.

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

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

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

 

Firm Highlights

Insights

EPA Limits Title V Re-Litigation of NSR Permits

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

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - September 2026

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

Insights

SEC Proposes Expansion of Investment Adviser Performance-Based Compensation Rule

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

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 8, 2026

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