.

Articles

如何转售美国公司限制流通股票

May 2018

by Catherine X. Pan-Giordano and Ting Zhou

Download as a PDF

Share this page

潘惜唇  周婷

如果您通过认购私募发行或者是作为创始人而取得了一家美国上市公司的股票,虽然该公司本身是上市公司,您持有的这些股票往往是被限制流通的。这就意味着您不能像流通股的持有人那样可按照股票行情或自身需求进行任意转售。然而,这也并不意味着您持有的股票在任何情况下都无法转售。美国证券法制度规定了一些限制转售的例外情况,当满足一定的条件时,您持有的限制流通股可以转为流通股,从而可以向公众转售;或者即使不转成流通股,您也可以在一定条件下通过非公开方式,向特定的受让人转售股票。下文将对限制流通股及其转售例外进行简要阐述,希望有助于您更好的规划处置您所持有的股票。

问题一:何为限制流通股票?

限制流通股票主要包括“限制性股票(Restricted Security)”和“控制人股票(Control Security)”。“限制性股票”是指股票持有人在公司(发行人)的私募发行中取得的、或是从公司的关联方处取得的、未经公开发行登记的公司股票。而“控制人股票”是指由公司的关联方持有的股票,无论其取得方式如何,即使关联方从公开市场取得的股票,也属于控制人股票。上述“关联方”指公司的高管、董事或大股东等与公司具有控制关系的个人或实体。而“控制”的涵义较为广泛,指无论通过持股、合同安排或者其他方式,能主导公司的管理和政策的权力。值得注意的是,从任何关联方处取得的股票均为限制性股票,哪怕该等股票在关联方持有期间并不是限制性股票。

限制性股票和控制人股票均为限制流通股票,通常在股票凭证上印有限制转让的标记(Restrictive Legend),除非满足法律规定的限制转让例外情况,并解除股票凭证上的限制标记,持股人不得在公开市场交易该等股票。此外,虽然该等股票不能在公开市场交易,但在一定条件下仍可进行非公开转让。

问题二:如何将您持有的限制流通股票转为流通股票?

限制性股票和控制人股票原则上都不得在公开市场上交易。但是,在满足《美国证券法》第144条规定条件的情况下,限制性股票和控制人股票未经公开发行登记也可以向公众转售。对所需满足的转售条件,144条对限制性股票和控制人股票进行了区别对待,即:控制人股票的转售需要满足以下全部五项条件,而限制性股票的转售只需满足前两项条件。

  1. 持有期限:在进行转售之前,转售人必须对股票持有一定期限。如果发行人本身是报告公司(Reporting Companies,即需要遵守《美国证券交易法》报告要求的发行人),则转售人在转售之前需持有股票至少6个月。如果发行人本身是非报告公司(Non-reporting Companies,即无需遵守《美国证券交易法》报告要求的发行人),则转售人在转售之前需持有股票至少1年。
  2. 发行人信息:在转售之前,应有足够的公众可知的关于股票发行人的最新信息。如果发行人本身是报告公司,只要该发行人遵守了《美国证券交易法》要求的定期报告,即能满足本条件。如果发行人本身是非报告公司,则要求该发行人的相关信息,包括其业务性质、董事及高管,以及财务报表等须为公众所知。
  3. 转售数量:转售人在三个月内转售的股票数量不得超过:发行在外的同类股票的1%,或者同类股票四周内的平均周交易量,以较高数额为准。
  4. 转售方式:转售只能通过股票经纪人并按照常规股票交易进行,且股票经纪人不能收取高于正常水平的佣金。另外,转售人和经纪人均不得主动招揽买方购买该等股票。
  5. 向证券与交易委员会通报:如果在三个月内转售的股票数量超过5,000股或者涉及的转售金额超过5万美元,则转售人需要向美国证券与交易委员会申报144表格。

满足了第144条规定的条件,也并不意味着转售人能立即通过经纪人向公众进行股票转售。转售人必须要先行去除股票凭证上的限制转让标记才能转售。

问题三:在将限制流通股票转为流通股票过程中,谁可以帮到您?

如上文所述,如能满足第144条规定的转售条件,则需要去除股票凭证上的转售限制标记后才能将股票向公众转售。但转售标记并不是任何人都能去除的,只有股票过户代理人才有权去除。股票过户代理人必须要先行取得发行人的同意才能去除。而发行人则通常需要律师出具法律意见书,指示过户代理人去除。律师出具去除转让限制标记的法律意见书则主要依赖于转售方对于其满足144条转售条件之陈述。而转售方陈述函则通常由熟悉美国证券法的律师起草。

综上,如您持有美国公司的限制流通股票,并且拟将其转为流通股票,您需要与您的美国律师沟通,以分析第144条的转售条件,并通过律师来处理股票凭证上转售限制标记的去除。

问题四:如限制流通股票无法转为流通股票,则该等限制流通股票是否仍可转售?

是的,在一定条件下,该等限制流通股票仍可转售;而常见的转售为向特定受让人进行的非公开销售(Private Resale),受让方在该等销售下取得的股票仍为限制流通股。限制流通股票的非公开转售常用的法律依据为“4(1 ½)条豁免”。这并不是一条证券法条例下的明文规定,而是由证券法专业人士在实践中发展出来的、结合了《美国证券法》第4(1)条以及第4(2)条相关规定的豁免。《美国证券法》第4(1)条规定了非发行人或非承销人的非承销交易可免于证券登记;而转售人如要适用该4(1)条的豁免,则需要通过满足《美国证券法》第4(2)条或者D条例规定的私募行为来满足4(1)条项下的“非承销人”和“非承销交易”要求。

在实践中,如需使用“4(1 ½)条豁免”进行非公开转售,通常需要满足以下要求,如:受让方人数有限且为合格投资人;明确告知受让方其受让股票未经登记且有转让限制;股票凭证保留转让限制标记;不得通过公开招揽或广告吸引买方;以及须向受让方告知关于股票发行人和股票相关的信息等。

本文作者

Pan-Giordano, Catherine

潘惜唇(Catherine X. Pan-Giordano)
合伙人
全美及中国联合业务部
联席主席
潘惜唇律师是德汇全美及中国联合业务部的联席主席,在处理在美国经营的中国企业所面临的法律问题方面具备丰富的经验。潘律师毕业于哈佛大学法学院,2013年至2015年连续被评选为纽约地区“超级律师之星”,并在2014年和2015年连续被《纽约时报》评选为纽约市“最佳女律师”。

Ting Zhou

周婷 (Ting Zhou)
律师
周婷律师是德汇纽约分所公司业务团队的律师,主要专注于跨境并购、私募基金和其他商业交易。周律师毕业于华东政法大学以及哥伦比亚大学法学院。在加入德汇之前,周律师曾在中国大陆最一流的律师事务所工作。周律师具备丰富的跨国交易业务经验,曾参与多家国际跨国公司的收购兼并,以及多个私募基金设立和投资项目。周律师拥有美国纽约州律师执照和中国法律职业资格。

Firm Highlights

Insights

Observations on the SEC’s 2027 Examination Priorities

The SEC’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) recently announced its examination priorities (“Exam Priorities”) for fiscal year 2027.1 Although many of the Division’s core areas of focus remain consistent with fiscal year 2026, the 2027 Exam Priorities include notable changes and refinements, which we discuss below, along with other key 2027 examination priorities. Dorsey Observations Renewed focus on economic conflicts of interest. After certain economic-incentive topics received less emphasis in the 2026 Exam Priorities2, the Division has again expressly identified economic conflicts as an examination focus. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will prioritize reviewing advisers’ fiduciary obligations relating to economic conflicts of interest raised by fee rebates, fee and expense calculations, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, and deposits and withdrawals. Greater emphasis on private-fund practices. Building on the private-fund items in the 2026 Exam Priorities, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will assess private-fund disclosures and controls relating to investment allocations, leverage, affiliated service providers, and fees and expenses. The Division also identified investments in private companies through special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) and loans provided by private funds and business development companies (“BDCs”) as products the Division will scrutinize. Advisers, particularly private-fund advisers, should evaluate whether their disclosures and compliance programs address these areas. Expanded focus on AI-related cybersecurity risks. While the 2026 Exam Priorities focused on advisers’ use of and representations regarding artificial intelligence (“AI”), the 2027 Exam Priorities specifically highlight AI-enabled cybersecurity threats, including AI-generated phishing and synthetic or “deepfake” voice and video used for social engineering. The shift signals that registrants should consider whether their cybersecurity policies and controls adequately address these evolving threats. New focus on proxy advisory firms. The 2027 Exam Priorities state that the Division will examine advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms, including how those advisers evaluate the firms’ recommendations, assess the bases for those recommendations, identify potential conflicts of interest, and determine whether that reliance satisfies applicable legal obligations. Advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas. Updated focus on Regulation S-P and Regulation S-ID. The 2026 Exam Priorities stated that the Division would engage firms during examinations regarding their progress in preparing incident response programs ahead of the compliance dates for the amendments to Regulation S-P and would examine compliance with the amended rule after those dates. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examinations will focus on whether firms have developed, implemented, and maintained reasonably designed policies and procedures addressing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect customer information and that, in accordance with the amended rule, staff will evaluate response program policies and procedures for unauthorized access to or use of customer information, including customer notification procedures and oversight of service providers. With respect to Regulation S-ID, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examiners will assess whether firms are updating their Identity Theft Prevention Program to address emerging risks, such as those related to AI and stolen credentials. Advisers may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas, as applicable. Summary of Other 2027 Examination Priorities Beyond the developments discussed above, many of the Division’s core examination priorities remain consistent with fiscal year 2026. These include investment adviser fiduciary obligations and compliance programs, examinations of never-examined and recently registered advisers, and cybersecurity and operational resiliency. The Exam Priorities are not exhaustive, and examinations will vary based on each registrant’s business, activities and risks. Advisers should consider the 2027 Exam Priorities in reviewing their compliance programs and preparing for potential examinations, including by: Reviewing risk disclosures and controls. The Division states that, when examining advisers to private funds, it will assess whether investment-related risk disclosures are consistent with fiduciary standards and whether compliance policies, procedures, and controls are designed to address both fund-level and investment-level risks. Reviewing disclosures on allocations, leverage, and affiliated service providers. The 2027 Exam Priorities identify disclosures related to certain investments and allocations, the use of debt and fund-level lines of credit, and the use of affiliated service providers as examples. Confirming the accuracy of fee and expense calculations. The Division states that it will assess the accuracy of fee and expense calculations at both the fund and investment levels, and it identifies fee rebates, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, deposits, and withdrawals as areas in which economic conflicts of interest may affect the impartiality of advice. Reviewing recommendations of illiquid or hard-to-trade products. The Division states that it will prioritize advisers that recommend products that are difficult to trade, have unusual features, or are illiquid, including loans provided by private funds or BDCs and investments in private companies through SPVs. Confirming that the compliance program is implemented and reviewed. The Division states that it will review compliance program components such as marketing, valuation, and custody, as appropriate, and will typically analyze the annual compliance review. It will also focus on compliance practices when advisers have started advising new asset classes or clients or grown through mergers or acquisitions. 1 SEC Division of Examinations 2027 Examination Priorities. 2 See Dorsey’s Client Alert on the SEC’s fiscal year 2026 exam priorities.

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.

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

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

Insights

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

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