.

HHS Office for Civil Rights

2020’s a Bust, but HIPAA Enforcement Is on a Roll!

October 15, 2020

by Alissa Smith and Elizabeth Greiter

Download as a PDF

Share this page

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been actively enforcing HIPAA regulations this year, including a series of seven settlements under OCR’s Right of Access Initiative to enforce patients’ rights to timely access their medical records at a reasonable cost. This year, OCR has recorded more than $12.2 million in resolution agreements. This post summarizes OCR’s settlements in 2020 to date.  The OCR settlements have impacted a wide range of sectors in the health industry from health insurers, to hospital systems, physician clinics, FQHCs, mental health and substance abuse providers, business associates, and nonprofits serving those with AIDS/HIV.  Enforcement has been taken against all sizes of entities, including against solo practitioners and very small non-profits.  As with nearly all settlements with OCR, it was the initial breach notification that triggered the investigation.  However, the settlement ultimately resulted after OCR’s investigation discovered widespread non-compliance with HIPAA’s privacy and security requirements.  The following post provides a summary of these enforcement actions, and begins with an update about Anthem’s recent $39.5M settlement with 43 states and D.C. stemming from its massive data breach in 2014-2015, which resulted in a record $16 million settlement with OCR in 2018.

Health Insurer Enforcement

Anthem and 43-State Coalition Reach $39.5 Million Settlement Over Data Breach

On September 30, 2020, state attorneys general in 43 states and Washington D.C. announced that they had reached a $39.5 million settlement with Anthem Inc., an Indianapolis, IN-based health insurer.  This settlement stemmed from an investigation by the state attorneys general into the largest health data breach in history, a series of state-sponsored cyberattacks in December 2014 and January 2015 that exposed the ePHI of nearly 79 million individuals.  In 2018, Anthem agreed to pay $16 million to OCR and to take substantial corrective action to settle potential violations of the HIPAA privacy and security rules related to the 2014 data breach. See the HHS press release about the OCR settlement here. Anthem has also paid $115 million to settle a class action related to the breach, the largest-ever class action settlement related to a data breach.

Premera Blue Cross Pays $6.85 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 10.4 Million People

In March, in the second-largest HIPAA settlement ever, Premera Blue Cross (PBC), the largest health plan in the Pacific Northwest, agreed to pay $6.85 to OCR and to implement a corrective action plan to settle potential HIPAA privacy and security rules violations related to a data breach. Using malware installed through a phishing email, cyber-attackers gained access to PBC’s system in August 2014 and went undetected until January 2015, resulting in the exposure of over 10.4 million individuals’ electronic protected health information (ePHI). OCR’s investigation determined that PBC had “systemic noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules including failure to conduct an enterprise-wide risk analysis, and failures to implement risk management, and audit controls.” See the HHS press release here.

Hospital and Health System Enforcement

Lifespan Pays $1.04 Million to Settle Unencrypted Stolen Laptop Breach Affecting Over 20,000 People

In June, Lifespan Health System Affiliated Covered Entity (“Lifespan ACE”), a Rhode Island-based non-profit health system, agreed to pay a $1.04 million settlement to OCR and to adopt a corrective action plan to settle potential violations of the HIPAA privacy and security rules related to the theft of a hospital employee’s unencrypted laptop. The laptop contained the ePHI of more than 20,000 individuals. OCR’s investigation determined that there had been systematic noncompliance with the HIPAA Rules, including a failure to encrypt ePHI on laptops, a lack of device and media controls, and a failure to have a business associate agreement in place with the Lifespan Corporation, the parent company and business associate of Lifespan ACE. See the HHS press release here.

Physician and Clinic Enforcement

Solo Practice Pays $100,000 for Failing to Implement HIPAA Security Rule Requirements

In February, Steven A. Porter, M.D., a Utah gastroenterologist and solo practitioner, agreed to pay $100,000 to OCR and to adopt a corrective action plan to settle a potential violation of the HIPAA security rule. OCR determined that Dr. Porter’s practice had demonstrated significant noncompliance with the HIPAA rules, specifically, failing to conduct any risk analysis and failing “to implement security measures sufficient to reduce risks and vulnerabilities to a reasonable and appropriate level.” See the HHS press release here.

Orthopedic Clinic Pays $1.5 Million to Settle Systemic Noncompliance with HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules

In July, Georgia-based Athens Orthopedic Clinic PA (“Athens Orthopedic”) agreed to pay $1.5 million to OCR and to implement a corrective action plan to settle potential violations of the HIPAA privacy and security rules. A hacker used a vendor’s credentials to access Athens Orthopedic’s electronic medical record system and exfiltrated patient health data, then demanded money from Athens Orthopedic in return for the return of the stolen records. Nearly 210,000 individuals were affected by the breach. OCR’s investigation found noncompliance with the HIPAA privacy and security rules, including “failures to conduct a risk analysis, implement risk management and audit controls, maintain HIPAA policies and procedures, secure business associate agreements with multiple business associates, and provide HIPAA Privacy Rule training to workforce members.” See the HHS press release here.

FQHC Pays $25,000 for Failing to Implement HIPAA Security Rule Requirements

In March, Metropolitan Community Health Services (“Metro”), doing business as Agape Health Services, agreed to pay $25,000 to OCR and to implement a corrective plan to settle potential violations of the HIPAA security rule. In 2011, Metro reported impermissible disclosure of PHI to an unknown email account, which affected over 1,200 patients. OCR’s investigation found that Metro had failed to conduct any risk analysis, failed to implement any HIPAA security rule policies and procedures, and not provided workforce members with security awareness training until 2016. Metro is a Federally Qualified Health Center that provides medical services in underserved areas in rural North Carolina on a sliding fee scale, which was taken into account in reaching this agreement. See the HHS press release here.

Business Associate Enforcement

CHSPSC Agrees to Pay $2.3 Million to Settle Data Breach Affecting Over 6 Million People

In March, CHSPSC LLC (“CHSPSC”) agreed to pay $2.3 million and to adopt a corrective action plan to settle potential violation of the HIPAA privacy and security rules related to a breach affecting more than 6 million people. CHSPSC is based in Tennessee and provides a variety of business associate services, including IT and health information management. In 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) notified CHSPSC that it had traced a cyber-attack to CHSPSC’s information system.  OCR’s subsequent investigation found “longstanding, systematic noncompliance” with the HIPAA security rule, including “failure to conduct a risk analysis, and failures to implement information system activity review, security incident procedures, or access controls.” See the HHS press release here.

Right of Access Initiative Enforcement

In 2019, OCR announced the Right of Access Initiative as an enforcement priority to support individuals’ right to timely access to their health records at a reasonable cost and in the readily producible format of their choice under the HIPAA privacy rule’s right of access provision, 45 CFR § 164.524. The HIPAA Rules generally require covered health care providers to provide medical records within 30 days of the request and providers can only charge a reasonable cost-based fee. This right to patient records extends to parents seeking access to their minor children’s medical records.

To date this year, OCR has completed seven enforcement actions totaling $396,500 in settlement payments under the Right of Access Initiative, bringing the total number of enforcement settlements under this initiative to nine.

  • In June, Housing Works Inc. (Housing Works), a New York City-based non-profit organization providing a range of services to individuals living with and affected by HIV/AIDS, including health care, agreed to pay $38,000 to OCR and to take corrective actions to settle a potential right of access violation. In complaints filed with OCR in July and August 2019, a patient alleged that he had not received his records in response to a June 2019 request. OCR opened an investigation, found a possible violation, and the patient received his medical records in November 2019.
  • In July, All Inclusive Medical Services (AIMS), a California-based multi-specialty family medicine clinic, has agreed to pay $15,000 to OCR and to adopt a corrective action plan to settle a potential right of access violation. A patient alleged that in January 2018, AIMS had denied her requests to inspect and receive a copy of her records, in an April 2018 complaint filed with OCR. The patient ultimately received her medical records in August 2020.
  • In August, Beth Israel Lahey Health Behavioral Services (BILHBS), the largest network of mental health and substance use disorder services in eastern Massachusetts, agreed to pay $70,000 to OCR and to take corrective actions following a potential right of access violation. A personal representative filed a complaint with OCR in April 2019 alleging that she had requested her father’s medical records in February 2019 and BILHBS had failed to provide them. BILHBS provided the requested medical records in October 2019.
  • In August, Patricia King, M.D. (King MD), a small provider of psychiatric services in Virginia, agreed to pay $3,500 to OCR and to adopt a corrective action plan to settle a potential right of access violation. OCR received a complaint from a patient in October 2018, alleging that King MD failed to respond to her August 2018 request for her medical records. After OCR provided King MD with technical assistance on right of access requirements, a second complaint, and an OCR investigation that found that the failure to provide the requested medical records was a potential violation, the patient received her medical records in July 2020.
  • In August, Wise Psychiatry, PC (Wise Psychiatry) a small provider of psychiatric services in Colorado, agreed to pay $10,000 to OCR and to take corrective actions to settle a potential right of access violation. A father requested his minor son’s medical records in November 2017, and following two complaints to OCR, OCR providing technical assistance to Wise Psychiatry on the HIPAA right of access requirements, and OCR opening an investigation, Wise Psychiatry sent the requested medical records in May 2019.

See HHS’s press release about OCR’s first five right to access settlements of 2020 here.

  • In September, Dignity Health, doing business as St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center (SJHMC), agreed to pay $160,000 and to adopt a corrective action plan to settle a potential right of access violation. SJHMC is based in Arizona and is a large, acute-care hospital with several hospital-based clinics. A mother made several requests for her son’s medical records, as his personal representative, beginning in January 2018, but did not receive all of the requested records until December 2019. See the HHS press release here.
  • In September, NY Spine Medicine (NY Spine), a private medical practice specializing in neurology and pain management with offices in New York and Florida, agreed to pay $100,000 and to take corrective actions to settle a potential right of access violation. A patient requested a copy of her medical records in June 2019, and NY Spine provided some records in response, but did not provide the diagnostic films that the patient had specifically requested until October 2020, after OCR had initiated an investigation. See the HHS press release here.

OCR’s enforcement of the HIPAA security and privacy rules this year is increasingly aggressive. Per HHS, OCR’s enforcement actions are “designed to send a message to the health care industry about the importance and necessity of compliance with the HIPAA Rules.”   If you have questions about HIPAA compliance, please contact the authors, your regular Dorsey attorney or any attorney in the Dorsey & Whitney health transactions and regulations practice group.

Firm Highlights

News

Partner Mark Churchman Recognized in Financier Worldwide’s Power Players: Private Equity 2026

News

Dorsey & Whitney Advises Beijing Xunzhong on Two Consecutive H Share Placings Raising HK$418.5 Million

International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP acted as Hong Kong legal advisors to Beijing Xunzhong Communication Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xunzhong”) as to Hong Kong law in connection with two consecutive placings of new H shares under general mandate (the “First Placing” and the “Second Placing”, respectively, and together, the “Placings”). Xunzhong’s H shares are listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (Stock Code: 2597). Winbull Securities International (Hong Kong) Limited acted as sole overall coordinator and placing agent on both Placings. The First Placing of 11,190,000 new H shares at HK$28.20 each was completed on September 17, 2026, followed by the Second Placing of 3,550,000 new H shares at HK$29.00 each on October 30, 2026. The Placings raised approximately HK$315.56 million and HK$102.95 million in gross proceeds, respectively, or approximately HK$418.51 million in aggregate (approximately HK$415.96 million in aggregate net proceeds). Both Placings were conducted under the same general mandate granted by shareholders at Xunzhong’s 2025 annual general meeting, and each was completed within one week of the signing of its placing agreement. Completing placings in consecutive months is relatively uncommon in the Hong Kong market, and doing so called on the technical depth of Dorsey’s Hong Kong Capital Markets team. Working closely with Xunzhong to understand its business needs and prepare the transaction documents, the team addressed in quick succession the remaining capacity under the general mandate, disclosure of the use of proceeds and the maintenance of Xunzhong’s public float, enabling both Placings to be completed seamlessly. “We are pleased to have advised Xunzhong on both Placings,” said Rachel Han, Partner and Co-Head of Dorsey’s Asia Capital Markets practice. “We appreciate the trust placed in our team and the close collaboration among all parties involved. We look forward to supporting Xunzhong as it continues to execute its growth strategy and pursue future capital markets opportunities.” Xunzhong is principally engaged in cloud-based communications services and enterprise digitalization services in the PRC. As disclosed in its announcements, the net proceeds of the First Placing are allocated to developing Xunzhong’s new computing power operation services business, while those of the Second Placing will be used to integrate model-as-a-service (MaaS) and AI agent capabilities into its existing cloud communications platform-as-a-service (PaaS) platform and software-as-a-service (SaaS) products. Approximately 55% of the net proceeds of the Second Placing will be used for computing power equipment upgrades for the MaaS system, approximately 35% for MaaS, PaaS and SaaS platform upgrades, and approximately 10% for working capital and general corporate purposes. With a single MaaS platform and shared computing power supporting its PaaS and SaaS offerings, Xunzhong intends for its MaaS, PaaS and SaaS capabilities to complement and reinforce one another, and to address customer needs from multiple angles, from embedding AI in customer communications and business workflows to maintaining stable performance at scale and keeping customer data within controlled environments. Partner and Co-Head of Dorsey’s Asia Capital Markets practice Rachel Han and Of Counsel in the Capital Markets and Corporate Compliance group Carlton Ng, along with Associate Kristy Ting, led the Dorsey Hong Kong Capital Markets & Corporate Compliance group in advising Xunzhong on both Placings.

Insights

Minnesota Consumer-Fraud Enforcement: Disclaimers Won’t Cure Deception, and Penalties Can Add Up

Misleading advertising claims can lead to costly consequences. In State of Minnesota ex rel. Ellison v. Wall & Associates, Inc., No. A25-2064, 2026 WL 3118291 (Minn. App. Oct. 19, 2026), the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently affirmed a bench trial verdict against a tax-relief company and two executives for violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (“MCFA”) and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“MDTPA”). The decision, which affirmed a substantial restitution and civil penalty judgment, underscores the broad power of the Minnesota Attorney General to act against deceptive sales practices. The decision also offers practical lessons for businesses seeking to reduce liability risks in consumer-facing communications. Background Wall & Associates (“W&A”), a Virginia-based tax-relief company, marketed assistance to taxpayers seeking relief from outstanding federal and state tax liabilities, often with offers in compromise—agreements to settle tax liabilities for less than the amount owed. In its extensive advertising campaigns, W&A represented that its average client received a 90% reduction in their tax debt, that it was a local company with Minnesota offices, that it provided legal services, and that it would “Solve ALL Tax Problems.” In reality, W&A’s promises bore little resemblance to what many clients received. Most of W&A’s clients saw just a 9.5% reduction in federal tax debt and 1.2% in state tax debt. W&A had no permanent Minnesota offices. And W&A provided neither legal representation nor assistance with filing tax returns—those services required referrals to separate firms for an additional fee. All the while, W&A clients paid upfront and recurring fees, including during periods when W&A did no work on their cases. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued W&A, its founder and owner Ernest Kenneth Wall, and its president and CEO Patrick Mark Yates, alleging violations of, among other laws, the MCFA and the MDTPA. Following a 12-day bench trial, the district court determined that W&A violated the MCFA and MDTPA through its false and embellished advertising. The district court also held Wall and Yates individually liable for those violations because they directed, participated in, and acquiesced in the violations. The district court ordered injunctive relief, $2.7 million in restitution (with Wall and Yates jointly and severally liable for $1.3 million), and civil penalties of $786,517 against W&A, $415,500 against Wall, and $207,750 against Yates. The district court also awarded over $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to the state. W&A, Wall, and Yates appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s decision on October 19, 2026. Although W&A, Wall, and Yates challenged the judgment on numerous grounds, several highlights of the decision provide important takeaways for consumer-facing businesses. Individual Reliance Is Not Required for Statutory Liability W&A argued that Attorney General Ellison had to prove a causal nexus between each violation of the MCFA and MDTPA and the injury to a particular consumer to establish liability. In W&A’s view, this required proof that each injured consumer had personally relied on W&A’s false representation. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument based on the MCFA’s and MDTPA’s plain language, which requires no proof of actual deception or confusion by consumers. The Court of Appeals finally pointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., which held that when a defendant’s misrepresentations are directed at and affected “a broad group of consumers, proof of direct individual reliance is not required to establish a causal nexus between MCFA violations and the harm suffered by consumers.” 935 N.W.2d 124, 135 (Minn. 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed, however, that a causal nexus is necessary to support an award of damages under the MCFA and MDTPA. In making that determination, district courts look to various factors, including whether the misrepresentations were “longstanding, pervasive, and widespread in communications directed to consumers,” whether the seller intended and understood that consumers would rely on the misrepresentations, and whether the information was of a kind on which consumers would typically rely. The Court of Appeals’ decision continues Minnesota School of Business’s broad interpretation of liability under the MCFA and the MDTPA. Coordinated marketing campaigns to a “broad group of consumers” may expose businesses to MCFA and MDTPA liability without customer-by-customer proof of injury. That said, a causal nexus remains an element of an MCFA and MDTPA claim, and businesses involved in litigation should build a clear record at trial and on appeal showing how each of the relevant factors bears on the causal-nexus inquiry. Contractual Disclaimers Are Not an Automatic Defense to a Misleading Pitch W&A next argued that disclaimers in its client contracts prevented consumers from claiming they had been misled by its advertising. Reiterating that individual reliance is not required under the MCFA and MDTPA, the Court of Appeals held that a contractual disclaimer does not necessarily defeat a claim based on a conflicting oral representation. And on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that W&A’s contractual disclaimers were insufficient given the extensive misrepresentations by W&A and the unequal bargaining power between it and its customers. This holding confirms that contractual disclaimers are not a cure-all for misleading advertising or sales practices. Businesses should review the entire customer journey, including pre-contract representations, as those representations may survive a contractual disclaimer to the contrary. And if faced with litigation, businesses should build a strong record, both at trial and on appeal, showing why any disclaimer is effective in context. The State Has Broad Authority to Seek Restitution W&A also challenged Attorney General Ellison’s authority to seek restitution under the state’s parens patriae authority to protect residents’ collective interests, arguing that injury to only 228 Minnesotans did not affect a sufficiently substantial segment of the population. The Court of Appeals rejected a simple headcount approach, instead explaining that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting residents’ economic well-being as a whole. In any event, the Court of Appeals held that if restitution was not appropriate under the state’s parens patriae authority, then it would still be appropriate under the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. The decision reinforces that the broader and more sustained the deceptive advertising, the stronger the case for restitution to protect Minnesotans’ economic interests. Civil Penalties Accrue Per Violation, Not Per Defendant The Court of Appeals finally rejected W&A’s claim that the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under Minn. Stat. § 8.31 permit only civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each defendant. Rather, the Court of Appeals explained that penalties are limited to $25,000 per violation. Multiple violations can therefore produce substantially greater penalties. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that restitution made penalties unnecessary: repaying consumers does not eliminate the need to address gains from deceptive conduct and deter future violations. Final Takeaways Align every consumer-facing communication. Broad and extensive marketing campaigns can expose businesses to stronger enforcement standards under the MCFA and MDTPA, making it critical that consumer communications remain accurate and consistent from the first advertisement through the final sale. Plan for layered enforcement exposure. Penalties under the MCFA and MDTPA can add up quickly: W&A, Wall, and Yates ultimately faced more than $6 million in civil penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. The decision continues a line of Minnesota cases recognizing the Attorney General’s broad consumer-protection authority. Details matter. Although the Attorney General’s enforcement power is broad, it is not boundless. As the Court of Appeals explained, issues of causation, the effectiveness of contractual disclaimers, and the availability of restitution and civil penalties all turn on the specific facts of the case. Effective advocacy at trial and on appeal is critical to developing the facts relevant to liability and damages.

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

Materials Symposium Agenda Sessions 8:30 am - 9:30 am CT Session A: The Corporate Compass: Finding True North When Ethical Duties Conflict Philip Kaplan, Senior Legal Counsel, Howden Re Lucia Suljic, Vice President, Corporate Legal, Canon USA Nicole Stanton, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Dorsey & Whitney LLP This panel addresses ethical obligations of in-house counsel, including balancing obligations and duties that may conflict with each other. How should a responsible in-house lawyer deal with those challenging situations? Rather than stick to an academic discussion, this panel will revolve around a series of practical scenarios that are designed to be realistic and timely, including situations where counsel is asked to represent both the company and an individual, how and when to disclose uncomfortable facts and inconvenient documents, issues involving changing firms and companies, and multijurisdictional practice. The panel will feature discussion from two experienced in-house lawyers and Dorsey’s Deputy General Counsel. Session B: Managing Rapid Regulatory Change in International Trade and Cross-Border Investment Nathan Brower, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Nature’s Sunshine Greg Ogunsanya, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, H.B. Fuller Kathryn Wood, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, DecoPac, Inc. Dave Townsend and Lawrence Ward, Dorsey & Whitney LLP This program is designed for attorneys advising on cross-border transactions, international trade, regulatory compliance, and corporate governance matters. Panelists will examine recent developments in U.S. trade and investment law and policy, as well as their impact on international collaborations, corporate compliance, and mergers and acquisitions. The discussion will explore how general counsel and in-house legal teams assess and manage evolving trade-related risks within their organizations. Particular focus will be given to developments during the first two years of the second Trump Administration, including changes in tariff policy, tariff refunds, export controls, economic sanctions, and national security reviews of foreign investment. Through a discussion of regulatory trends and practical case studies, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the legal risks and compliance obligations associated with cross-border business activities, and hear about practical strategies for advising clients and managing compliance obligations in a rapidly changing trade and investment environment. 9:45 am - 10:45 am CT Session A: The Elon Musk Cases: What Tesla and Twitter Can Teach Your Board of Directors Loren Unterseher, Managing Partner, Oxbow Industries, LLC Shulamite White, Chief Legal Officer and Head of People, Motive Technologies Kirsten Schubert, Tom Swigert, and Jonathan Van Horn, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Recent cases involving Elon Musk and his businesses have had significant impact on principles governing board of directors’ fiduciary duties and corporate processes. This panel will examine recent litigation involving Elon Musk, Tesla, and Twitter, and its effects on the law governing the duties of directors and executives, including the executive compensation and director compensation processes, conflicts that may arise when a single executive has control over multiple businesses, and the ramifications of tweets or other public statements by an executive. Session B: All Eyes on DEI: Managing Diversity Efforts Amid Regulatory Scrutiny and Potential Litigation Maggie Dalton, Senior Commercial Attorney, Cargill; Board Co-Chair, Twin Cities Diversity in Practice Laura A. Vannelli, Legal Counsel, Mayo Clinic Susan Lorenc and Jack Sullivan, Dorsey & Whitney LLP The legal and regulatory landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has changed dramatically over the past two years. Law firms and legal departments are continuing to grapple with how to recruit, retain, and develop talent from a wide range of personal backgrounds, in a world where previously accepted recruiting and employment practices are facing increased scrutiny and litigation. This program will provide a practical overview of the current legal regime, including recent federal enforcement actions and litigation trends associated with DEI initiatives. Panelists will discuss practical ways in which organizations can pursue and retain legal talent and increase inclusion while minimizing legal, business, and reputational risk. 11:00 am - 12:00 pm CT Session A: Governance in an Age of Increasing Unpredictability James Chosy, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, U.S. Bancorp Todd Hartman, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Risk Officer, Best Buy Co., Inc. Alan Rosselot, Associate General Counsel & Assistant Secretary, Delta Air Lines, Inc. Cam Hoang and Robert Rosenbaum, Dorsey & Whitney LLP More than ever, ensuring that boards are well-informed and forward-thinking is critical to a company’s success. Join our panel of corporate governance experts as they share their experiences advising boards through crisis and unpredictable events; capitalizing on, but also checking, disruptive technologies; and positioning the company to succeed in an environment of shifting government priorities. Session B: A Day in the Life of a Trademark, Copyright & Advertising Attorney: A Hypothetical Case Study Alexander Kim, Vice President and General Counsel, Binks Nate Whitaker, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel, Crumbl Cathy Dahl and Tiffany Shimada, Dorsey & Whitney LLP What issues are companies facing daily while developing rights in intellectual property, protecting those rights, and staying in compliance with myriad potential issues related to advertising, social media, relationships with influencers, and environmental or governmental claims? This panel will feature two in-house counsel who are navigating these issues, utilizing a hypothetical case study, with the support of two Dorsey attorneys helping to develop a roadmap for meeting business objectives and minimizing the risk of claims. 12:00 pm - 1:15 pm CT Keynote Address Dr. Rebecca Heiss, Stress Physiologist Dr. Rebecca Heiss is a stress physiologist, author, and sought-after speaker who helps audiences transform fear and stress into fuel for greater performance and resilience. Her research has been recognized as “transformative” by the National Science Foundation, and she is the author of two books, Springboard and Instinct. Through her Fear(less) message, Rebecca inspires audiences with practical, science-based strategies to train our brains to work for us – not against us – and navigate change and uncertainty with greater confidence.

News

Dorsey Earns 167 Rankings in 2027 Edition of Best Law Firms®

The image shows photovoltaic solar panels in sunset converting sunlight into clean, renewable electricity.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - October 2026

Insights

Observations on the SEC’s 2027 Examination Priorities

The SEC’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) recently announced its examination priorities (“Exam Priorities”) for fiscal year 2027.1 Although many of the Division’s core areas of focus remain consistent with fiscal year 2026, the 2027 Exam Priorities include notable changes and refinements, which we discuss below, along with other key 2027 examination priorities. Dorsey Observations Renewed focus on economic conflicts of interest. After certain economic-incentive topics received less emphasis in the 2026 Exam Priorities2, the Division has again expressly identified economic conflicts as an examination focus. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will prioritize reviewing advisers’ fiduciary obligations relating to economic conflicts of interest raised by fee rebates, fee and expense calculations, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, and deposits and withdrawals. Greater emphasis on private-fund practices. Building on the private-fund items in the 2026 Exam Priorities, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will assess private-fund disclosures and controls relating to investment allocations, leverage, affiliated service providers, and fees and expenses. The Division also identified investments in private companies through special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) and loans provided by private funds and business development companies (“BDCs”) as products the Division will scrutinize. Advisers, particularly private-fund advisers, should evaluate whether their disclosures and compliance programs address these areas. Expanded focus on AI-related cybersecurity risks. While the 2026 Exam Priorities focused on advisers’ use of and representations regarding artificial intelligence (“AI”), the 2027 Exam Priorities specifically highlight AI-enabled cybersecurity threats, including AI-generated phishing and synthetic or “deepfake” voice and video used for social engineering. The shift signals that registrants should consider whether their cybersecurity policies and controls adequately address these evolving threats. New focus on proxy advisory firms. The 2027 Exam Priorities state that the Division will examine advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms, including how those advisers evaluate the firms’ recommendations, assess the bases for those recommendations, identify potential conflicts of interest, and determine whether that reliance satisfies applicable legal obligations. Advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas. Updated focus on Regulation S-P and Regulation S-ID. The 2026 Exam Priorities stated that the Division would engage firms during examinations regarding their progress in preparing incident response programs ahead of the compliance dates for the amendments to Regulation S-P and would examine compliance with the amended rule after those dates. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examinations will focus on whether firms have developed, implemented, and maintained reasonably designed policies and procedures addressing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect customer information and that, in accordance with the amended rule, staff will evaluate response program policies and procedures for unauthorized access to or use of customer information, including customer notification procedures and oversight of service providers. With respect to Regulation S-ID, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examiners will assess whether firms are updating their Identity Theft Prevention Program to address emerging risks, such as those related to AI and stolen credentials. Advisers may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas, as applicable. Summary of Other 2027 Examination Priorities Beyond the developments discussed above, many of the Division’s core examination priorities remain consistent with fiscal year 2026. These include investment adviser fiduciary obligations and compliance programs, examinations of never-examined and recently registered advisers, and cybersecurity and operational resiliency. The Exam Priorities are not exhaustive, and examinations will vary based on each registrant’s business, activities and risks. Advisers should consider the 2027 Exam Priorities in reviewing their compliance programs and preparing for potential examinations, including by: Reviewing risk disclosures and controls. The Division states that, when examining advisers to private funds, it will assess whether investment-related risk disclosures are consistent with fiduciary standards and whether compliance policies, procedures, and controls are designed to address both fund-level and investment-level risks. Reviewing disclosures on allocations, leverage, and affiliated service providers. The 2027 Exam Priorities identify disclosures related to certain investments and allocations, the use of debt and fund-level lines of credit, and the use of affiliated service providers as examples. Confirming the accuracy of fee and expense calculations. The Division states that it will assess the accuracy of fee and expense calculations at both the fund and investment levels, and it identifies fee rebates, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, deposits, and withdrawals as areas in which economic conflicts of interest may affect the impartiality of advice. Reviewing recommendations of illiquid or hard-to-trade products. The Division states that it will prioritize advisers that recommend products that are difficult to trade, have unusual features, or are illiquid, including loans provided by private funds or BDCs and investments in private companies through SPVs. Confirming that the compliance program is implemented and reviewed. The Division states that it will review compliance program components such as marketing, valuation, and custody, as appropriate, and will typically analyze the annual compliance review. It will also focus on compliance practices when advisers have started advising new asset classes or clients or grown through mergers or acquisitions. 1 SEC Division of Examinations 2027 Examination Priorities. 2 See Dorsey’s Client Alert on the SEC’s fiscal year 2026 exam priorities.

The image shows an organized stack of white paper documents and reports with colored index tabs and binders on a desk.

Insights

2027 IARD Renewal Program Deadlines

News

Capital Markets Lawyer Cameron Half Joins Dorsey’s London Office

News

Dorsey Celebrates Pro Bono Week and Honors Attorneys and Business Professionals for Impactful Pro Bono Work