.

Client Alert

中国企业在美投资并购经验分享

July 10, 2017

by Catherine X. Pan-Giordano

Download as a PDF

Share this page

潘惜唇 律师

中国企业在美国从事投资并购和经营活动需要注意哪些方面?来自万向、中建、绿地、中车四方、工商银行、协鑫新能源、史密斯菲尔德(Smithfield)等著名企业负责跨国投资和并购的“操盘手”们于六月底云集华盛顿特区,在美国中国总商会和工商银行共同举办的“选择美国海外投资峰会”上分享了众多成功经验。被收购美国企业史密斯菲尔德解释了其选择买方时所看重的三大要素:价格、业务成长机会和双方企业的契合度。中国企业中的“西行者”也分享了赴美收购时在政策环境、监管审批、法律合规、文化差异、本地化以及处理工会关系等方面如何规避风险、成功运作的经验。另外,新上任的美国商务部部长威尔伯·罗斯出席了此次会议,就中国企业关心的美国新政策问题进行了阐释,同时表示美国商务部可以充当中国企业与美国各级政府机构之间的疏通者、联络员。这些都为有意向在美国投资和已经在美国投资并购的中国企业提供了实质性的参考意见。

以下,笔者和大家分享了这些中国企业在美投资并购的成功经验,并结合自身过去十多年在纽约从事中美跨境并购业务的工作体会,对中国企业在美投资提出一些旨在有实战借鉴作用的建议。

1. 美国企业如何比较选择中国买方

美国第一猪肉生产商、著名的史密斯菲尔德公司副总裁兼财务总监Tim Dykstra先生从被收购的美国企业的角度道出了双汇能够在多家买方中胜出,成功收购史密斯菲尔德的原因。

(1) 价格因素:双汇以每股34美元的价格收购史密斯菲尔德,高于该公司被收购前股价的31%。对一家公众公司而言,31%的溢价是十分吸引人的。

(2) 非价格因素:业务成长机会和双方企业的契合度也是双汇成功收购史密斯菲尔德的关键因素。中国猪肉供应不足,因此允许冷冻猪肉进口。瘦肉精事件的发生使得中国消费者特别关注猪肉的安全问题。史密斯菲尔德认为,随着双汇将符合美国食品标准的高质量猪肉进口到中国,满足中国市场不断攀升的需求,史密斯菲尔德的出口收入将出现爆炸式增长,最终实现其在亚洲和全球猪肉消费市场的业务成长目标。双汇对史密斯菲尔德的收购提案,也获得了来自美国农业行业其他利益相关方的积极响应,他们认为可以借此机会扩大美国整体农产品出口市场,这也为双方的合作添力不少。双汇和史密斯菲尔德从2009年开始建立贸易关系以来,“相互倾慕”已有多年,因此史密斯菲尔德对双汇并不陌生,有一定的了解。从产业链的整合上看,双汇通过收购史密斯菲尔德,利用后者具有生猪养殖到屠宰到猪肉加工的全产业链优势,弥补了自身供应源头缺乏的短板。

从笔者的实务经验而言,中国企业比较容易专注于价格因素而低估非价格因素的重要性。其实,除了价格这个重要因素以外,美国的卖家也都很注重交易成功的确定性,所以对买方的财务实力、融资能力、所需要的政府审批和内部批准(如是否需要股东大会批准)、跨国并购的经验以及所使用的专业顾问团队也非常关注。相应的,中国买家是否有能力向卖家清楚、可信地表述其自身在以上这些方面的能力,并对卖家比较担心的问题提出可行的解决方案,都成为了竞标成功与否的关键因素。近年来,受到全球行业整合、企业重点业务转型调整以及反垄断监管的影响,许多国际上的大企业纷纷剥离、出售其旗下的一部分资产。这样的交易往往以拍卖的方式进行,而竞标方通常众多。中国企业竞标方和美国、西欧的竞标方相比,在交易的确定性方面一般处于先天弱势。这主要是以下三方面原因造成:中国资金出境或美元融资贷款的问题,境外直接投资主管机关的备案、登记要求,以及部分交易中美国的国家安全审查和司法部反垄断局对买方综合竞争力的审查。中国企业竞标时哪怕提出了非常有竞争力的价格,仍然不一定足以抵消卖家对其成功交割的不确定性的顾虑。当然也有极少数的卖家,尤其是出于反垄断监管规定不得不忍痛剥离出售一部分资产的企业,在交易完成后会和买方在同一市场上进行竞争,所以他们可能担心一些顶尖的中国企业在中国本土以及其他国际市场上日益雄厚的竞争力对该卖家自身的国际扩张或本土优势造成影响,因而故意避重就轻,不愿将资产出售给中国的战略投资方。针对以上分析的种种挑战,中国企业需要审时度势,理性地分析国内政策,包括国家对不同行业国际并购的态度所产生的导向性影响以及相应的监管方法及力度。同时,也需要注重资金、融资渠道、人才和专业顾问关系的积累和准备。在必要的情况下,也要积极考虑联手国内外基金等财务投资人,解决一些自身可能一时无法解决的问题。

2. 中国企业在美成功经验

 与会的中国企业代表认为,中国企业在赴美投资或收购需要注意的主要事项有:政策环境、监管审批、法律合规、总部优势、回报社会、本地化和员工问题。

(1) 政策环境:美国是世界第一流的国家,却仅有着第三流的基建,轨道交通技术尤其落后,许多机车都已经服役了30多年之久。中车四方就是在这样一个节点抓住了美国机车更新换代的机遇,脱 颖而出,一举拿下总价13亿美元的芝加哥地铁机车订单。特朗普政府的大型基建项目计划,为中国企业在美国机车市场和基建方面带来了新机遇。美国商务部部长罗斯出席此次会议时也明确列举了商务部今后重点扶持的产业:电子支付解决方案、液化天然气、生物化学、数据分析技术、熟食进口(禽类)、保险、商品交易等。

(2) 监管审批:这是中国企业在美投资的另一个顾虑所在。美国外国投资委员会(CFIUS)的审批理论上是一个可以由并购交易双方自愿进行申报的步骤,实际上却往往是中国企业在美并购的必经之路。万向集团美国公司总经理李刚认为,首先要相信美国是一个法治国家,从审查结果来看,“美国外国投资委员会依法行事,基本不受媒体或政治影响”。他建议企业在并购过程中尽量保持低调,同时要对美国外国投资委员会的运作规则有一定的认识。譬如,申报时要提高披露透明度;中国企业收购与美国政府有重大政府合同或订单的美国企业时,可能需要将这一部分业务先剥离出来。当然这方面企业需要依靠美国本地有经验的律师事务所、游说公司等来帮助完成。这些外部顾问和专家对中国企业帮助很大,可以避免企业直接冲在第一线受挫折和走弯路。

(3) 法律合规:另一个特别重要的问题是法律合规。协鑫新能源国际集团首席执行长方朋博士表示,许多中国企业刚开始往往感觉无从下手,但美国本地有着丰富的律师、会计师、税务师和咨询顾问等资源。比如,税务顾问可以帮助企业了解税收优惠或者跨国税收架构,制定有效的税务计划。律师事务所可以帮助企业解决公司法、劳动法、移民法、反歧视法和其他当地的法律问题。虽然这些外部顾问费用不菲,但是他们的专业技能和经验却是中国企业自身缺乏而急需的。

(4) 总部优势:中国企业到美国投资和收购还应依托总部优势。中建美国在建造纽约州最大的政府基建项目--亚历山大汉密尔顿大桥时,获得了中建母公司在财力和技术上的巨大支持,使其在当地树立了声望,积累了国际经验。工商银行纽约负责人也提到了借助工行整体优势,发展在美业务的事例。

(5) 回报社会:万向集团美国公司总经理李刚分享了公司积极帮助在美中资企业资助美国学生赴华学习的事例。万向参与这个项目既回馈了当地社区,加强了两国青年一代的互相理解,更为中国企业在美国当地树立了威信和口碑,为企业未来发展创造了更好的环境。

(6) 本地化:水土不服是许多中国企业来到美国后的第一个感觉。并购后产生的冲突主要是对中美企业的运营做法和文化差异认识不充分造成的。为了更好地在当地开展业务,应当大幅度提高员工本地化程度,在商业上可行的前提下提倡“招聘美国人” 和“在美国进行采购”。双汇对史密斯菲尔德的收购案一共新增了1,000多个当地的就业岗位,产量提高了近七亿美元。中车四方芝加哥地铁机车项目实现了60%本地制造、采购和就业。工商银行美国的员工本地化比例也高达90%。中建美国在建造纽约州亚历山大汉密尔顿大桥时,根据当地社区在公开意见征询会上的反馈,在该项目上实现了100%员工本地化。同时,中车四方美国公司总经理刘成永也坦言,中车在美国本地招聘的最大挑战是如何在机械电气方面人才缺乏的情况下,在有技术含量的制造业招聘到合适的工程技术类本地人才。

(7) 员工问题:最近福耀玻璃美国公司与当地工人发生冲突一事,在此次会议上引起了热议。到会的企业家们纷纷献计献策,就此类问题如何防微杜渐、积极应对提出看法。他们指出,首先企业要依托当地的专家顾问团队了解被收购公司的工会情况,因为被收购公司是否有工会对企业的成本影响很大;其次,中国企业的管理层需要意识到,美国工人十分了解且敢于捍卫法律赋予他们的权利;再者,如果不得不和工会打交道,就要趁早让美国专家顾问团队介入,一开始就积极沟通,与其付出“硬碰
硬”的成本,不如多出第三方的顾问费防患于未然。另一种未雨绸缪的做法是事先购买员工雇佣保险,一旦出现工会纠纷,就由保险公司来赔付解决,成本会比较低。

由于工作原因,笔者十多年前就开始帮助中国公司在美国进行投资并购,在交易成功后又帮助多家中国母公司对美国子公司进行管理、整合以及协助总部处理和美国企业的磨合工作,包括帮助一些中国公司在美国更换管理层、解决员工问题。在以上中国企业代表分析指出的这些问题中,笔者个人认为最为核心的是人才问题,包括中美对接双方的人才招募、选拔,也包括人才的激励、留用和培养。这不是说其他的问题不重要,而是说如果人才问题充分得到解决,其他问题也就有了解决的前提条件和必要工具。其实很多中国公司并不是不了解要“本地化”的道理,或者刚到美国的时候也打算依赖美国被收购企业原有的管理层继续经营管理被收购的美国公司,但是实践中要成功地实现“洋为中用”、“人为我用”,顺利有效地和美国的管理团队以及员工合作,难度是非常大的,双方所要做出的调整也是深入骨髓的。一方面,在美国当地寻找人才的时候,中国企业除了关注人才的专业能力和职业经验以外,也要考察人才的敬业度、国际化程度以及和中国总部配合工作的适应能力,并在法律允许的范围内了解该人才在其职业生涯以及个人及家庭职责中所处的特定阶段和他们的特定需求。不少在美国企业成长起来的管理人员,优点是专业性强、工作的计划性和有序性强,但是他们不一定能够适应在高速发展的环境下成长起来的中国企业对管理人员工作速度、灵活度、工作时间长度以及随时处于待命状态的要求。另一方面,中国企业也要了解和认识到中美两国在政治体制、商业文化、企业与员工关系以及管理层与员工关系上的重大差别。美国员工,无论在公司内部处于什么级别,都会认为其自身与任何其他人平等,并高度重视法律给予雇员的权利和保障,这和很多中国企业中的“领导文化”很不一样。所以中国公司在和美国的管理层和员工工作的过程中,要注意理解、尊重美国当地的文化观念,而不是单纯地依靠升职、加薪等办法激励当地员工。这些理解和尊重,在很多小事情上都可以体现,例如, 电话会议的时间安排、工作中所使用的通讯方式、节假日加班的政策等。当然,更重要的是了解美国的公司治理机制,了解董事会和管理层的不同职责,让美国当地的管理层和员工在其位、谋其职,有与其自身的位置和职责相对应的正常管理权利,让其能够做出在其岗位范围内的决策,而不是凡事都要求层层上报到母公司的领导才能决策。

尽管近年来有一些关于中美关系的苛刻言论,美国仍然是中国资本输出的最佳目的地之一。它作为全球最大的经济体,有着最完善的法律体系和最具活力的商业环境,也拥有在生物制药、医疗器械、高科技、精密仪器、高度工业化生产、机器人技术、食品饮料、现代化农业和农肥科技、畜牧业、有机绿色产业、新能源、养老健康、分享经济、金融科技与服务等行业的大量优秀企业。正如美国商务部部长罗斯在会议上所言,“我们正在进入美国经济复苏的崭新阶段。对于探索美国市场、寻求扩大运营并实现增长的外国公司来说,这是一个令人兴奋的时机。”

(本文受时间和篇幅等原因所限,大多数内容只能点到为止。期待有机会与大家就这些问题进行更深入的交流、探讨。)

Firm Highlights

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case: Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426: This case concerns the Trump Administration’s “third-country removal” procedures, where immigrants are deported to countries not listed in the removal orders. In granting certiorari, the Court granted the Government’s application to stay a lower court decision halting the practice, which will allow third-country removals to continue pending resolution of the case. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims; (2) whether the district court had authority to enter class-wide declaratory relief and APA vacatur under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1); (3) whether the Government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the due process clause, or FARRA/CAT and its implementing regulations; and (4) such other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case. On October 1, 2026, the Court granted certiorari in three additional cases: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, No. 26-104: Immigration officials detained Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha—a Brazilian citizen who had lived in the United States for approximately twenty years after entering without inspection—and denied him a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A). The Second Circuit held that his detention was instead governed by § 1226(a), which permits release on bond, because § 1225(b)(2)(A)’s mandatory-detention requirement applies only to noncitizens apprehended while entering the country or shortly thereafter. The question presented is: Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates the detention pending removal proceedings of aliens who, like Barbosa da Cunha, are present in the United States without having been admitted. Missionaries of St. John the Baptist, Inc. v. Frederic, No. 25-113: A Catholic religious organization sought to build a shrine to the Virgin Mary on land the organization owned adjacent to its church in Park Hills, Kentucky. Local zoning restrictions prohibited the proposed construction. The question presented is: Whether a land-use regulation that prohibits a religious institution from building a religious structure on its own property constitutes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under the Substantial Burden Provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Marschner v. Marschner, No. 25-1349: Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (“USFSPA”), a veteran’s longevity-based retirement pay can be divided in a divorce, but retirement pay based on disability and retirement pay that was waived to receive disability pay are indivisible. The question presented is: Does the USFSPA require state courts to refuse enforcement of indemnification provisions in a divorce settlement agreement?

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

Welcome to Dorsey’s Energy Law: Month in Review. We provide this update to our clients to identify significant developments in the previous month. Please reach out to any of the authors, listed above, to discuss these issues. Regulatory Developments Massachusetts Ratchets Up State and Local Regulation of AI Data Centers In early September, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts signed an executive order requiring that artificial intelligence data centers secure the approval of local communities as a precondition to proceeding with a given project. According to the terms of the order, data center developers will need to secure a “community benefits agreement” as a precondition to receiving permits from numerous state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection, the Energy Facilities Siting Board, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office. Beyond requiring community benefits agreements, the order also mandates that developers mitigate utility costs to consumers, prohibits the use of nondisclosure agreements, and requires various state agencies to develop measures to limit data center impacts on the environment. North Carolina Regulators Decline Approval of Duke Energy Gas Turbine On September 18, 2026, North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) denied Duke Energy’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity required to construct a gas-fueled combustion turbine at its Smith Energy Complex in North Carolina. The NCUC objected strongly to the $584 million price tag and noted that Duke appeared to be constructing the facility “based on anticipated data center customer additions.” The NCUC rejected that anticipated growth as “insufficiently reliable for the Commission to act at this point.” In rejecting Duke’s application, the NCUC also noted that Duke had signed the White House Ratepayer Protection Pledge, in which it represented that it would not shift data center costs to consumers. The NCUC observed that the record did not demonstrate how Duke “intends to adhere to its commitments under the Ratepayer Protection Pledge with regard to the Proposed Facility.” Notably, commission staff had actually supported the construction of the turbine, citing concerns about Duke’s reserve margins. The NCUC noted that it “understands the Public Staff’s expressed concerns,” but those concerns were outweighed by the NCUC’s reservations, including questions of demand. Department of Energy Approves Funds for Grid Improvement The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that it would fund 31 grid-improvement projects in 26 states. The funding initiative is part of the DOE’s “SPARK” initiative. The funding will include $1.9 billion in federal funding from DOE and $3.35 billion in recipient cost-sharing funding. The funds will go to projects designed to improve grid reliability and lower electricity costs. Recipients plan to reconductor over 1,500 miles of transmission lines and will deploy grid-enhancing technologies across approximately 21,000 miles. DOE stated that this initiative will make available over 23 additional gigawatts of electricity. Texas Moderates Rules Governing Data Center Interconnection The Texas Public Utility Commission adopted new regulations governing large-load interconnections. The rules impose a flat study fee of $100,000 for all proposed interconnections, which departs from the initial proposal to impose study fees using a tiered system based on project size. Additionally, the final rule eliminates the PUC’s previous proposal to impose a non-refundable interconnection fee of $50,000 per MW of contracted peak demand. The final rule also moderates the initially proposed regulations governing Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) notifications for large-load customers’ non-utilized capacity. The proposed rules would have required notifying ERCOT within 30 days of missing a scheduled energization milestone by six months. The final rules, however, do not require informing ERCOT unless a scheduled energization milestone is missed by 24 months. FERC Denies TransAlta 202(c) Cost-Recovery Plan The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) recently rejected TransAlta’s plan to recover $19.9 million in expenses stemming from a DOE order in which DOE prohibited TransAlta from retiring its coal-powered Centralia power plant. TransAlta had previously intended to retire the facility at the end of 2025. TransAlta’s cost recovery plan proposed spending an additional $23 million on repairs to continue operating the unit. FERC’s main objection had to do with geographic scope. TransAlta’s recovery plan called for recovering costs from California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), but the DOE’s order requiring operation of the plant was designed to ensure reliability in the Northwest assessment area (Montana, Oregon, Washington, and parts of northern California and northern Idaho). Accordingly, FERC was unwilling to allow cost recovery from CAISO and SPP when the order that precipitated the additional costs only related to the Northwest assessment area. FERC informed TransAlta that it would only approve cost recovery from load-serving entities in the Northwest assessment area. FERC’s decision comes amid a rush of DOE emergency orders requiring the continued operation of coal-fired generating units. Litigation Appeals Court Upholds Washington Hydropower Plant With Caveats In a September 21, 2026, opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals largely upheld a Clean Water Act water quality certification by the Washington Department of Ecology for the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but off-stream from, the Columbia River. A nonprofit (Columbia Riverkeeper) and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation appealed the certification, contending that it failed to impose necessary conditions and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River. Most saliently, the plaintiffs argued that the project had the potential to leak 100 acre-feet of water per year into tributaries of the Columbia River. The Court of Appeals broadly rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the state’s conclusion that “the project was designed not to leak.” That said, the Court of Appeals did reverse on one narrow issue. Specifically, the court determined that the state’s conclusion that “leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported” was not supported by the evidence because the certification “does not explicitly require monitoring and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage.” Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the state to impose monitoring and reporting requirements but otherwise affirmed the certification. Legislative Developments California Legislates Restrictions on Data Center Energy Use and Grid Costs On September 21, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed seven bills broadly regulating data centers in the state. SB 1168 directed the California Public Utilities Commission to assess the energy used by data centers. It also requires the PUC to pass costs of transmission and distribution upgrades and load increases on to data centers, rather than customers. SB 886 and SB 887 compel data centers to pay for infrastructure upgrade and generation costs, and wildfire mitigation costs, in addition to imposing environmental review. The statutes additionally increase local oversight of data centers. AB 1577 imposes a monthly reporting requirement that requires data centers to supply energy consumption and efficiency data to the California Energy Commission. AB 2383 contains incentives for data centers to use onsite clean energy generation. Finally, AB 2469 and AB 2619 require data center developments to assess water supply and develop a water scarcity plan. The statutes also mandate statewide water reporting as a precondition to obtaining and renewing business licenses.

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

Overview On September 25, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) published a final rule that significantly limits the ability of third parties to use the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) Title V permitting process to revisit New Source Review (“NSR”) permitting decisions years after those decisions were made. The rule establishes that NSR permitting determinations generally must be challenged during the original permitting proceeding, thereby providing regulated sources with greater permitting certainty and finality for major capital projects. Published in the Federal Register titled Clarifying the Scope of “Applicable Requirements” Under State Operating Permit Programs and the Federal Operating Permit Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0401), the rule amends 40 C.F.R. Parts 70 and 71 to codify EPA’s interpretation regarding when requirements established under other CAA programs may be reviewed, modified, or implemented through the Title V operating permit program. The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The rule addresses two principal issues: (1) the relationship between NSR preconstruction permitting and Title V operating permits, and (2) the treatment of the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1). Most significantly, the rule provides greater certainty for sources navigating the NSR permitting process. EPA’s amendments are intended to ensure that NSR permitting decisions made through an approved public process are generally not revisited later through Title V permit proceedings. The rule responds to a circuit split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Tenth Circuits. In Environmental Integrity Project v. EPA, 969 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2020), the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA’s interpretation, concluding that it was consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of Title V. In contrast, the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Sierra Club v. EPA, 964 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 2020), finding that the then-existing regulatory definition of “applicable requirement” did not support EPA’s position. By amending the regulatory language on which the Tenth Circuit relied and codifying the interpretation approved by the Fifth Circuit, EPA has established a nationwide framework governing the interaction between NSR and Title V. NSR and Title V: EPA Establishes a Uniform Nationwide Framework At the core of the rule is EPA’s effort to define the respective roles of NSR and Title V. The rule codifies the approach EPA has applied since 2017: once a source obtains an NSR permit under an EPA-approved permitting program, and that permit was issued following public notice with an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes the NSR-related “applicable requirements” of the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) or Federal Implementation Plan (“FIP”) for Title V purposes. Under this framework, Title V is not a vehicle for re-examining underlying NSR permitting decisions. EPA does not intend to use the Title V process to revisit applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology determinations, permit conditions, or other issues resolved through the NSR permitting process. This principle applies regardless of the stage of the Title V proceeding; whether the NSR permit was issued pursuant to a SIP or FIP; the type of NSR issue involved; or whether the NSR permit is incorporated into Title V sequentially or concurrently. Limited Exceptions EPA recognizes several circumstances in which NSR issues may still be reviewed through the Title V program: No NSR permit was issued at all; The permit was issued without public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review; or The issue involves substantive overlap between Title V and NSR requirements, such as the adequacy of monitoring provisions. As a result, the rule does not insulate unpermitted projects or foreclose review of matters that independently arise under Title V. Key Regulatory Amendments The rule revises the definition of “applicable requirement” in 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.2 and 71.2. Paragraph (1): Where an NSR permit is issued with public notice and an opportunity for comment and judicial review, the permit establishes and defines the applicable SIP or FIP requirements for Title V purposes. Paragraph (2): All NSR permit terms, including terms contained in minor NSR permits, constitute applicable requirements that must be incorporated into Title V permits. Paragraph (4): CAA section 112(r)(1) (the General Duty Clause) is expressly excluded from the definition of “applicable requirement,” while section 112(r)(7) Risk Management Program requirements remain included. EPA also amended 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.8 and 70.12 to clarify that alleged defects in requirements established outside the Title V process generally do not provide a basis for EPA objection to a Title V permit or for a Title V citizen petition. General Duty Clause Exclusion The rule also codifies EPA’s longstanding position that the General Duty Clause in CAA section 112(r)(1) is not an “applicable requirement” for Title V purposes. EPA points to several considerations supporting that conclusion, including the distinction between the General Duty Clause and Title V permit terms, the provision’s origins in the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, and the different enforcement structures applicable to the General Duty Clause and Title V permit requirements. Importantly, excluding section 112(r)(1) from the definition of “applicable requirement” does not eliminate EPA’s authority to enforce the General Duty Clause independently of the Title V program. The final rule instead clarifies that the General Duty Clause need not—and should not—be incorporated into Title V permits as an applicable requirement. Practical Implications for Regulated Sources Greater Finality for NSR Permits  For projects requiring PSD, nonattainment NSR, or minor NSR permits, the permitting process becomes the primary forum for resolving disputes regarding applicability determinations, emissions calculations, control technology requirements, offsets, and permit conditions. Once an NSR permit is issued through a qualifying public process, regulated sources should face substantially reduced risk that those same issues will be challenged years later through Title V permit proceedings. Reduced Risk of Collateral Permit Challenges Stakeholders have sometimes sought to use Title V permit issuance, renewal, revision, or citizen-petition proceedings to challenge underlying NSR determinations. The final rule makes clear that Title V is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging whether an applicable requirement was correctly established in the first instance. This should reduce the risk of permit delays and uncertainty associated with collateral challenges to previously issued NSR permits. The rule does not, however, eliminate all Title V challenges relating to an NSR permit. Challenges concerning the Title V permit itself—including whether it appropriately incorporates applicable requirements or contains adequate compliance provisions—remain possible. Increased Importance of the Initial NSR Proceeding Because Title V generally will not provide a second opportunity to challenge the substantive validity of an NSR determination, the administrative record developed during the NSR process becomes increasingly important. Permit applicants should ensure that applicability analyses, emissions calculations, control technology evaluations, modeling demonstrations, and supporting technical documentation are thoroughly developed during the original permitting proceeding. For significant projects, applicants may therefore have an additional incentive to identify and resolve potential permitting issues before the NSR permit is issued rather than assuming that unresolved issues can be addressed during a subsequent Title V proceeding. Potential Incentive for Broader Public Participation EPA also notes that permitting authorities may choose to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment for a broader range of NSR permits because permits issued through a qualifying public process receive the benefit of the finality framework established by the rule. Some permitting authorities may conclude that greater public participation at the NSR stage is preferable to uncertainty during subsequent Title V proceedings. Conclusion The final rule is principally a permitting-certainty measure. For sources that obtain NSR permits through a public process, EPA has substantially limited the ability of third parties to revisit underlying NSR determinations through the Title V program. As a result, regulated entities should benefit from greater finality regarding key permitting decisions, reduced risk of collateral permit challenges, and increased certainty when planning and implementing capital projects.

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

On September 30, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”), which provides an exemption from the general prohibition under Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act on registered investment advisers receiving performance-based compensation (the “Proposal”) so long as performance-based compensation is limited to “qualified clients”.1 Most notably for private fund sponsors, the Proposal would expand the definition of “qualified client” to include any investors that satisfy the “accredited investor” definition under Regulation D. The Proposal may also have implications for private fund managers that rely on exemptions from investment adviser registration under state law because certain state-level investment adviser registration exemptions incorporate or otherwise reference the federal qualified client definition. Expansion of the Qualified Client Definition Under the current Rule 205-3, an investor generally may qualify as a qualified client if, among other alternatives, the investor has at least $1.4 million under management with the adviser or has a net worth exceeding $2.7 million. These thresholds are higher than the financial thresholds applicable to many accredited investors under Regulation D. As a result, an investor may currently qualify as an accredited investor for purposes of investing in a private offering without qualifying as a qualified client for purposes of paying performance-based compensation. The Proposal would expand the qualified client definition to include any natural person or legal entity investor that satisfies the accredited investor definition under Regulation D. The Proposal would also remove the assets under management and net worth thresholds under the current Rule 205-3 qualified client test. For private funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, this change could reduce the need to apply a separate qualified client standard to investors that already qualify as accredited investors. Dorsey Observations and Next Steps If adopted as proposed, the expanded qualified client definition could be particularly significant for private fund managers. Most private fund offerings are already limited to accredited investors under Regulation D. However, the Proposal could expand the pool of prospective investors available to emerging private fund managers while reducing the regulatory burden associated with complying with Rule 205-3. The Proposal could also benefit advisers operating below the SEC registration threshold that rely on a state private fund adviser exemption. A number of states have adopted exemptions modeled on the North American Securities Administrators Association (“NASAA”) private fund adviser exemption, which may condition relief for advisers to certain funds relying on Section 3(c)(1) on each beneficial owner satisfying the federal qualified client definition. However, state requirements vary, and any effect of the Proposal would depend on the text of the applicable state exemption and how it incorporates Rule 205-3. Many emerging private fund managers may have a larger network of accredited investor relationships than qualified client relationships during the early stages of their investment advisory business. Currently, under Rule 205-3, private fund managers may receive performance-based compensation from investors who do not satisfy the qualified client definition if those investors were admitted to their private funds prior to registration with the SEC. Following registration with the SEC, however, managers may continue to permit investors that are not qualified clients to invest in future private funds but may not receive performance-based compensation from those investors with respect to such investments. In addition, because the net worth and assets under management thresholds for qualified client status are adjusted for inflation every five years, the pool of qualified client investors may diminish over time as previously eligible investors no longer satisfy the applicable thresholds. The Proposal could provide the dual benefit of greater flexibility for private fund managers to establish and maintain relationships with accredited investors as their businesses scale and they become registered with the SEC, and greater flexibility for certain accredited investors to participate in investment strategies that historically have been restricted to much larger institutional investors. Unless and until the Proposal is adopted, investment advisers should continue to comply with the existing qualified client requirements. If the Proposal is adopted, private fund sponsors should consider whether corresponding changes are appropriate for their subscription documents, investor questionnaires, and other offering materials. Advisers that are state-registered or rely on a state-level exemption should also consult the laws and regulations of each relevant jurisdiction before changing investor eligibility standards or performance-based compensation practices, because adoption of the federal amendments may not automatically modify state requirements. Comments on the Proposal will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 1 Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Modernization, Investment Advisers Act Release No. IA-7022 (Sept. 30, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules-regulations/2026/09/s7-2026-28#33-11443proposed.