.

Client Alert

REIT Alert: SEC Updates Financial Disclosures about Acquisitions and Dispositions of Businesses, Including Real Estate Operations

October 19, 2020

by Cam C. Hoang and John V. Chase

Download as a PDF

Share this page

 

Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission updated its requirements to provide financial information about acquisitions and dispositions of businesses and real estate operations, the first time that these requirements had been comprehensively addressed in over 30 years.  The amendments impact disclosure in current reports under Form 8-K, which are filed by reporting companies, as well as disclosure in certain transaction filings (registration statements, proxy statements and prospectuses).

In addition to changes to the content and presentation of financial disclosure under Regulation S-X, the amendments are intended to raise the threshold when determining whether acquisitions and dispositions are significant for purposes of triggering financial disclosure.  The amendments – of particular interest to real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) – clarify that the investment test under Rule 1-02(w) is to be used to measure the significance of transactions in real estate operations.  The amendments also more closely align the financial disclosure requirements for acquisitions of real estate operations under Rule 3-14 with those applicable to acquisitions of other businesses under Rule 3-05.

The amendments will be effective on January 1, 2021, but voluntary compliance is permitted in advance of the effective date as long the registrant complies with the amendments in their entirety.


Background

 As the Commission explains in the press release accompanying the final amendments, when a registrant acquires a significant business, other than a real estate operation, Rule 3-05 of Regulation S-X generally requires a registrant to provide separate audited annual and unaudited interim pre-acquisition financial statements of that business.  The number of years of financial information that must be provided depends on the relative significance of the acquisition to the registrant.

Rule 3-14 of Regulation S-X addresses the unique nature of real estate operations and requires a registrant that has acquired a significant real estate operation to file financial statements with respect to such acquired operation.

In addition to the historical financial statements required under Rule 3-05 or 3-14, Article 11 of Regulation S-X requires registrants to file unaudited pro forma financial information relating to the acquisition or disposition.  Pro forma financial information typically includes a pro forma balance sheet and pro forma income statements based on the historical financial statements of the registrant and the acquired or disposed business, including adjustments to show how the acquisition or disposition might have affected those financial statements.


Changes to Significance Tests for Acquisitions and Dispositions

 The significance of an acquisition or disposition is measured using the investment, asset  and income tests under the “significant subsidiary” definition in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X, Securities Act Rule 405 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 12b-2.  The amendments revise the investment test and the income test, but no substantive revisions were made to the asset test.  Furthermore, the amendments clarify that only the investment test should be used for real estate operations.

The amendments, among other things, update the significance tests by:

  • increasing the significance threshold for dispositions from 10% to 20%, so that it is equal to the threshold for acquisitions;
  • revising the investment test to compare the registrant’s investments in and advances to the acquired or disposed business or real estate operation to the registrant’s aggregate worldwide market value if available; in the absence of an aggregate worldwide market value, investments may continue to be compared to a registrant’s total assets;
  • revising the income test by adding a revenue component, so that a business is only significant if it exceeds an income threshold as well as a revenue threshold; and
  • expanding the use of pro forma financial information in measuring significance, if the registrant has previously completed a significant acquisition after its last fiscal year and has filed historical and pro forma financial statements on a current report on Form 8-K.

The amendments also modify and enhance the required disclosure for the aggregate effect of acquisitions for which financial statements are not required or are not yet required by:

  • eliminating historical financial statements for insignificant businesses and real estate operations; and
  • expanding the pro forma financial information to depict the aggregate effect of the acquisitions in all material respects.

In terms of periods to be presented, the amendments require the financial statements of the acquired business to cover no more than the two most recent fiscal years, though three years of historical financial statements for a target company still could be required in a transaction subject to a shareholder vote.


Changes Specific to Real Estate Operations

Certain amendments that specifically affect real estate operations are summarized below.  Where they are referenced, “Rule 3-14 Financial Statements” refer to separate audited annual and unaudited interim abbreviated income statements with respect to such real estate operations.

Topic Old Rule New Rule
Definition of “Real Estate Operation” The Commission staff interpreted a “real estate operation” to refer to properties that generate revenues solely through leasing, but did not interpret this definition to preclude a property that included a limited amount of non-leasing revenues (like property management or other services related to the leasing).

“Real estate operation” is defined as “a business that generates substantially all of its revenues through the leasing of real property,” with the term “substantially” being dependent on the specific facts and circumstances.

The amendments clarify that a real estate operation is a “business” as that term is used in Article 11 for purposes of pro forma financial disclosure.

Significance Determination 

The significance threshold for individual acquisitions and dispositions is the 10 percent significance threshold in Rule 1-02(w).

Due to the nature of a real estate operation, staff interpretations have sought to focus registrants on the investment test in Rule 1-02(w), adapted to compare the registrant’s and its other subsidiaries’ “investments in” the real estate operation, including any debt secured by the real properties that is assumed by the registrant, to the registrant’s total assets at the last audited fiscal year end when determining “significance” under Rule 3-14.

The significance threshold for individual acquisitions and dispositions of real estate operations aligns with the 20 percent threshold for businesses in Rule 3-05.

New Rule 3-14(b)(2) requires the use of the investment test in Rule 1-02(w) to determine the significance of the acquisition or disposition of a real estate operation.  The new rule requires a registrant to compare its (and its other subsidiaries’) investments in and advances to the tested subsidiary to the aggregate worldwide market value of the registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity, when available.

If the registrant’s significance test is based on total assets (vs aggregate worldwide market value), consistent with the old rule, the test should be adapted to compare the registrant’s and its other subsidiaries’ “investments in” the real estate operation, including any debt secured by the real properties that is assumed by the registrant, to the registrant’s total assets as of the end of the most recently completed fiscal year.

The significance test for blind pool offerings by non-traded REITs is codified to compare the registrant’s and its other subsidiaries’ “investments in” the real estate operation to the sum of: (1) The registrant’s total assets as of the date of the acquisition, and (2) The proceeds (net of commissions) in good faith expected to be raised in the registered offering over the next 12 months.

Aggregate Effect of Insignificant Acquisitions Registrants must aggregate consummated and probable acquisitions since the date of the most recent audited balance sheet that are less than 10 percent significant, and if the significance of the aggregated group exceeds 10 percent, Rule 3-14 Financial Statements are provided for each acquisition that is 5 percent or more significant and for enough other acquisitions in order to cover the substantial majority of the group.

Registrants must aggregate consummated and probable acquisitions since the date of the most recent audited balance sheet that are less than 20 percent significant, and if the significance of the aggregated group exceeds 50 percent:

  • No historical financial information is required for any acquisitions that do not exceed the 20 percent significance threshold.
  • Pro forma financial information that depicts the aggregate impact of acquired or to be acquired real estate operations in all material respects is required.1
  • Financial statements covering at least the most recent fiscal year and the most recent interim period for any acquired or to be acquired real estate operation for which financial statements are not yet required based on Rule 3-14(b)(3)(i) for certain registration statements and proxy statements.
Related Party Acquisitions Registrants must provide three years of financial statements for significant acquisitions from related parties. The new Rule 3-14 eliminates the specific requirement to provide three years of financial statements for acquisitions from related parties. Like Rule 3-05, it does not differentiate the number of periods for which historical financial statements are required based on whether the seller is a related party or not.
Financial Statements Covering 9 to 12 months Existing Rule 3-06(b) provides that financial statements required under Rule 3-05 “covering a period of 9 to 12 months shall be deemed to satisfy a requirement for filing financial statements for a period of 1 year,” but it did not address acquired real estate operations under Rule 3-14. Rule 3-06(b) is revised explicitly to permit the filing of financial statements covering a period of 9 to 12 months to satisfy the requirement for filing financial statements for a period of 1 year for an acquired or to be acquired real estate operation.
Timing of Filings New Rule 3-14 includes the same period for the filing of Rule 3-14 Financial Statements in registration statements and proxy statements as exists under Rule 3-05.
Omission of Financial Statements New Rule 3-14 is aligned with new Rule 3-05 to no longer require Rule 3-14 Financial Statements in registration statements and proxy statements once the acquired real estate operation is reflected in filed post-acquisition registrant financial statements for nine months.
Interim Financial Statements Rule 3-14 does not include an express requirement for registrants to provide interim financial statements.  However, existing registrant practice is to provide interim financial statements for acquisitions of real estate operations. Rule 3-14 Financial Statements are specifically required for the most recent year-to-date interim period prior to the acquisition.
Auditor Independence Auditors of Rule 3-14 Financial Statements need not be independent.  Auditors of Rule 3-14 Financial Statements are subject to applicable independence standards.
Triple Net Leases In some circumstances, registrants acquire a real estate operation subject to a triple net lease with a single lessee. A triple net lease typically requires the lessee to pay costs normally associated with ownership of the property, such as property taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance costs. Under existing practice, registrants often provide audited financial statements of the lessee or guarantor of the lease, instead of the Rule 3-14 Financial Statements of the real estate operation, when the lessee is considered significant. The amendments do not differentiate this type of acquisition or specify alternatives to Rule 3-14 for this type of acquisition, because the activity depicted in the Rule 3-14 Financial Statements is consistent with how the triple net lease arrangement may affect the registrant’s results of operations.

The amendments also update current reports on Form 8-K, with more specific requirements on acquisitions and dispositions of real estate operations.  The amendments:

  • Clarify that Item 2.01 requires the disclosure of the acquisition or disposition of assets that constitute a significant real estate operation as defined in Rule 3-14;
  • Address the financial statement filing requirements in Item 9.01(a) consistently for all business acquisitions, including real estate operations; and
  • Revise Item 2.01 Instruction 4 to make clear that the aggregate impact of acquisitions of real estate operations is not required to be reported unless these acquisitions are related real estate operations and are significant in the aggregate.

We expect that the foregoing amendments will result in additional staff guidance as well as substantial revisions to the Commission’s Financial Reporting Manual, including sections of the Manual that address real estate operations.


1 The Commission notes that, in some circumstances, accountants might need to perform additional work to meet the “reasonable investigation” and “reasonable care” due diligence standards of the Securities Act in order to provide negative assurance to underwriters on the combined pro forma financial information.

 

Firm Highlights

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.

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.

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.

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.