.

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

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

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

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

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

News

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

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

Insights

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.