created a register of beneficial owners held by FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, to make it harder to hide behind anonymous companies; at launch it was expected to capture tens of millions of entities.1 Then it ran into trouble.


Small businesses challenged it across the country as exceeding Congress’s powers and as an unreasonable search, winning a string of injunctions before the appellate courts ultimately upheld the statute.2 In the meantime, to spare millions of low-risk domestic businesses the compliance burden and to refocus on higher-risk foreign entities, the Treasury narrowed the rule in March 2025: companies formed in the United States are now exempt, and only entities formed abroad and registered to do business in the country still report.3

This was a deliberate choice, not a legal requirement. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented it as part of an effort to ease the regulatory burden on American small businesses4. What followed made this even clearer. In December 2025, a federal appeals court “the Eleventh Circuit” ruled that the CTA was constitutional after all, overturning the lower court that had struck it down5. Even so, the narrower rule stayed in force. The result is a register that was built to reveal who owns American companies, but that now covers almost none of them not because reporting became optional, but because the government deliberately narrowed who has to report. A system once expected to cover tens of millions of companies now applies to only about 12,000 foreign ones.

The New York layer

New York had moved in the same direction, for reasons close to home. Anonymous LLCs had long been used to buy New York real estate with money whose origin was hidden, and to shield landlords who mistreat tenants, contractors who commit wage theft and owners who evade tax so the State passed its own LLC Transparency Act to unmask the real people behind such companies and give regulators and law enforcement a way to hold them accountable.6 The law took effect on 1 January 2026, with its own database of owners. But New York had tied its definitions to the federal statute so when Washington narrowed the federal rule, New York’s narrowed with it, and the Governor vetoed the corrective bill in December 2025 to avoid burdening New York businesses beyond the federal baseline.7 The result is striking: the New York law now reaches only non-US LLCs registered in the State. A French company holding a New York LLC may be among the few entities that must actually file, by 31 December 2026, while American LLCs need not.

The international layer : treaties

This is where the real question emerges. Under the US Constitution, only the federal government concludes treaties; a State cannot.8 France therefore cannot simply ask New York for the information its requests travel through federal channels: the France–US tax treaty, the FATCA agreement, mutual legal assistance.9 New York’s confidential, state-run register is not wired into those treaty routes. With the federal register emptied of domestic companies and the State register limited to foreign LLCs, a foreign government searching for the person behind a purely American company faces a genuinely open question. Two legal systems chase the same goal : knowing who owns what, and where the money sits and arrive in very different places.

For a firm whose clients live on both sides of that line, the gap is exactly where counsel earns its place: identifying what foreign clients must file in New York, monitoring federal rules that are still in motion, and keeping a company’s ownership picture clean before anyone has to ask for it.

The same logic governments trading information drives an obligation that touches almost every cross-border client: declaring bank accounts held abroad. France and the United States both demand it, both feed the same machinery of automatic exchange, and both enforce it. What differs is the cost of getting it wrong.

DECLARING ACCOUNTS HELD ABROAD

FRANCE

UNITED STATES

Form 3916

Filed with the annual income-tax return; one form per foreign account.

Civil (tax) penalty for non-declaration: €1,500 per account, each year up to €10,000 for a non-cooperative state.10

The FBAR : FinCEN Form 114

Required for foreign accounts over $10,000 in aggregate; filed with FinCEN.

US civil penalties for non-compliance: up to $16,536 per report (non-willful); for a willful failure, the greater of $165,353 or half the account balance. Criminal penalties may also apply.11

Same architecture but very different stakes.

What held me was not the technical detail but the shape of the thing: a single objective, pursued from two legal traditions, landing far apart. Sitting between them turning one system into the language of the other is the daily work of a cross-border practice.

By Sarah Mansouri · Legal Intern, KBL Roche · New York, June 2026

This article reflects the personal perspective of the author and offers general information on developments in cross-border law as of June 2026. It is not legal advice.

notes and references:

1 Corporate Transparency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5336 (2021). FinCEN estimated about 32.6 million entities would have to report (fincen.gov). 2 Court challenges to the CTA, e.g. Nat’l Small Bus. United v. Yellen (N.D. Ala. 2024) and Texas Top Cop Shop (E.D. Tex. 2024). The federal appeals court (11th Cir.) upheld the Act on 16 Dec. 2025.
3 FinCEN interim final rule limiting reporting to foreign companies, « Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirement Revision and Deadline Extension », 90 Fed. Reg. 13688 (26 mars 2025)
4 Treasury Department press release, "Treasury Department Announces Suspension of Enforcement of Corporate Transparency Act Against U.S. Citizens and Domestic Reporting Companies" (2 mars 2025)
5 The Eleventh Circuit decision — Nat'l Small Bus. United v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 24-10736 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2025)
6 N.Y. bill S.995-B, sponsor’s justification (nysenate.gov); Gov. Hochul, statement on signing the LLC Transparency Act (22 Dec. 2023).
7 N.Y. Limited Liability Company Law § 1106. The corrective bill S.8432 was vetoed on 19 Dec. 2025.
8 U.S. Constitution, art. II, § 2 (treaty power is federal) and art. I, § 10 (States may not make treaties).
9 France–U.S. tax treaty of 1994 (information-exchange article) and France–U.S. FATCA agreement of 2013.
10 Code général des impôts, art. 1649 A (duty to declare) and art. 1736, IV (the €1,500 / €10,000 penalty).
11 31 U.S.C. § 5314 (FBAR obligation), § 5321 (civil penalties: up to $16,536, or for willful failures the greater of $165,353 or 50% of the balance) and § 5322 (criminal penalties).

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web

This article serves as a practical roadmap for small and midsized companies on how to protect what makes your business valuable if copyright, patent, and trademarks are not helpful.


The case, Valeo v. Nvidia, should serve as a warning not to neglect trade secrets. Imagine your company has finally perfected a novel, confidential source code for driving assistance systems. Then, a former engineer leaves for a competitor, jumps on a joint video call, and accidentally shares his screen—revealing your stolen source code.

That is how quickly a trade secret dispute can erupt. In an instant, one careless mistake transforms your confidential information into a multi-national legal battle spanning Germany and the U.S., costing millions to investigate and litigate. This case joins a growing list of blockbuster disputes. It ranks right alongside Waymo's $245 million settlement with Uber over stolen driverlesscar designs and federal indictments against former Apple engineers who fled to China with autonomous vehicle source code.

This article serves as a practical roadmap for small and midsized companies on how to protect what makes your business valuable if copyright, patent, and trademarks are not helpful.

Why Trade-Secrets are More Relevant Now than Ever

First, non-competes are increasingly less enforceable. Although the FTC's categorical ban on noncompetes was ultimately vacated, a growing majority of states outright ban or severely restrict them, employers can no longer rely on broad contracts to keep employees from joining rivals.

Trade secret law is now the primary weapon left to protect your proprietary edge. Second, remote and hybrid work has inconspicuously changed “access.” More employees can reach sensitive files from more places, often through shared drives, personal devices, and third-party apps.

That convenience is great until someone leaves with a full download of your customer data. Third, job-hopping is normal. Employees move more often, and competitors hire aggressively. Even diligent workers in good faith can negligently divulge trade secrets, especially if boundaries were never clearly set. Fourth, organizations are leaner. Downsizing and streamlining often mean more employees are exposed to proprietary information earlier than they used to be. The more broadly sensitive data is shared internally, the more likely it is to walk out the door.

Small and Mid-Sized Companies Misunderstand the Term Trade Secret

Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), the legal definition of a trade secret is any information that:

  1. Derives independent economic value from not being generally known or easily discoverable by others; and
  2. Is subject to "reasonable measures" to keep it secret.

Common examples include but are not limited to: (1) customer lists with purchasing history; (2) pricing formulas, margin targets, and bid strategies; (3) vendor and supplier terms; (4) scripts, operating procedures, and training materials; or (5) product formulas, recipes, prototypes, and manufacturing methods.

A simple test is this: would a competitor pay to get this information, and would it save them time or money? If yes, it may be a trade secret.

“What Did You Do to Protect It?”

Often business owners neglect a key element of enforcing their trade secrets: preparation. This essentially means you need a credible pattern of protection that matches your business. For example, in Turret Labs USA, Inc. v. CargoSprint, LLC, a federal court dismissed a massive trade secret claim because the company failed to require users to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) before accessing its software. Similarly, in Art & Cook v. Haber, a company lost its trade secret protection over a valuable customer list simply because it didn’t password-protect the file or restrict employee access.

When an employee resigns or is terminated, preventative measures to avoid litigation due to the aforementioned rationales include the following:

  • disabling accounts, shared-drive access, and administrative permissions;
  • collecting and inventorying all company property, including electronics, badges, and physical files; confirming where work product has been stored and requiring the return or deletion of copies in personal devices and drives;
  • following up with a brief written reminder that reattaches the relevant agreement, and restates the confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations; and
  • where appropriate, a formal notice to the new employer about existing obligations can further deter misuse.

Effective Use of Restrictive Covenants

A successful trade secret strategy uses contracts thoughtfully, not broadly. To build an enforceable legal fence around your proprietary information, focus on these key principles:

  • Target High-Risk Roles: Restrictive covenants are essential for the following candidates: (1) executives and senior managers, (2) sales teams, (3) technical employees, and (4) third parties like contractors, consultants, and service providers.
  • Be Specific, Not Expansive: Drafting definitions that are overly broad makes the agreement legally unenforceable, while definitions that are too narrow leave your assets exposed. Define protected information by referencing specific, relevant business data.
  • Tailor Your Non-Solicitation Clauses: Courts dislike blanket bans. A restriction is much more defensible if it only applies to customers the employee actually serviced, had material contact with, or learned about through confidential systems. Apply this same precision to time periods, geographic scope, and the definition of prohibited conduct.
  • Prioritize Confidentiality Over Non-Competes: Because the enforceability of non-competes is increasingly constrained and varies wildly by state law, businesses are better served by relying on confidentiality and non-solicitation provisions. When paired with clear internal access controls, these provide highly reliable protection.
  • Include Compliance Carve-Outs: When drafting, be mindful of language banning legally protected activity. You must include explicit carve-outs, pursuant to federal and state-specific regulations, for lawful whistleblowing, good-faith reporting to government agencies, and protected workplace discussions.

Conclusion & Practical Guidance

The risk to your IP has never been higher. Your competitive edge is only as safe as the practical and legal fences you build around it.

Means of Protection

  1. Audit Access: Identify your most valuable data and restrict access strictly to a "need-to-know" basis. Password-protect everything.
  2. Update Your Contracts: Replace unenforceable, blanket noncompetes with tailored confidentiality and non-solicitation agreements.
  3. Formalize Offboarding: Do not let employees walk out the door without a digital audit of their devices and a written reminder of their legal obligations.Protect your trade secrets today, so you have legal rights to enforce tomorrow.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Latest Articles

Q1 2021 Tax Deadlines

2021 Estimated Tax – 2020 Tax Returns