.
Marquee

Corporate Trust Services

Corporate trust clients count on Dorsey, from the friendliest transactions to the toughest battles.

Dorsey’s Corporate Trust Services practice group advises trustees, fiduciaries, and other service providers involved in a wide array of financing and related transactions. Dorsey is a leading law firm in the corporate trust sector, and clients rely on us for day-to-day operational advice, structuring and completion of transactions, defense of litigated claims, and representation and assistance in default and workout scenarios. Dorsey's Corporate Trust Services team is centered in various U.S. offices and our London office. Dorsey also has deep experience in the acquisition of corporate trust businesses.

Corporate trust transactional services include:

  • Advice on fiduciary responsibilities and legal compliance and risk management issues
  • Municipal and corporate finance
  • Structured finance
  • Loan administration
  • Project finance
  • Escrow, depositary, and custody services

Trust litigation services include:

  • Default situations
  • Trust instruction proceedings (TIPs)
  • Legal defenses for fiduciary claims
  • Litigation involving security holders, transaction parties, regulatory authorities, consumers, and others
  • Restructuring transactions, bankruptcy proceedings, and workouts

Accolades

Nationally Ranked
43 Practices and 91 Lawyers Ranked
Chambers USA 2026
Tier 1
Banking and Finance Law Firm in Minneapolis
Best Law Firms 2026
Top Honor
229 Lawyers Recognized Representing 50+ Practices
Best Lawyers 2027

Insights

Client Alert

德汇美国破产法问答(系列之六)Dorsey U.S. Bankruptcy Law Q&A Series Six

December 14, 2020

德汇外国供应商破产法团队 Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers We hope that you found the five previous Q&A series regarding what to do when a U.S. customer files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection helpful. You can check them out here: [One, Two, Three, Four, and Five]. This Series Six will address questions relating to the plan process, including the disclosure and solicitation process, what happens if a plan is or is not confirmed, and how that impacts your right to a distribution. 希望我们之前五篇关于“如何应对美国客户申请第11章破产保护”的美国破产法问答系列文章(点击查看)对您有所裨益。本文为该系列第六篇文章,将解答与第11章计划程序相关的问题,包括披露和意见征集程序、第11章计划通过与否的不同后果,以及该等后果将如何影响您获得破产财产分配的权利。 1. Question: What is a Chapter 11 plan and are there different types? 问题1:什么是第11章计划?是否存在不同类型? A Chapter 11 plan, once approved by the bankruptcy court, governs the debtor’s exit from bankruptcy and the treatment of claims against and interests in the debtor’s estate. A Chapter 11 plan may either provide for reorganization or liquidation of the debtor. Whereas reorganization will involve the debtor itself continuing operations, liquidation will often involve the sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets to a new company. A debtor may accomplish a number of other transactions through a plan, including a merger, the creation of a liquidating trust, modification of liens, or issuance of new debt or equity. 一经破产法院批准,第11章破产计划将决定债务人如何从破产程序中退出,以及各项权利主张和利益在债务人财产中的分配。第11章计划可以规定债务人的重组或清算。重组会涉及债务人本身的持续经营,而清算往往涉及将债务人的绝大部分资产出售给另一家新公司。债务人可以通过第11章计划完成一系列其他交易,包括合并、创设清算信托、修改留置权或发行新债或新股。 2. Question: How can I learn more about a proposed plan and its effects? 问题2:我如何评估一项拟议计划及其影响? A debtor is required to file and serve upon all creditors a disclosure statement containing adequate information regarding the proposed plan to enable a creditor to make an informed judgment regarding whether or not to vote in favor of the plan. The disclosure statement will include information regarding, among other things, the treatment of different types of claims and estimated recoveries, what led to the bankruptcy filing, and what has taken place during the bankruptcy case. Both the proposed plan and disclosure statement tend to be lengthy, detailed documents and it would be worthwhile to retain U.S. bankruptcy counsel to review them on your behalf, to determine how your rights will be affected and to guide you through the confirmation process. 债务人必须提交一份披露声明,并将该声明送达所有债权人。该披露声明应包含关于拟议计划的所有相关信息,以使债权人能够就是否通过该计划作出合理且明智的判断。此外,披露声明将包括不同类型的权利主张的处理方式和预计赔偿金额、导致破产申请的原因以及在破产案件中所发生的事件等内容。拟议计划和披露声明基本都是详细而冗长的文件,因此,我们建议您聘请美国破产法律师为您审查该等计划和声明,以判断您的权利可能受到何种影响,并指导您完成计划确认过程。 3. Question: What is the proposal, solicitation, and confirmation process like and what role do suppliers play?  问题3:提案、意见征集和确认流程是什么样的?供应商在这些过程中扮演什么角色? Chapter 11 debtors are given the exclusive right to file a plan during the early months of the case, and are often the only party to do so even after the exclusive period comes to an end. The plan proponent will first request approval of a disclosure statement and solicitation and notice procedures with respect to the proposed plan. Once approved, the plan proponent solicits acceptance of the plan in accordance with the approved procedures. The solicitation materials will include copies of the plan and disclosure statement, a ballot, directions and deadlines for submitting the ballot and objecting to confirmation, and notice of the confirmation hearing. When solicitation is complete, a confirmation hearing will be held before the bankruptcy court. 第11章债务人享有在破产案件开始后的几个月内提交计划的专属权利,并且,即使在专属期限届满后,债务人通常也是唯一提交计划的当事方。计划发起人将首先就与拟议计划有关的披露声明、意见征集和通知程序寻求批准。一旦获得批准,计划发起人将按照经批准的程序,就该计划征集意见。意见征集材料将包括计划和披露声明的副本、选票、提交选票和拒绝确认该计划的相关指引和截止日期,以及确认听证会的通知。当征集过程完成后,破产法院将举行确认听证会。 To the extent a supplier’s pre-bankruptcy claim against a debtor does not qualify as a reclamation claim or for “critical vendor” treatment (see Series Two), its claim will typically be classified as general unsecured. General unsecured claims are placed near the back of the line for distribution, behind several other typical classes of claims, e.g. secured and administrative. As a result, suppliers’ pre-bankruptcy, non-reclamation, non-critical vendor claims are often impaired, meaning they will not receive a full recovery. 如果供应商对债务人的破产前债权不构成货物召回权,或不能享有“关键供应商”的待遇(见系列二),其债权通常被归类为一般无担保债权。一般无担保债权处于债权偿付的最后顺位,排在其他几种典型债权之后,例如,有担保债权和行政费用债权。因此,供应商破产前的、非货物召回权的以及非关键供应商的债权通常会受到影响,即无法得到全额偿付。 Holders of impaired claims are entitled to vote on a plan unless they are not entitled to any distribution, in which case they are typically deemed to reject the plan. A plan may be confirmed over the objection of a dissenting impaired class if the plan satisfies certain requirements, including that at least one impaired class has accepted the plan and the plan is fair, equitable, and does not unfairly discriminate as to classes of claims and interests.  在通常情况下,权利受损的债权人都有权对计划进行表决,但,在债权人不能基于其债权得到偿付时,其无权对该计划进行表决,并且该债权人将被视为拒绝确认该计划。如果计划满足特定要求,这些要求包括至少有一个无法得到全额偿付的债权人接受了该计划、该计划是公平和公正的,并且该计划未对各种索赔请求和利益造成不公平的歧视,那么即使无法得到全额偿付的债权人反对该计划,该计划仍可得到确认。 4. Question: What happens if the bankruptcy court confirms a proposed plan? 问题4:如果破产法院确认了一项拟议的第11章计划会有什么影响? If the bankruptcy court confirms a proposed plan, the debtor consummates the transactions contemplated by the plan on an effective date. This will likely include distributions to creditors, such as administrative expense creditors that provided goods and services to the debtor during the bankruptcy case. To the extent such suppliers are not paid in the ordinary course during the bankruptcy case, they must be paid in full on the effective date in order for the plan to be confirmed. General unsecured creditors may receive a distribution of cash or securities on the effective date, but often plans provide for the creation of a liquidating trust out of which distributions to general unsecured creditors are made depending on the extent to which the trust successfully liquidates assets and prosecutes claims on behalf of the post-confirmation estate. 如果破产法院确认了一个拟议的第11章计划,则债务人应在该计划规定的一个生效日完成该计划规定的交易。这可能包括分配给债权人的偿付款项,例如在破产案件中向债务人提供货物和服务的行政管理费用债权人。如果行政管理费用债权人在破产案件中未能通过正常流程获得偿付的,他们在生效日也必须得到全额偿付,这是破产重组计划的确认要求之一。一般无担保债权人可在计划生效日起得到现金或证券方式的偿付。但通常第11章计划会规定设立清算信托,根据信托成功清算的资产和代表第11章破产计划确认后的债务人财产提起索赔的程度,向一般无担保债权人分配偿付款项。 Confirmation of the plan will result in the discharge of all pre-bankruptcy liabilities of the debtor, meaning creditors cannot pursue their pre-bankruptcy claims against the debtor even if the confirmed plan does not pay such claims in full. Indeed, the plan substitutes a debtor’s pre-bankruptcy obligations to its creditors with those obligations set forth in the plan. 随着计划的确认,债务人破产前的所有债务将会被解除。这意味着即使有些债权人无法得到全额偿付,他们也不能就破产前的债权向债务人进行索赔。事实上,第11章计划用其中规定的义务替代了债务人破产前的义务。  5. Question: What happens if the bankruptcy court denies confirmation of a proposed plan? 问题5:如果破产法院拒绝确认拟议计划,会发生什么? If a bankruptcy court denies confirmation of a proposed plan, the debtor may amend its plan and seek confirmation of the amended plan, or the debtor or another party in interest may propose an alternative plan. If the estate lacks liquidity to continue reorganization proceedings, the bankruptcy court may convert the case to a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or dismiss it entirely. If the case is converted to Chapter 7, the debtor’s business operations will cease and a trustee will be appointed to marshal and liquidate the debtor’s assets for the benefit of creditors. In that event, the costs of administering the Chapter 7 case will take first priority, meaning general unsecured creditors are one step farther back in the line for distributions. 如果破产法院拒绝确认一项拟议计划,债务人可以修改其计划并寻求对修改计划的确认,或者债务人或其他利益相关方可以提出替代计划。如果破产财产由于缺乏流动性无法继续进行重组程序,破产法院可根据《破产法》第7章将该案件转为清算案件,或将案件完全驳回。如果该案件被转为第7章的清算案件,债务人的业务将停止,并且被指定的受托人将会为债权人的利益,管理和清算债务人的资产。在破产案件转为清算案件的情况下,管理第7章案件的行政费用将得到优先偿付,这也意味着一般无担保债权人的债权偿付顺序将进一步置后。 6. Question: What is the likelihood that a Chapter 11 case will be successful? 问题6:第11章案件成功的可能性有多大? Chapter 11 is open to businesses of all sizes and to individuals. As a result, a considerable proportion of Chapter 11 cases filed in the United States are unsuccessful and result in dismissal or conversion to liquidation under Chapter 7. However, in our experience, larger cases (meaning those where the debtor has over $10 million in assets or liabilities) are dramatically more likely to succeed, particularly because they are more likely to have the resources needed to complete a successful reorganization under Chapter 11. Often, larger cases will involve the sale of substantially all of the debtor’s assets to a new company, the proceeds of which are used to pay creditors.  第11章适用于各种规模的企业和个人。因此,在美国提交的第11章案件中,有相当一部分是不成功的,并且被驳回,或根据第7章转为清算案件。然而,根据我们的经验,标的额较大的案件(指债务人资产或负债超过1000万美元的案件)成功的可能性要大得多,主要是因为它们具备根据第11章进行重组所需的资源。通常,标的额较大的案件将涉及将债务人的大部分资产出售给一家新公司,而所获收益将用于偿付债权人。 While a successful Chapter 11 case may result in some creditors receiving less than they are due, the ultimate result is usually that a business is able to continue operating which benefits the nation’s economy as a whole. As such, reorganization in the U.S. is appropriately viewed as an essential element of our capitalist system. 虽然一个成功的破产法第11章案例可能会导致一些债权人收到的偿付款项少于其到期应收款项,但一个企业最终能够继续经营,这对整个国家的经济都有好处。因此,重组被视为美国资本主义制度的一个基本要素。 *** We do hope that you enjoyed these series and now have a fuller understanding of the Chapter 11 process, at least as it may impact the rights of foreign suppliers of bankrupt U.S. companies. From the outset of the bankruptcy case, a creditor’s rights are directly impacted – whether through imposition of the automatic stay which prohibits further collection efforts or through the imposition of a 20-day deadline to file reclamation claims measured from the filing date. As such, as soon as you learn of a customer’s bankruptcy filing, you should contact your trusted U.S. bankruptcy counsel to guide you through the process, ensure you do not miss any key dates or deadlines, and obtain the greatest recovery possible. 我们希望您通过美国破产法问答系列文章,对第11章的程序有更全面的认识,至少了解该程序对破产美国公司的外国供应商权利的影响。自破产案件开始,债权人的权利就受到直接影响——无论是通过“自动中止令”禁止进一步债务催收,还是通过对提出货物召回权主张设置自破产申请之日起算20日的截止期限。因此,一旦您得知客户的破产申请,您应立即联系您信任的美国破产法律师帮助您,确保您不会错过任何关键日期或截止日期,并获得最大程度的偿付。 If you have more questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to the Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers. 如有您有任何问题,请随时联系美国德汇律师事务所外国供应商破产法团队。 ------------------------------------------- Dorsey & Whitney is an international law firm with more than 100 years of history and 21 offices in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Asia, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Dorsey serves business organizations across a wide range of industries and is recognized by Chambers USA and U.S. News Best Law Firms. 德汇律师事务所是一家拥有超过百年历史的国际律师事务所,在美国、加拿大、欧洲和亚洲(包括北京、上海和香港)设有 21 家办公室。德汇为各行各业的企业提供全方位法律服务,并被《钱伯斯美国》评选为“领先律师事务所”以及被U.S. News评选为“最佳律师事务所”。 Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers 外国供应商破产法团队  

Client Alert

(德汇美国破产法问答系列之五)Dorsey U.S. Bankruptcy Law Q&A Series Five

December 11, 2020

德汇外国供应商破产法团队 Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers We hope that you found the four previous Q&A series regarding what to do when a U.S. customer files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection helpful. You can check them out here: [One, Two, Three, and Four]. This Series Five will address questions relating to the role of official unsecured creditors committees in bankruptcy and considerations of whether to join such a committee. 希望我们的美国破产法问答系列一、系列二、系列三和系列四 “如何应对美国客户申请第11章破产保护”的文章对您有所裨益。本文为该系列第五篇文章,将针对官方无担保债权人委员会在破产案中的作用,以及在决定是否加入该委员会时的考量进行讲解。 1. Question: What is the official unsecured creditors committee and what role does it play in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases? 问题一:什么是官方无担保债权人委员会?它在第11章破产案件中有何作用? The official unsecured creditors committee (the “UCC”) is a statutorily authorized committee of unsecured creditors whose role is to advocate, as a fiduciary, on behalf of all unsecured creditors in a Chapter 11 case. The UCC is entitled to obtain valuable information in the case and advances the interests of all unsecured creditors to ensure such interests are represented in the bankruptcy process.  官方无担保债权人委员会(“债委会”)是法律明文授权的无担保债权人委员会,在第11章破产案中作为受托人代表所有无担保债权人发声。债委会有权获得案件重要信息并且推动所有无担保债权人的利益,确保该等利益在破产程序中得以体现。 The UCC is usually comprised of three to seven of a debtor’s largest unsecured creditors that are willing to serve. The UCC takes an active role in steering the Chapter 11 case and may, with court approval, investigate the debtor, its financial affairs, and its business operations. The UCC will usually participate in the formulation of a plan of reorganization and is afforded consultation rights in connection with any sale of the debtor’s assets. 债委会通常由债务人的最大无担保债权人中愿意担任债委会职务的三到七位债权人组成。债委会在第11章破产案件中发挥积极的引导作用,且在法院批准情况下,可对债务人及其财务和商业运营情况开展调查。债委会通常会参与制订破产重组计划,并被赋予与债务人资产出售有关的咨询权。 The UCC is entitled to its own advisors, including counsel, and the related professional fees and other costs are borne by the bankruptcy estate and not the individual members of the UCC. While the costs of the UCC’s advisors are paid by the bankruptcy estate, the UCC is not otherwise entitled to any compensation for its work in the case. Individual members may wish to retain their own counsel to assist them in their role on the UCC, and the cost for such individual counsel is borne by the individual committee member. 债委会有权聘请自己的顾问,包括法律顾问,相关专业费用和其他开支由破产资产而非债委会个人成员承担。虽然债委会的顾问费用由破产资产支付,但债委会无权另行就其在破产案件中的工作获得任何补偿。债委会个人成员可能会希望聘请自己的法律顾问协助其在债委会的工作,该笔费用则由债委会的个人成员承担。 2. Question: Should I join the UCC? 问题二:我是否应该加入债委会? That depends. Being a member of the UCC means that you will have an active and important role in the bankruptcy case and serve the interests of unsecured creditors. The UCC typically negotiates recoveries under a plan of reorganization for unsecured creditors or, in less common instances, proposes its own plan of reorganization.  视情况而定。担任债委会成员意味着您在破产案件中将扮演积极重要的角色,为无担保债权人的利益服务。债委会通常为无担保债权人在破产重组计划下的追偿款进行谈判,或,在少数情况下会提出自己的破产重组计划。 Serving on the UCC requires some time commitment. The UCC and its advisors typically convene about once a week during periods of significant activity, and less often other times, until a plan is confirmed. As noted above, individual UCC members often retain their own counsel to assist and advise in connection with UCC obligations (e.g. participate in UCC meetings), in addition to representing the member’s personal interests. Regardless of whether a member of the UCC acts on its own or through counsel, each member of the UCC owes a fiduciary duty to all unsecured creditors and must act for the benefit of all unsecured creditors. This means that members of the UCC cannot act solely in their own interests. Being a member of the UCC will also often involve receiving and reviewing confidential information about the debtor that must be kept confidential. 在债委会任职需要投入一定的时间。债委会及其顾问通常在破产重组计划确认前的重要时刻,大约每周召开一次会议,其他时间会议召开频率通常较低。如上所述,除了代表债委会成员的个人利益外,债委会个人成员还经常聘请自己的法律顾问就债委会的义务(例如,出席债委会会议)提供协助和法律建议。无论债委会成员亲自还是通过法律顾问行事,每位债委会成员均对所有无担保债权人负有受托责任,并且必须为所有无担保债权人的利益服务。这意味着债委会成员不能仅为了其自身利益服务。作为债委会的成员,还经常会收到并审阅有关债务人的保密信息,必须严格保密。 3. Question: What role does the U.S. Trustee play with respect to the committee and in a Chapter 11 case generally?  问题三:美国受托人办公室通常在债委会和第11章破产案件中扮演何种角色? The U.S. Trustee, which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice, oversees all bankruptcy cases filed throughout the U.S. At the outset of large and mid-size Chapter 11 cases, the U.S. Trustee will reach out to the debtors’ largest unsecured creditors and ask whether they would be willing to serve on the UCC. If and once the U.S. Trustee has appointed the UCC, it plays no role on the UCC itself. Rather, the UCC determines what actions to take in the bankruptcy case, with the advice of counsel. 美国受托人办公室隶属美国司法部的下属机构,负责监督美国各地提交的所有破产案件。在大中型第11章破产案件伊始,美国受托人办公室将联络债务人的最大无担保债权人,并且询问其是否愿意在债委会任职。如果且一旦,美国受托人办公室任命成立债委会,美国受托人办公室本身不会对债委会起到任何作用。相反,债委会在法律顾问的建议下,对破产案中采取的行动作出决定。 The U.S. Trustee is often referred to as the “bankruptcy watchdog” and acts to ensure everyone plays by the rules – whether that be debtors, creditors, or other parties in interest. During the Chapter 11 case, the U.S. Trustee will actively monitor the case, with particular attention to the retention and payment of the debtor’s professionals, compensation of debtor’s management, and proposed plans of reorganization and whether they provide for releases for non-debtors.   美国受托人办公室经常被称为“破产案的守门人”,负责确保每个人依规则行事——无论是债务人、债权人还是其他利益方。第11章破产案期间,美国受托人办公室将积极监督案件进展,特别关注债务人专业顾问的聘用和付款、债务人管理层的薪资、拟议的破产重组计划及其是否为非债务人提供某种豁免。 4. Question: Can multiple creditors work together and retain the same counsel? 问题四:多个债权人是否可以共同聘用同一位法律顾问? Yes, so long as there is sufficient disclosure to and informed consent by all creditors retaining the same counsel. Indeed, large Chapter 11 cases often feature a variety of ad hoc committees of similarly situated creditors and interest holders, in addition to the formally appointed UCC, which act in the interests of their respective groups. This can be an effective way for creditors to increase their leverage while keeping costs down. However, informal groups of creditors do not have the same powers and advantages as the UCC and, importantly, will not be entitled to have their costs and expenses paid by the bankruptcy estate. 可以,只要所有聘请同一位法律顾问的债权人获得充分披露,并且一致同意。事实上,除正式任命的债委会外,大型第11章破产案件通常还设有各种由类似情况的债权人和利益持有人组成的特别委员会,为其各自团体利益履职。对债权人而言,这样既可以有效增加谈判筹码,同时又可以降低成本。不过,债权人的非正式团体不具有与债委会同等的权力和优势,更重要的是,其开支和费用无权由破产资产支付。 *** Please keep an eye out for Series Six which will address issues relating to the plan process, including the disclosure and solicitation process and what happens if a plan is or is not confirmed. 请您密切关注本系列的第六篇文章,该文章将解答有关破产计划程序,包括披露和招揽程序,以及破产计划是否通过所对应的不同后果。 ------------------------------------------- Dorsey & Whitney is an international law firm with more than 100 years of history and 21 offices in the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Asia, including Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. Dorsey serves business organizations across a wide range of industries and is recognized by Chambers USA and U.S. News Best Law Firms. 德汇律师事务所是一家拥有超过百年历史的国际律师事务所,在美国、加拿大、欧洲和亚洲(包括北京、上海和香港)设有 21 家办公室。德汇为各行各业的企业提供全方位法律服务,并被《钱伯斯美国》评选为“领先律师事务所”以及被U.S. News评选为“最佳律师事务所”。 Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers 外国供应商破产法团队  

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.

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

The Methane Regulatory Pendulum Swings Again: EPA Proposes Sweeping Changes to Federal Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Few environmental regulations better illustrate Washington’s regulatory “ping-pong” than EPA’s methane standards for the oil and natural gas sector. Over the last decade, successive administrations have repeatedly expanded, narrowed, rescinded, reinstated, and revised federal methane requirements, leaving industry to navigate a shifting compliance landscape with each change in administration. EPA’s October 27, 2026 proposal to reconsider significant portions of the 2024 oil and natural gas New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and Emission Guidelines (“EG”) under Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc represents the latest swing of the regulatory pendulum. If finalized, the proposal would substantially reduce compliance obligations in several areas, particularly with respect to lower-producing wells, associated gas flaring, equipment and control-device standards, and the Super Emitter Program. EPA estimates that the proposal would result in approximately $45 billion in savings, while preserving what the agency considers appropriate methane emission controls. EPA’s proposal was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2026. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2026.  Significantly, EPA is not using this rulemaking to reconsider its general authority to regulate methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. Rather, the agency is addressing specific requirements adopted in the 2024 methane rule, while broader questions concerning greenhouse gas regulation are being addressed in separate proceedings. The present proposal therefore focuses on the appropriate design and scope of particular methane regulations, rather than resolving the threshold question of whether methane may be regulated under the Clean Air Act at all. I.    EPA Proposes to Eliminate the Super Emitter Program Among the proposal’s most consequential changes is the complete elimination of the Super Emitter Program. Adopted in 2024, the program created a regulatory framework under which EPA-certified third parties could identify large methane releases using approved remote-sensing technologies. Upon receiving a qualifying notification from EPA, owners and operators were required to investigate the reported emissions event, report findings to EPA, and take corrective action where necessary. EPA now proposes to repeal the Super Emitter Program in its entirety. The agency questions the program’s legal and policy foundations, including the role of third parties in identifying emissions events and triggering regulatory obligations. EPA also questions whether the program is necessary or effective given other requirements applicable to regulated sources and whether its expected emissions reductions justify its costs and implementation challenges. Because the program was incorporated into both the NSPS applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources and the EG applicable to existing sources, its removal would affect federal requirements as well as the presumptive requirements that States otherwise would be expected to address in Clean Air Act § 111(d) plans. Importantly, EPA’s proposed repeal does not prevent States from developing and implementing their own Super Emitter Program based on the existing requirements, which several states are already doing.  II.    EPA Reconsiders Associated Gas Requirements Another centerpiece of EPA’s proposal is its reconsideration of the 2024 rule’s restrictions on flaring associated gas from oil wells. The 2024 rule determined that the best system of emission reduction (“BSER”) generally required operators to capture and beneficially use associated gas by routing it to a sales line, using it onsite, or reinjecting it, rather than routinely flaring it. Although EPA provided certain transition periods and compliance flexibilities, particularly for wells facing infrastructure constraints, the rule ultimately established a framework strongly favoring capture and utilization over flaring. Since promulgation, EPA has received significant feedback regarding gathering-system limitations, gas quality issues, and other practical barriers operators face in securing outlets for associated gas. In response, EPA proposes to replace the existing capture-focused approach with a substantially more flexible standard. EPA argues that the 2024 rule relied too heavily on the availability of third-party gathering and processing infrastructure that is often beyond an operator’s control, raising questions regarding achievability and cost-effectiveness. Under the proposal, BSER would be based on routing associated gas to a flare or other control device capable of achieving at least a 95 percent reduction in methane and volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions. Operators could continue to capture gas for sale, use it onsite, or reinject it where feasible, but those practices would no longer be required. EPA also proposes that if a portion of associated gas is routed to sales or used for another purpose, the remaining portion must comply with the 95 percent standard. For example, if a company can route 40 percent of its associated gas to a sales line, the company would need to route the other 60 percent to a control device with a 95 percent reduction, or to a flare. EPA is also soliciting comment on less sweeping alternatives that would preserve the basic structure of the 2024 associated-gas program, while providing additional compliance flexibility. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether it should retain the current capture-and-sales framework but expand the circumstances under which temporary flaring is permitted or extend the duration of temporary flaring allowances where operators face infrastructure constraints. EPA appears to recognize that gathering-system availability, processing constraints, and other third-party factors can affect an operator's ability to route gas to sales, even where the operator ultimately intends to comply with the capture requirements. These requests for comment suggest that EPA is considering whether targeted revisions to the existing framework could address implementation concerns without fully abandoning the 2024 rule's underlying preference for gas capture and beneficial use. III.    EPA’s Reconsideration of the “No Identifiable Emissions” Standard EPA's proposal would substantially revise the 2024 rule’s “no identifiable emissions” (“NIE”) requirements applicable to certain covers and closed vent systems (“CVS”) associated with storage tanks. Under the existing rule, covered equipment generally must operate without identifiable emissions, creating a compliance framework that focuses heavily on the absence of observable emissions rather than solely on equipment design or overall control effectiveness. Since promulgation, industry has argued that the standard effectively functions as a zero-emissions requirement that may be difficult to satisfy under all operating conditions, even where equipment and vapor control systems are properly designed, maintained, and operated. Moreover, EPA stated in the preamble to the 2024 rule that any identified emissions would constitute a deviation of the emissions limitation, resulting in a framework under which the observation of emissions could itself establish noncompliance. EPA now proposes to separate the requirements into distinct design and operational components and to fundamentally alter how compliance with the operational NIE requirement is evaluated. EPA proposes to distinguish between deviations of the design requirements and deviations of the operational NIE requirements. Under the proposed approach, failure to repair an identified emission or defect within 24 hours would constitute a deviation of the design requirement, although not necessarily an underlying violation. Separately, operators could demonstrate compliance with the operational NIE requirement by making repairs as soon as practicable, with an initial repair attempt within five days and final repair within 30 days, or by qualifying for the existing delay-of-repair provisions. A deviation of the operational requirement would occur if the applicable repair deadlines are not met and the delay-of-repair provisions do not apply. The proposal also establishes a new framework for addressing recurring or “chronic” emissions events. After the third emissions event or defect from the same cover or CVS within a year, the owner or operator would be required to conduct an investigative analysis within 10 days to determine whether the underlying cause relates to equipment design, operation, maintenance, or prior repair efforts. The results of that investigation would have important compliance implications. If recurring emissions are attributable to a design flaw, EPA would treat the issue as a deviation of the design requirements. If the emissions result from inadequate prior repairs, the deviation would be attributed to the repair requirements. If operations, maintenance, or other site practices are responsible, the deviation would be classified under the operational requirements. EPA would also require implementation of corrective measures identified through the analysis, including design modifications within 90 days and operational or maintenance-related corrective actions within 30 days. Taken together, these revisions would shift the NIE standard away from a framework in which the mere presence of emissions may establish noncompliance and toward one that focuses on whether operators identify emissions, complete timely repairs, investigate recurring problems, and address the root causes of repeated emissions events. IV.    Solicitation of Comment on “Legally and Practicably Enforceable” Standard EPA is also soliciting comment on the definition of “legally and practicably enforceable” (“LPE”), which industry has identified as one of the more problematic existing requirements. Under the 2024 rule, EPA adopted an interpretation of LPE that many commenters argued effectively disqualifies numerous state regulatory programs, permits, and other federally enforceable mechanisms from serving as the basis for remaining below applicable Subpart OOOOb storage tank thresholds. In particular, stakeholders have asserted that the current LPE framework makes it difficult for state air permitting programs and other state regulatory requirements to satisfy EPA's criteria, thereby causing more storage tanks and other emission units to remain subject to Subpart OOOOb requirements than would otherwise be the case. EPA now requests comment on whether its current interpretation of LPE is overly restrictive and whether alternative approaches would better account for the manner in which state permitting and regulatory programs are administered and enforced. The request is significant because a broader interpretation of LPE could allow a wider range of federally enforceable state permits and regulatory requirements to satisfy exemption criteria under OOOOb, potentially reducing the number of storage tanks and other sources subject to direct NSPS regulation. As a result, the LPE issue has implications that extend beyond compliance mechanics and could materially affect the scope of sources regulated under the federal methane program. V.    Revised Requirements for Marginal Wells EPA is also proposing significant revisions to the treatment of lower-producing wells under Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc. The agency notes that marginal wells constitute a substantial portion of the nation’s producing well inventory but account for a relatively small share of overall production. At the same time, EPA discusses studies estimating that marginal wells contribute a disproportionate share of methane emissions from oil and natural gas production. The agency is evaluating whether the 2024 rule appropriately accounts for the operational characteristics, emissions profiles, and compliance costs associated with these wells. To address those concerns, EPA is proposing two alternative approaches to well-site subcategorization. Under the first option, EPA would distinguish between marginal and non-marginal well sites. EPA proposes to define a marginal well as a well that produced no more than 15 barrels of oil equivalent (“BOE”) per day over the prior 12-month period and a marginal well site as a site consisting exclusively of marginal wells with total site-wide production of no more than 15 BOE per day over the same period. EPA is also soliciting comment on whether marginal wells should be further subdivided based on production levels, including a potential distinction between sites producing 6 BOE per day or less and sites producing more than 6 BOE but no more than 15 BOE per day, which could result in additional regulatory flexibility for the lowest-producing wells. Under the second option, EPA would distinguish between conventional and unconventional well sites and tailor requirements based on that classification, including reduced requirements for conventional wells. The agency is seeking comment on which framework better reflects the operational and emissions characteristics of different well sites, as well as whether additional subcategories should be established within the marginal-well population and the extent to which compliance requirements should differ among categories. VI.    LDAR, Pneumatic Controllers, Control Device Monitoring, and Facility Modifications EPA's proposal also includes several targeted revisions to the 2024 rule's leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) requirements. Most notably, EPA proposes additional flexibility in the use of advanced monitoring technologies and seeks to move away from compliance frameworks that rely heavily on a single detection method. The agency is proposing changes intended to facilitate the use of multiple monitoring technologies, including optical gas imaging and other alternative detection approaches, and is seeking comment on whether technology-neutral compliance options can achieve equivalent emissions reductions at lower cost. EPA also proposes revisions for components and equipment that are particularly difficult to monitor using conventional LDAR methods, reflecting concerns that certain 2024 requirements may not be practical or cost-effective in the field. More broadly, EPA questions whether some of the monitoring frequencies adopted in 2024 appropriately balance compliance burdens and emissions-reduction benefits and seeks comment on additional opportunities to tailor LDAR obligations based on emissions risk and source characteristics. EPA also proposes technical revisions to requirements governing control devices and related equipment. These include changes addressing continuous pilot-flame requirements, flame-monitoring data deviations, control-device alerts, visible-emissions test conditions, temporary or backup control devices, temporary process controllers, and control-device categories. The agency’s stated objective is to provide additional compliance flexibility while maintaining appropriate emissions controls. The practical effect will depend on the final requirements and the equipment and circumstances to which each amendment applies. The proposal also addresses pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks at gas processing plants. For certain high-pressure process controllers at transmission compressor stations, EPA proposes a separate regulatory approach based on its reassessment of technical feasibility and cost. The proposal should not be read as establishing a general exemption for pneumatic controllers across the industry. EPA also proposes changes to other equipment-specific requirements, including requirements applicable to pumps, storage vessels, and equipment leaks at gas plants, in response to concerns raised following promulgation of the 2024 rule. Finally, EPA proposes changes to certain requirements governing liquids unloading and other well-site operations, as well as technical corrections and clarifications to the existing regulatory text. These provisions form part of EPA’s broader effort to address implementation concerns and reassess the costs and expected emissions reductions associated with selected requirements in the 2024 rule. Operators should evaluate the specific proposed amendments applicable to their facilities rather than assume that the proposal would provide across-the-board relief from existing monitoring, equipment, or control-device obligations. VII.    Implications for States and Future Congressional or Administrative Action EPA’s proposal would substantially revise several consequential elements of the 2024 methane rule, but it would not eliminate regulation of existing oil and natural gas sources under Clean Air Act § 111(d). As a result, states remain subject to the existing obligation to develop and submit plans for existing sources. If the proposed revisions are finalized, states currently developing those plans may need to reevaluate key program elements, including requirements relating to associated gas, well-site subcategories, the Super Emitter Program, and other compliance obligations. The proposal does not itself extend the January 22, 2027 deadline for state-plan submissions established under the existing framework. The Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) remains a potential source of uncertainty. Depending on when EPA submits a final rule to Congress and the applicable congressional-session timing, a future Congress and President could seek to disapprove the rule under the CRA. A successful disapproval would invalidate the rule and generally restrict the agency from issuing a rule in substantially the same form absent subsequent statutory authorization. The CRA’s lookback provisions can affect the period during which a rule remains subject to congressional review, so the risk cannot be assessed solely by reference to the calendar year in which the rule is finalized. The timing of finalization and submission to Congress, together with the applicable congressional calendar, will determine the extent of that exposure. Finally, unlike the CRA, which can nullify a recently promulgated rule through legislative action, a future administration seeking to unwind this rule would generally need to proceed through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking. EPA would need to revisit the underlying BSER determinations, cost analyses, technical feasibility findings, and enforceability conclusions that support the final rule. Because this proposal is grounded heavily in findings regarding achievability, legal and practical enforceability, and cost-effectiveness, a future administration would need to develop a sufficient record supporting different conclusions before reinstating more stringent requirements. Consequently, the final rule may prove more durable than prior pendulum swings, even if it remains politically controversial.

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.

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.