.

Client Alert

德汇美国破产法问答 （系列之一） Dorsey U.S. Bankruptcy Law Q&A Series One

October 9, 2020

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

Download as a PDF

Share this page

德汇律师事务所 破产法团队
Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team

随着新型冠状病毒继续对全球经济造成负面影响，最近在美国根据美国破产法第11章申请破产的案件数量继续上升，并很可能会持续一段时间。如果您是一位外国供应商，当您的美国客户或买家申请第11章破产保护时，您应该如何应对呢？本问答系列旨在为申请破产的美国公司的海外供应商提供实用建议，其中包括中国外贸出口企业。本问答系列的第一篇文章将为您解答并介绍一些迫切需要考虑的基本问题和因素。我们将在后续文章中对其中多个问题和考量因素进行更详细地讲解（包括供应商索赔、破产程序中的权利保护、破产是如何运作的，以及第11章破产计划的程序）。

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to negatively impact the global economy, the recent surge in Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings in the United States is likely to continue for some time to come. If you are a foreign supplier, what do you do when a U.S. customer files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection? This Q&A series aims to provide practical advice to foreign trade creditors (including Chinese suppliers) of bankruptcy U.S. companies. The first in the series will address general questions and considerations, many of which will be addressed in greater detail in future series which will cover specific issues relating to claims of suppliers, protecting rights in a bankruptcy proceeding, how bankruptcy works, and the Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan process.

问题1：什么是“第11章破产”？它与其他破产程序有何不同？

Question: What is Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and how is it different from other bankruptcy proceedings?

“第11章破产”允许企业通过一个法院监督下的程序重组其财务，其主要目标是促进企业在未来继续长久经营。第11章破产允许债务人企业继续“持有”公司业务，即该公司继续由破产申请提交前的管理层经营。

Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows businesses to reorganize their financial affairs in a court-monitored process whose primary goal is to facilitate businesses to continue operating into the future. Chapter 11 allows debtor businesses to remain “in possession”, that is, the company continues to be operated by the same management as before the bankruptcy case was filed.

企业的另一种破产程序选择是“第7章破产”。该程序涉及受托人的任命以及对债务人的清算。一旦该破产程序开始，该企业就将停止运营。尽管相关统计数据显示许多第11章破产案件均告失败，但大型案件（即涉及资产超过1千万美元的公司）往往有更高的重组成功率，尤其是在各利益相关人支持重组的情况下，包括债务人的供应商愿意继续与债务人进行业务往来的情况。

The alternative is Chapter 7 which involves the appointment of a trustee and liquidation of the debtor, which ceases operating once the bankruptcy case begins. While relevant statistics reflect that many chapter 11 cases fail, the larger cases (i.e. companies with over $10 million in assets) tend to have better rates of success, particularly when various stakeholders support the reorganization, including vendors willing to continue dealing with the debtor.

问题2：在第11章破产案件中会发生哪些重要的交易和事件？

Question: What are the significant transactions and events that occur in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case?

在任何第11章破产案件中都会发生一些重大交易。虽然每个案件的情况都有所不同，但主要可能发生以下重大交易：

A number of significant transactions will take place in any Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, and each case is different, but the following are likely to occur:

  • 在破产案件的首日，债务人将提交“首日”动议，以寻求破产法院的授权，使其得以开展其在破产前的正常运营过程中可以开展、但在破产中需要法院许可才可以开展的各种活动。该等活动包括，向债务人提供货物和服务、持续向债务人提供维持其经营能力所必要的货物和服务的 “关键供应商”付款，以及举债向该等关键供应商付款。

    On the first day of the case, the debtor will file “first day” motions seeking authority to do a variety of things that it would have been able to do in the ordinary course of business outside of bankruptcy, but require court permission in bankruptcy. This includes paying “critical vendors” that supply goods and services to debtors and whose continued provision of goods and services is essential to debtors’ ability to operate, and borrowing money to be able to pay those critical vendors.

  • 美国受托人（隶属美国司法部）可以任命一个无担保债权人委员会来代表案件中的所有无担保债权人。

    The U.S. Trustee (which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice) may appoint a committee of unsecured creditors to act on behalf of all unsecured creditors in the case.

  • 债务人将提交详细的资产负债表。

    The debtor will file detailed schedules of assets and liabilities.

  • 债务人将每月提交一份经营报告，详细列出所有收入和支出以及未偿债务。

    The debtor will file monthly operating reports detailing all receipts and disbursements, as well as outstanding liabilities.

  • 根据《美国破产法》的规定，债务人可以寻求出售无任何留置权、权利主张和权利负担的财产。

    The debtor may seek to sell property free and clear of all liens, claims, and encumbrances, as provided by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

  • 根据《美国破产法》的规定，债务人可以寻求承接或拒绝未完全履行的合同和未到期的租约。

    The debtor may seek to assume or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases, as provided by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

  • 法院将规定提出权利主张的截止日期。在此之后，法院将禁止债权人对债务人提出索赔。

    The court will establish a deadline for filing claims, after which the creditor would be barred from asserting claims against the debtor.

  • 债务人可以通过诉讼追回破产之前进行转移的某些资产。

    The debtor may commence litigation to claw back certain transfers made prior to the bankruptcy.

  • 在某些情况下，债务人在申请破产时已经准备好了一项重组计划（称为“预先准备完毕的计划”）。但更常见的是，债务人将与利益相关方（例如有担保债权人和无担保债权人委员会）进行谈判，以制定一项重组计划。经法院批准，该重组计划将被分发给债权人，债权人将就是否接受该计划进行投票。如果该重组计划得到法院的认可，则该计划将规定所有当事人在未来的权利、如何处理各项主张，以及债权人的可追偿的百分比。

    In certain instances, debtors come into bankruptcy with a plan of reorganization already prepared (a “prepack”), but more commonly, debtors will negotiate with parties in interest, such as their secured creditors and the committee of unsecured creditors, to formulate a plan of reorganization. With court approval, the plan will be circulated to creditors who will get to vote on whether to accept or reject the plan. If the plan is confirmed by the court, it will dictate all parties’ rights going forward, how claims will be treated, and the percentage of recovery on creditors’ claims.

问题3：什么是自动中止令？

Question: What is the automatic stay?

“自动中止令”在任何类型的破产案件提交后立即生效。自动中止令禁止采取任何行动来收回债务人所欠的债务，并且适用于债务人持有的位于任何地方的（在美国或世界其他地区的）所有财产。自动中止令仅保护已申请破产的债务人本身，不保护该债务人旗下未列入破产范围内的子公司和关联企业。

Immediately upon the filing of any kind of bankruptcy case, the “automatic stay” comes into effect. The automatic stay prohibits taking any actions to collect debts owed by the debtor and applies to all property owned by debtors wherever located – in the U.S. or elsewhere in the world. The automatic stay only protects entities that have filed for bankruptcy protection. It does not protect non-debtor affiliates.

虽然美国以外的国家未必总是承认美国破产法下的自动中止令，该自动中止令确实于破产案件提交时立刻生效。违反自动中止令的一方将有可能受到破产法院的制裁。

While the automatic stay may not always be recognized outside the U.S., it does apply the moment a bankruptcy case is filed. Parties that violate the automatic stay may be subject to sanctions by the bankruptcy court.

问题4：第11章破产程序的进展有多快？

Question: How quickly does the Chapter 11 process play out?

这取决于每个案件的事实和实际情况。一个成功的“预先准备完毕的计划””的第11章破产案件，即一个在开案前就已经就重组计划协商取得一致安排的案件，可以在一至两个月内完成。大多数未预先准备完毕的案件至少需要四个月，并且可能会持续数年。

It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. A successful “prepackaged” Chapter 11 case, where a plan is negotiated prior to initiation of the case, can be completed in a matter of one or two months. Most non-prepackaged cases take at least four months and may last years.

问题5：在第11章破产案件中，外贸债权人面临的最大挑战是什么？为保护我们的权利，我们应该如何应对？

Question: What are the biggest challenges to foreign trade creditors and what should we do to protect our rights in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case?

在收到您的美国客户或买家已递交破产申请的通知后，您应立即联系值得信赖的美国律师。法院将就您提起权利主张和就反对可能影响您权利的救济措施的时间规定截止日期。如果您错过了该等截止日期，则您可能无法收到您要求债务人支付的金额，或者您可能无法要求法院就影响您权利的事项听取您的诉求。

You should contact trusted U.S. counsel promptly upon receipt of notice that a company that you supply has filed a bankruptcy petition. The court will set deadlines for filing claims and for objecting to relief that may affect your rights. If you miss those deadlines, you may not be able to receive a distribution on your claim or be heard on matters affecting your rights.

作为已申请破产的美国企业的供应商，如果您继续与该企业进行业务往来，则您可能因在正常业务过程中出售的商品而有权收回货款或在索赔事宜上有优先权，这可能使您有权全额收回某些款项。

As a trade creditor, if you continue to do business with the debtor, you may be entitled to reclamation or priority claims on account of goods sold in the ordinary course of business which may entitle you to a full recovery of a portion of your claim.

***

请您密切关注本系列的第二篇文章，该文章将解答诸如破产申请将如何影响供应商和其供应合同、以及如何安全地与处于破产状态的公司保持业务往来的问题。

Please keep an eye out for Series Two which will address questions relating to how suppliers and their supply contracts are impacted by a bankruptcy filing and how to safely keep doing business with a company in bankruptcy.

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

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.

德汇破产法团队

Dorsey & Whitney Bankruptcy Team

 

Firm Highlights

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?

News

Dorsey Recognized in Inaugural 2026 IAM/WTR Copyright 1000

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce its recognition in the inaugural edition of the Copyright 1000: The World’s Leading Copyright Professionals, published by IAM and World Trademark Review (WTR). Nine Dorsey attorneys were individually recognized, and the Firm’s Denver, Minneapolis, New York, Salt Lake City, and Seattle offices were recognized in the firm rankings. The following Dorsey attorneys were recognized in the inaugural guide: Lindsey Sadler Gregory Tamkin Charlene Krogh Evan Everist Jeffrey Cadwell Fara Sunderji Bruce Ewing Catherine Parrish Lake J. Michael Keyes The Copyright 1000 is the first dedicated ranking focused solely on the world’s leading copyright practitioners. The guide identifies leading copyright firms and practitioners across key jurisdictions worldwide. Dorsey’s intellectual property attorneys advise clients on a wide range of copyright matters, including protection, enforcement, licensing, litigation, transactions, and issues involving emerging technologies and digital content. The inaugural Copyright 1000 rankings are published by IAM and WTR.

News

Dorsey’s London Corporate Practice and Partners Earn Chambers UK 2027 Rankings

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

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.

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

News

Attorney John Cooney Returns to Dorsey in the Finance & Restructuring Group in Minneapolis

The image shows classic stone columns and steps, which often represent government buildings, courthouses, or legal institutions.

Insights

The Supreme Court Update - October 14, 2026

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

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.