.

Client Alert

(德汇美国破产法问答系列之四)Dorsey U.S. Bankruptcy Law Q&A Series Four

December 10, 2020

by Samuel S. Kohn, Alessandra Glorioso, Catherine X. Pan-Giordano, Rachel P. Stoian, and Abby Fang

Download as a PDF

Share this page

德汇 外国供应商破产法团队
Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers

希望我们的美国破产法问答系列一、系列二和系列三 “如何应对美国客户申请第11章破产保护”的文章(系列一、系列二、系列三的文章)对您有所裨益。本文为该系列第四篇文章,将针对在第十一章破产案件中权利主张的提起和处理进行讲解。
We hope that you found the three 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, and Three]. This Series Four will address questions relating to how claims are filed and dealt with in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

1. 问题:在破产案件中是否应在某一截止日期前提出权利主张?如有,应如何确定该截止日期?
Question: Is there a deadline for filing claims and, if so, how do I find out that deadline? 

在破产案件中提出权利主张的截止日期称为“申索截止日”。这是破产案件中最重要的时间点之一。超过规定时间提出的权利主张确实可能会被禁止。不幸的是,在第十一章破产案件中,申索截止日的确定不存在统一的标准。甚至,在一些州,第十一章破产案件债务人必须向法院提交申请设定申索截止日。而在另一些州,申索截止日在提交破产案件时便自动设定。虽然,法律要求必须向所有已知债权人送达申索截止日的通知,但聘请一名美国破产法律师监督整个破产案件的进程以便尽早确认申索截止日,甚至在债权人获得通知之前确认申索截止日是非常重要的。
The deadline to file claims in a bankruptcy case is referred to as the “bar date” and it is one of the most critical dates in the bankruptcy case. Indeed, if a claim is filed late, it may be disallowed. Unfortunately, there is no standard manner in which bar dates are set in Chapter 11 cases. Rather, in some judicial districts, Chapter 11 debtors must file an application with the bankruptcy court to have a bar date set. In other judicial districts, the bar date is set automatically when the case is filed. Although notice of the bar date must be served on all known creditors, it is important to have a U.S. bankruptcy attorney monitor a Chapter 11 case to identify the bar date as promptly as possible, and even prior to when notice is sent to creditors. 

2. 问题:提出权利主张应遵循何种程序?
Question: What is the process for filing a claim?

尽管权利主张证明的文件看上去相对简单且直观,但填写该文件需要大量信息,尤其是在美国域外的债权人,应当在律师的协助下准备文件,从而避免出现导致权利主张被禁止的错误,并更好地保护其作为破产案件债权人的权利。为了让您以及您的律师更好地填完权利主张证明文件,您需要提供债务人在提起破产申请之日所欠债务的金额的详细信息,包括利息和相关费用。提交权利主张证明的同时,您还需要提交支持性附件,或者解释您为何无法提交该等文件。虽然债权人必须在权利主张证明表格上注明债权数目、类型和本质等信息,我们建议您提交一份附录。该附录应详细地阐明所提权利主张之依据,并对有关您的权利主张做出重要的权利保留声明。
While the proof of claim form is relatively simple and straightforward, it requires a substantial amount of information and, particularly with respect to claims of creditors located outside the U.S., should be prepared with the assistance of counsel in order to avoid mistakes that could result in your claim being disallowed and to best protect your rights as a creditor in the bankruptcy case. In order for you or your attorney to complete the form, you will need detailed information about how much was owed as of the date the debtor filed its bankruptcy case, including interest and fees. You will also need to submit supporting documents along with the proof of claim or an explanation as to why such documents are unavailable. While the creditor must note the amount, type, and nature of the claim on the proof of claim form itself, it is advisable to include an addendum to your claim that sets forth in greater detail the basis of the claim and includes important reservation of rights provisions regarding your claim. 

鉴于权利主张证明是在受“伪证罪”的规制下签署的,您应当确保,尽您所知,该权利主张证明文件是真实的。填写完该权利主张文件后,您需要将其提交。在一些案件中,权利主张文件是直接通过破产法院的电子提交系统进行提交的。但在大型案件中,破产法院指定的处理第三方索赔的管理人,既接受纸质版也接受电子版的权利主张文件。美国破产法律师能够确保您的权利主张文件正确且及时提交。一旦提交,该权利主张证明在某些情况下(甚至在申索截止日后)可以被修改。
You should ensure that the proof of claim is true to the best of your knowledge, because proofs of claim are executed under penalty of perjury. Once the proof of claim is completed, it will need to be filed. In some cases, claims are filed directly with the bankruptcy court through the e-filing system. But, in larger cases, a third-party claims administrator appointed by the court accepts the filing of claims either in hard copy or electronically. A U.S. bankruptcy attorney will be able to ensure the claim is correctly and timely filed. Once filed, proofs of claim may be amended (even after the bar date), in certain circumstances. 

3. 问题:在第11章破产法案件中,不同类型的债权将被如何受偿?是否会有债权被优先受偿?
Question: How are different types of claims treated in Chapter 11 and are certain claims given priority over others? 

第11章案件中的债权处理方法取决于该债权的类型。
How claims are treated in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case depends on the type of claim:

  • 有担保债权,在大多数情况下,不受破产申报的影响,享受在破产申报之前同样的担保。如果有担保债权人的抵押物价值低于其申报债权,则有担保债权人将被视为对不超过该抵押物价值的部分持有担保债权,对超过该抵押物价值的剩余部分持一般无担保债权。因此,有担保债权一般来说,在破产案件中,会被以现金或其他方式全额支付(不超过相关抵押物价值),或者在破产过程中仍受担保,不受破产程序的影响。
    Secured claims, in most instances, remain unaffected by the bankruptcy filing and are deemed to be secured to the same extent as prior to the bankruptcy. If the value of the secured creditor’s collateral is less than its claim, the secured creditor will be treated as having a partially secured claim up to the value of the collateral and a general unsecured claim for the balance. As a result, secured claims generally should either be paid in full (up to the value of the underlying collateral), in cash or other distributions, or the claims remain secured and pass through the bankruptcy case unaffected.
  • 行政费用债权,是指在破产程序中被给予最优先受偿权的债权。这些债权一般是指破产财产会直接从中受益的那些债权,例如在破产案件期间向债务人销售货物和提供服务而发生的费用。尽管大多数行政费用债权产生在破产案件期间,但对破产申请递交之前的20日内,向债务人供货而产生的债权也被视为行政费用债权,会得到优先受偿。除特定的有限例外情况外,所有行政费用必须全额支付,第11章计划才能被通过。
    Administrative expense claims are those that are given first priority of payment in the bankruptcy case. These claims are generally for those that directly benefit the bankruptcy estate, such as the cost of goods and services supplied to the debtor during the bankruptcy case. While most administrative expense claims arise during the bankruptcy case, claims for goods sold in the 20 days prior to the bankruptcy filing are also given administrative expense priority. Subject to certain limited exceptions, all administrative expense claims must be paid in full in order for a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed.
  • 优先债权,是指发生于破产程序前,但应优先受偿的债权。该类债权包括对债务人的雇员工资和福利(受制于最高限额)、特定税收和特定客户存款。在资金充足的情况下,破产法要求这些债权必须在破产计划确认后不久或一段时间内全部偿付,以便第11章破产计划得以通过。
    Priority claims are those that arose prior to the bankruptcy case, but are entitled to priority of payment. These claims include claims for the debtor’s employee wages and benefits (up to a cap), certain taxes, and certain customer deposits. To the extent there are sufficient funds, the Bankruptcy Code requires that these claims be paid in full, either soon after confirmation or over time, in order for a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed.
  • 一般无担保债权,是指那些发生在破产程序前,但是无法获得优先受偿的债权。这些债权包括那些债权人不享有担保权益的,在破产申请前向债务人出售货物或提供服务且在上述20天窗口期外而产生的债权。一般无担保债权只有在全部优先债权得到全额偿付后,才有权得到受偿,而且往往只能得到很小比例的受偿。
    General unsecured claims are those that arose prior to the bankruptcy case and not entitled to priority treatment. These claims include those for goods and services sold to a debtor prior to the bankruptcy filing and outside the 20-day window discussed above, and for which the creditor did not obtain a security interest. General unsecured claims are only entitled to payment after all priority claims are paid in full and often only receive a small percentage recovery.
  • 股权利益,是归属于股东的,且在某些例外情况下,只有在所有债权人都得到全额偿付后才有权获得偿付。
    Equity interests are those belonging to shareholders and, subject to certain exceptions, are only entitled to payment after all creditors are paid in full.

以上是在一件破产计划得以通过的第11章破产的成功案件中,对不同债权的预期处理方式。如果第11章破产案件未能成功,那么各种债权的偿付顺序可能会改变。我们会在之后的系列中讲解在第11章确认计划无法形成的情况下对各种债权的处理。
The foregoing treatment is what can be expected in a successful Chapter 11 case that results in a confirmed plan. In the event a Chapter 11 case is not successful, the priorities may change. We will address what happens in unsuccessful cases in a future series. 

4. 问题:供应商是否能阻止其债务的清偿?
Question: Can a supplier seek to bar the discharge of its debt?

可以,但允许其这么做的法律依据是有限的。《破产法》规定了阻止债务清偿的若干理由。为基于债权产生于欺诈、挪用、或者故意或恶意伤害的理由而确认一项债务为不可偿还的债务,债权人必须向破产法院提起诉讼以寻求前述确认。如果您认为存在阻止债务清偿的理由,您应该尽快咨询美国破产法律师,因为一项不可清偿债务的动议应当在第一次债权人341会议之后的60日之内提起(点击查看系列三中关于债权人341会议的内容)。
Yes, but permissible bases for doing so are limited. The Bankruptcy Code sets forth a number of grounds for preventing a debt from being discharged. In order to have a debt determined to be non-dischargeable on the basis that it arose from fraud, defalcation, or willful or malicious injury, a creditor must commence an action in the bankruptcy court to request such a determination. You should consult a U.S. bankruptcy attorney if you believe there are grounds for barring the discharge of your debt as soon as possible, as the deadline for commencing a non-dischargeability action is 60 days after the first Section 341 meeting of creditors (see Series Three for more information on such meetings).

5. 问题:如果债务人不同意供应商主张的金额和类型,怎么办?
Question: What happens if the debtor disagrees with the amount or nature of a supplier’s claim?

如果债务人,或受托人,或其他被授权维护债务人权利的人,不同意您在权利主张证明中所述的权利主张(无论就索赔金额还是索赔类型),债务人可能直接找您协商解决争议,也可能向破产法院提起异议,说明为何债务人认为您的权利主张是错误的,被禁止的或应该被禁止的。无论如何,谨慎的做法是聘请美国破产法律师,通过非正式协商或者正式回应债务人异议的方式,代表您解决任何索赔纠纷。提请您注意,《破产法》或《破产法规则》没有规定提出异议的最后期限,且通常,第11章计划允许在计划确认后提出异议。
If a debtor – or a trustee or other party authorized to object to claims asserted against the debtor – disagrees with what you have asserted in your proof of claim (whether the amount of the claim or its type), the debtor may either reach out to you directly to resolve the dispute or it may file an objection with the bankruptcy court setting forth why the debtor believes the claim is incorrect or barred, or should be disallowed. Regardless, it is prudent to retain U.S. bankruptcy counsel to resolve any claims dispute on your behalf, either through informal negotiations or by formally responding to an objection. Keep in mind, there are no deadlines for filing objections to claims in the Bankruptcy Code or Bankruptcy Rules and, often, Chapter 11 plans will permit the filing of objections to claims after confirmation. 

6. 问题:无担保债权人是否可以出售其债权?
Question: Can an unsecured creditor sell its claim?

当然可以。与案件一样,破产案件中不存在任何保证,尤其是无担保债权人的受偿。因此,如果您持有无担保债权,您可能希望自己至少可以考虑将您的债权打折出售给第三方,以获得一定有保障的赔偿,而非干等到结案且已完成了对该等债权人的分配(如有)。
Yes, absolutely. As with anything, there are no guarantees in bankruptcy, particularly with respect to recoveries for unsecured creditors. Accordingly, if you are holding an unsecured claim, you may wish to at least consider the option of selling the claim to a third party at a discount to obtain some guaranteed recovery rather than wait until the conclusion of the case and the distribution, if any, to holders of such claims.

***

请密切关注本系列的第五篇文章,该文章将解答关于破产案件中无担保债权人正式委员会的作用,以及是否需要参加该委员会还是与其他债权人一起非正式地参与联合行动。
Please keep an eye out for Series Five which will address questions relating to the role of official committees of unsecured creditors in bankruptcy and whether to join such a committee or to informally join forces with other creditors in a case.

-------------------------------------------

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 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.

外国供应商破产法团队
Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team for Foreign Suppliers

 

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.

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.

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.

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.