.

Client Alert

Prepare to Comply with SEC’s Share Repurchase Disclosure Rules

September 21, 2023

by Cam C. Hoang

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Beginning with the first filing that covers the first full fiscal quarter that begins on or after October 1, 2023, most US-listed issuers will be required to make more extensive disclosures on their share repurchase programs and insider transactions proximate to a program’s announcement. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted final rules for these disclosures. The rules do not require day-after reporting of share repurchases, as was originally proposed; however, they do require a quarterly report on share repurchases on a daily basis (vs on a monthly basis, as currently required) and additional detail regarding the structure of an issuer’s repurchase program. Furthermore, the rules require issuers to tag the disclosure using Inline XBRL.

Domestic issuers will disclose the total repurchases made each day for the quarter in their Form 10-Qs and Form 10-Ks (for their fourth fiscal quarters) on a new Exhibit 26, pursuant to Items 703 and 601 of Regulation S-K. We have linked a Word version of Exhibit 26 for easy reference.

Corporate share repurchase programs have been under public scrutiny, and subject to allegations that they are used to enhance short-term performance and boost executive compensation metrics, such as earnings per share, at the expense of long-term investment in the business. And with the implementation of these rules, investors and other third parties will be able to analyze the timing of issuer repurchases in relation to insider transactions and corporate events at a more granular level.

The US Chamber of Commerce has sued the SEC in an effort to block implementation of the rule, under the Administrative Procedure Act and the US Constitution, saying the mandatory disclosure requirements "not only risk the public airing of important managerial decisions but also compel speech in violation of the First Amendment.” As of this date, the Fifth Circuit has not enjoined implementation of the rules.

Which issuers are subject to the share repurchase disclosure requirements?

All US-listed issuers are subject to the amended disclosure rules, including foreign private issuers filing on Form 20-F (“FPIs”), emerging growth companies (“EGCs”) and smaller reporting companies (“SRCs”). Multijurisdictional disclosure system (“MJDS”) filers that file on Form 40-F are not subject to the amendments.

Commenters who supported an exemption for all FPIs were generally concerned that the requirements would deviate from the SEC’s historic practice of deferring to an FPI’s home country disclosure requirements, and would subject FPIs to multiple, differing disclosure regimes.

Will the disclosure be “filed” or “furnished”?

In a change from the proposed rulemaking, the daily data will be treated as “filed” instead of “furnished,” which means that the disclosure is subject to the liability provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, to the extent that the information gets incorporated by reference into registration statements.

How frequently and where will the share repurchase transactions be disclosed?

Domestic issuers will disclose the total repurchases made each day for the quarter in their Form 10-Qs and Form 10-Ks (for their fourth fiscal quarters) on a new Exhibit 26, pursuant to Items 703 and 601 of Regulation S-K.

Listed Closed-End Funds will disclose daily quantitative repurchase data in their semiannual and annual reports on Form N-CSR.
FPIs reporting on the FPI forms will disclose daily quantitative repurchase data at the end of every quarter in new Form F-SR, which will be due 45 days after the end of each of the issuer’s fiscal quarters. This obligation will be an adjustment for many FPIs, since FPIs that report on the FPI forms do not have a quarterly reporting obligation under the Exchange Act and generally provide repurchase disclosure only in their annual report on Form 20-F.

What details about the share repurchase transactions will be required?

The disclosure will include, for each day:

  • The class of shares;
  •  Average price paid per share;
  • Total number of shares purchased, including the total number of shares purchased as part of a publicly announced plan;
  • Aggregate maximum number of shares (or approximate dollar value) that may yet be purchased under a publicly announced plan;
  • Total number of shares purchased on the open market (new disclosure);
  • Total number of shares purchased that are intended to qualify for the safe harbor in Rule 10b-18 (new disclosure);and
  • Separately the total number of shares purchased pursuant to a plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c) (new disclosure).

The issuer will footnote the date any such plan was adopted or terminated.

Issuers will continue to disclose the number of shares (or units) purchased other than through a publicly announced plan or program, and the nature of the transaction (ie, whether the purchases were made in open-market transactions, tender offers, in satisfaction of the issuer’s obligations upon exercise of outstanding put options issued by the issuer, or other transactions), and certain disclosures for publicly announced repurchase plans or programs under Item 703 of Regulation S-K. The disclosure will now be included in the main text of the narrative discussion instead of as a footnote to a monthly table.

For foreign private issuers, SEC guidance in the form of C&DIs issued in August indicate that a Form F-SR is not required to be filed if, during the covered fiscal quarter, the FPI or affiliated purchaser did not repurchase any of registered equity securities. However, even the repurchase of a very small number of equity securities would trigger a Form F-SR filing. Furthermore, in the absence of repurchases during the covered fiscal quarter, no Form F-SR is required to be filed solely to check the box under “Registrant Purchases of Equity Securities” section of Form F-SR for the covered purchases or sales of securities by a director or member of senior management. Unlike domestic issuers that may report repurchase activity on exhibits attached to periodic reports, FPIs are not permitted to wait to report repurchases during the final quarter of the fiscal year in the Form 20-F for that fiscal year. Rather, a Form F-SR would be required for that final quarter and must be filed within 45 days after the end of the quarter.

For domestic issuers who have not made repurchases during the applicable quarter, there is no comparable guidance on whether they are required to file the applicable Exhibit 26 with blanks. In light of the foregoing C&DIs for FPIs, many issuers may be comfortable omitting the blank exhibit.

What are the new disclosure requirements for director and officer trading?

Issuers will be required to check a box before the tabular disclosure of share repurchases, indicating if certain directors or officers traded in the relevant securities within four business days before or after the public announcement of their repurchase plan or program. The announcement of an increase of an existing share repurchase plan constitutes a new repurchase plan for purposes of the requirement.

  • For domestic issuers and Listed Closed-End Funds, this checkbox requirement applies to any Section 16 officer or director, and the issuer may rely on Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed with the SEC in determining whether to check the box provided that the reliance is reasonable.
  • For FPIs, this requirement applies to any director and member of senior management who would be identified pursuant to Item 1 of Form 20-F, regardless of whether the FPI is reporting on the forms exclusively available to FPIs or on the domestic forms. Because the securities of FPIs are exempt from Section 16, however, Item 601(b)(26) and Form F-SR permit an FPI to rely on written representations from its directors and senior management provided that the reliance is reasonable. Because FPIs may elect to report using Forms 10-Q and 10-K, for those issuers the checkbox on those forms will include the Form 20-F reference to directors or senior management.

There are no exemptions for trades made pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 plans or employee benefit plans, even though for example, purchases under an employee stock purchase plan would not trigger Form 4 reporting within two business days. In the adopting release, the SEC takes the position that an issuer may include additional disclosure to provide context to investors, and would be required to do so if such additional disclosures are material and necessary to prevent the required disclosures from being misleading.

What are the new disclosure requirements on issuer repurchase programs and practices?

Issuers will be required to provide narrative disclosure about their repurchase programs and practices in each periodic report. Specifically, with regard to the transactions listed in Exhibit 26 of that Form 10-Q or Form 10-K, the final amendments require an issuer to disclose:

  • The objectives or rationales for its share repurchases and the process or criteria used to determine the amount of repurchases; and
  • Any policies and procedures relating to purchases and sales of the issuer’s securities during a repurchase program by its officers and directors, including any restriction on such transactions.

The disclosure may need to refer to particular repurchases in the related Exhibit 26 that correspond to different parts of the narrative, if applicable. We have provided additional guidance under “Preparing for Compliance with the New Requirements.”

What are the new disclosure requirements on issuer Rule 10b5-1 plans?

Under new Item 408(d)(1) of Regulation S-K, an issuer will be required to provide quarterly disclosure in its Forms 10-K and 10-Q of whether, during its most recently completed fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report), the issuer adopted or terminated a contract, instruction, or written plan to purchase or sell its securities intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c), along with material terms of the plan except for pricing. This information will also be reported using Inline XBRL. To prevent potential duplicative disclosures, if the repurchase disclosure provided pursuant to Item 703 contains disclosure that would satisfy the requirements of Item 408(d)(1), a cross-reference to that disclosure is adequate.

In a change from the proposal, issuers will not be required to disclose information about the adoption or termination of a non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement as defined in Item 408(c).

When are the new share repurchase disclosure requirements effective?

FPIs that file on the FPI forms will be required to comply with the new disclosure and Inline XBRL tagging requirements in new Form F-SR beginning with the Form F-SR that covers the first full fiscal quarter that begins on or after April 1, 2024 (the quarter ending June 30, 2024 for calendar year-end FPIs). The Form 20-F narrative disclosure that relates to the Form F-SR filings, which is required by Item 16E of that form, and the related tagging requirements, will be required starting in the first Form 20-F filed after the first Form F-SR has been filed.

Listed Closed-End Funds will be required to comply with the new disclosure and Inline XBRL tagging requirements in their Exchange Act periodic reports beginning with the Form N-CSR that covers the first six-month period that begins on or after January 1, 2024 (the six-month period ending on June 30, 2024 for calendar year-end Listed Closed-End Funds).

Domestic issuers and all other issuers will be required to comply with the new disclosure and Inline XBRL tagging requirements in their Exchange Act periodic reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K (for their fourth fiscal quarter) beginning with the first filing that covers the first full fiscal quarter that begins on or after October 1, 2023 (Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023, as it relates to repurchases made during the quarter ending December 31, 2023, for calendar year-end issuers).

Preparing for Compliance

Issuers should:

  • Develop a quarterly process to collect, audit and report share repurchase information on a daily basis.
  • Develop a quarterly process to track and disclose the adoption, modification and termination of Rule 10b5-1 plans entered into by the issuer.
  • Discuss the objectives or rationales for its share repurchases and the process or criteria used to determine the amount of repurchases. The SEC suggests that issuers could discuss the factors driving the repurchase, including whether their stock is undervalued, whether prospective internal growth opportunities are economically viable, or whether the valuation for potential targets is attractive. Issuers might additionally discuss the sources of funding for the repurchase, where material, such as, for example, in the case where the source of funding results in tax advantages that would not otherwise be available for a repurchase. The final amendments do not require issuers to provide disclosure at a level of granularity that would reveal any competitive or sensitive information beyond what may already be gleaned from other disclosures regarding the business and financial condition of the issuer.
  • Discuss any policies and procedures relating to purchases and sales of the issuer’s securities during a repurchase program by its officers and directors, including any notification requirements for, or restrictions on, such transactions. Most insider trading policies currently do not restrict the timing of insider transactions during repurchase programs. However, under the new rules, it will be possible for investors to analyze the timing of insider transactions, the release of material nonpublic information and other corporate events in relation to issuer share repurchases, to see if the repurchases appear to advantage insiders.
  • Discuss whether the company is prepared to “check the box” for insider transactions within four days before or after the announcement of a share repurchase program. While there is nothing inherently improper about such transactions as long as they are conducted while the insider is not aware of material non-public information, it remains to be seen whether issuers will restrict trading by directors and officers, or at least require notice of trading, that is effected during this window, in order to preempt questions about their propriety.

Firm Highlights

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.

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 CLE & CPD Information 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 & 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.