.

Client Alert

Brave New World: China’s New Foreign Investment Law

August 12, 2019

Download as a PDF

Share this page

On March 15th, 2019, the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislation body, promulgated a new PRC Foreign Investment Law (《中华人民共和国外商投资法》, “FIL”), which is set to come into effect on January 1st, 2020. The FIL will replace and repeal the existing PRC Foreign Invested Enterprise Law (《中华人民共和国外资企业法》), PRC Sino-Foreign Equity Joint Venture Law (《中华人民共和国中外合资企业法》) and PRC Sino-Foreign Cooperative Joint Venture Law (《中华人民共和国中外合作经营企业法》) (collectively, “FIE Laws”), as a single unified guiding document to regulate foreign investment in China.

China’s first attempt to reform its foreign investment regime was in January 2015, when the legislation was circulated for public consultation under a slightly different Chinese name from that of the FIL --《中华人民共和国外国投资法（草案征求意见稿）》 (“2015 Draft”). The 42-provision FIL differs significantly from the more specific 170-provision 2015 Draft, and sets out general principles to promote foreign investment in China by enhancing protections for foreign investors’ rights and interests and addressing concerns concerning unequal market access, weak intellectual property protection and forced technology transfers. The new law is viewed by some commentators and foreign media as a positive response to the concerns raised by the U.S. and European companies during the ongoing US-China trade war.

National Treatment and Greater Protection of Foreign Investment

  • Broader Market Access – Pre-entry National Treatment and Negative List Approach
    According to Article 4 of the FIL, a pre-entry national treatment and negative list approach will be taken to ensure that foreign investors are to be treated no less favorably than domestic investors during set up, acquisition and expansion. A negative list regulating market entry by foreign investors was first released in 2013 for Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone. The nationwide negative list was then released in 2016 after the negative list regime had been tested in other pilot free trade zones in 2015. The most recent version of the negative list was issued on June 30th, 2019. The 40-item restricted/prohibited industry list was much shorter than previous versions.

    Articles 40 and 41 of the FIL subject foreign investment to separate regulation in the financial sector including banking, securities, insurance and foreign exchange, and there are restrictions on market entry for investors from countries or regions which place discriminatory, restrictive or similar measures on Chinese investment.

  • Protection of Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets
    Article 22 of the FIL emphasizes the protection of intellectual property rights of foreign investors and FIEs. It encourages technology collaboration between foreign investors and their Chinese counterparts on a fair and voluntary basis, and bars government officials from using administrative measures to force technology transfers. Article 23 of the FIL imposes obligations on administrative or other officers not to disclose foreign investors’ and FIEs’ trade secrets to any third party of which they become aware during the performance of their duties.

    These two articles aim to protect foreign investors and FIEs from illegal government interference, which is intended to address the concerns of some foreign investors. However, the definition and legal consequences arising from “forced technology transfer” are left unclear in the FIL. Again, we will need to await the issuance of implementing regulations to see how such commitments will be carved out in practice.

  • Other Major Measures for Promoting and Protecting Foreign Investment
    Apart from broader market access and intellectual property protection, the FIL also introduces the other measures to promote and protect foreign investment, such as assurances that foreign investors will be given adequate opportunity to comment on foreign investment related laws in process1, equal participation in formulating standards2, equal participation in government procurement projects3, assurances that they will be able to take FIEs public on stock exchanges by way of share or bond issuances or raise money through other means4, prohibition from arbitrary expropriation, assurances of due process and fair compensation5, freer movement of cross-border remittances6, and requirements for governments to honor policy commitments made to, and contracts lawfully entered into with, foreign investors and/or FIEs.7

Management of Foreign Investment

  • Foreign Investment Information Reporting System
    A foreign investment information reporting system will be established according to Article 34 of the FIL, according to which foreign investors or FIEs are required to submit investment information to competent commercial administration authorities.

    Chapter 5 of the 2015 Draft stipulated rules for the reporting system, setting out details such as who shall make the report and by when, what to report and how to report. This entire chapter was replaced by Article 34 of the FIL. We expect to see in due course more detail as to how the future reporting system will differ from the current “National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System” operated by State Administration for Market Regulation.

  • National Security Review
    Article 35 of the FIL states that investment which harms or could harm national security is subject to national security review, and that a decision for a national security review is final and cannot be challenged or appealed.

    China's national security review (“NSR”) regime has been gradually put into place since 2011. Article 35, as opposed to Chapter 4 of the 2015 Draft, only restates the existence of the national security review regime. It does not clarify practical questions including the triggers of such review, review standards, review procedures etc. Also, it is not clear whether the existing laws and regulations will continue to be applied or be replaced by further implementing regulations of the FIL. Currently, with few published cases since 2011 and no implementing regulations or interpretations issued, foreign investors should be prepared to proactively manage uncertainty arising from the NSR risk in sensitive industries.

Impact on Foreign Invested Enterprises

Existing FIE Laws will be repealed and replaced by the FIL as of January 1st, 2020. Thereafter, FIEs must comply with the PRC Company Law (《中华人民共和国公司法》) and the PRC Partnership Enterprise Law (《中华人民共和国合伙企业法》) in the same manner as their domestic counterparts. Further, a five-year transitional period is granted to existing FIEs established to bring themselves into line with the FIL after it comes into effect in 2020.

FIEs established under the FIE Laws can maintain their existing organizational and corporate governance structures until the fifth anniversary after the FIL comes into effect. This means shareholders/partners of existing FIEs have to revisit corporate governance terms and amend the constitutional corporate documents including the articles of association and the joint venture contract to comply with the unified corporate regime. For example, the highest decision making body of an equity joint venture under the current FIE Laws is the board of directors, which should be changed to the shareholders’ meeting to accommodate the PRC Company Law. As such, foreign investors of such existing FIEs should start to consider how to adjust their existing corporate governance structures (i.e. scope of authority of the board and the shareholders, composition of the board and allocation of voting power etc.) to reflect the current PRC Company Law.

Foreign investors that set up a joint venture before January 1st, 2020, will still be subject to the FIE Laws, which means they have to change their corporate governance in five months’ time to comply with the FIL. Absent implementing rules addressing this situation, such foreign investors should consider delaying establishment to avoid renegotiation of corporate terms.

Expectation of Clarification of Definition of Foreign Investment

Article 2 of the FIL defines foreign investment as investment activities, directly or indirectly, conducted by foreign individuals, companies, or other organizations in China. More specifically, investment falling within the following four categories will be regulated by the FIL:

  1. establishment of a foreign invested enterprise (“FIE”) in China individually by a foreign investor or jointly by a foreign investor with other investor(s);
  2. acquisition of shares, equity, property or other similar rights and interests of a Chinese domestic enterprise;
  3. investment in a new project in China individually by a foreign investor or jointly by a foreign investor with other investor(s);
  4. investment in other forms as stipulated in laws, administrative regulations or permitted by the State Council.

Under the current foreign investment regime, Chinese individuals are not eligible to set up a new FIE together with foreign investors. The FIL is silent on the eligibility of Chinese shareholder/partner to become a party to a foreign investment. So, literally interpreted, unless otherwise provided by other new laws, regulations or rules, it appears that Chinese individuals can be investors in foreign investment projects after the current FIE laws are repealed.

The FIL is not clear on the definition of “indirect investment” – will the nationality of an investor be determined by the nationality of its ultimate controller or merely by such investor’s nationality or place of incorporation? Also, the FIL does not address the question about whether a variable interest entity (“VIE”) will be governed by the foreign investment regime. The VIE structure is a contractual arrangement commonly used by Chinese companies in restricted or prohibited industries to foreign investment that seek to be financed or listed outside China. Such investment structures have been tolerated by the Chinese government for many years. The 2015 Draft addresses the VIE issue by treating domestic enterprises controlled by foreign investors as de facto foreign investors (Article 11) and imposes penalties on schemes (including contractual arrangements) that circumvent foreign investment restrictions or prohibitions (Article 149). Although the FIL does not adopt the “control” approach in the 2015 Draft, it is still not clear whether the VIE structure is covered by the catch-all category of “investment in other forms as stipulated in laws, administrative regulations or permitted by the State Council” as set out in Article 2 of the FIL. 

Conclusion

The FIL purports to create a more level playing field and a more stable, fair, consistent and predictable foreign investment regime, and to enhance the protection of the rights and interests of foreign investors. While it can be considered a positive sign in support of foreign investment by the PRC government, the FIL is still only a high level guidance document in the style and form of other high level PRC legislation with vague language and lacking provisions in respect of detailed implementation. In particular, the scope of foreign investment and how information reporting and national security review systems work are left without definition. The uncertainty of the FIL, as well as enforcement of the FIL at all levels, still remains unclear. More detailed implementing regulations are expected in due course which should help foreign investors ascertain the law’s full impact. 

Dorsey & Whitney LLP is a foreign law firm registered with the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China. Under current Chinese regulations, we are allowed to provide information concerning the effects of the Chinese legal environment, but, like all international law firms with offices in the PRC, we are not authorized to issue opinions, determinations, or certifications in respect of, the application of PRC law. We work in cooperation with a number of Chinese law firms. Should you require a legal opinion in respect of any Chinese law matter, we would be happy to assist you in obtaining one from a Chinese firm.

1 See Article 10 of the FIL
2 See Article 15 of the FIL
3 See Article 16 of the FIL
4 See Article 17 of the FIL
5 See Article 20 of the FIL
6 See Article 21 of the FIL
7 See Article 25 of the FIL

 

Firm Highlights

News

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

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Jeff Beelaert Joins Dorsey in Boise

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

News

Regulatory Affairs Partner Randy Dann Joins Dorsey

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