.

Blog Post

Looking Ahead: Enforcement Actions for Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Related to COVID-19

April 14, 2020 – FCA Now

by John Marti, Alex Hontos, Kirk Schuler, Chris DeLong, and Eric Weisenburger

Download as a PDF

Share this page

As the public health and economic responses to COVID-19 dominate the headlines and traditional government enforcement actions slow, anticipate a significant increase in government enforcement actions, internal investigations related to corporate fraud, and qui tam (whistleblower) actions in the coming months.  The CARES Act contains appropriations for tens of millions of dollars for agency inspector general enforcement.  Leaders in federal law enforcement are telling us they are shifting enforcement priorities to target individuals and businesses for fraud, waste, and abuse related to COVID-19.  This effort will last for years given the trillions of government dollars now pouring into the economy.  These investigations will focus on decisions and actions (or inactions) being made now.  Organizations must be looking to mitigate risk now.

Current Enforcement Picture – Scams, Statement Prosecutions, and Snake Oil

State law enforcement authorities are forming task forces to combat fraud, waste, and abuse related to COVID-19.  Prosecutions will initially focus on fraudsters and price gougers seeking quick gains.  Arizona and Georgia are among the latest to form such task forces, joining many others, including Nevada, South Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Louisiana.  They are also already producing results.  On April 9, for example, Georgia announced its task force arrested a woman for illegally selling an unregistered pesticide as a cure for the coronavirus.

The task forces are joint operations between state and federal agencies, which is unsurprising given the specialized knowledge of state investigators and Attorney General William Barr’s direction to every U.S. Attorney’s Office on March 16 “to prioritize the detection, investigation, and prosecution of all criminal conduct related to the current pandemic.”  The Department of Justice has also created at least one nationwide federal law enforcement task force.  In a March 24 Memorandum Attorney General Barr announced the creation of the “COVID-19 Hoarding and Price Gouging Task Force.”  This task force announced on April 10 the arrest of a man for wire fraud for attempting to sell $750 million in nonexistent personal protective equipment to the Department of Veteran Affairs.  In a March 16 letter, the National Whistleblower Center encouraged Attorney General Barr to form additional nationwide task forces, including a task force to monitor and investigate COVID-19 related False Claims Act allegations.

Small Businesses and Shareholders

On March 27, the CARES Act made $350 billion available in loans to small businesses under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).  The SBA made it clear in its Interim Final Rule that the applications, and hence the money, would be available on a “first-come, first-served” basis.  The SBA approved the final loan application form on March 31, and small businesses scrambled to submit applications beginning April 1.

The PPP loan application for borrowers requires small businesses—i.e., generally fewer than 500 employees—to certify their eligibility as a small business. Numerous businesses may run afoul of SBA’s affiliation rules, which prevent large organizations consisting of multiple small affiliated businesses from qualifying for loans intended for small businesses.  Organizations that falsely certify their small business status for federal funding are at risk for substantial penalties under the False Claims Act and other Federal enforcement statutes.  The risk is especially great here given the pressure on businesses to submit applications, the ambiguity of the loan program guidance and application materials, and the current financial pressures.

These same organizations will be under extreme financial pressure in the future to request loan forgiveness.  For example, the loan application requires the applicant to certify that they “understand that loan forgiveness will be provided for the sum of documented payroll costs, covered mortgage interest payments, covered rent payments, and covered utilities, and not more than 25% of the forgiven amount may be for non-payroll costs.”  It also requires the applicant to submit supporting documentation relative to such costs for the eight-week period following the loan.  The pressure to obtain maximum loan forgiveness will be great.  The SBA, too, has announced in its Interim Final Rule that any shareholder, member, or partner of a small business that uses PPP funds for unauthorized purposes will be subject to liability for fraud.  Task forces and whistleblowers and will be watching.

Banks and Lenders

Predatory lending practices also peak in times of crisis.  Some lending institutions will exploit American consumers to survive financially, and in the worst cases, to make substantial profits.  Consumer protection groups working with task forces are investigating these practices.  Legislators are encouraging regulators to implement rules to protect vulnerable consumers from high interest rates.  Agencies are already paying attention: the SBA is on alert for such frauds and limits the fees a broker can charge a borrower to 3% for loans $50,000 or less and 2% for loans $50,000 to $1,000,000 with an additional ¼% on amounts over $1,000,000.

The False Claims Act—and its qui tam whistleblower provision—presents significant risk for lenders and banks participating in the federal stimulus programs.  For example, the PPP loan applications require the borrower to certify “acknowledge[ment] that the lender will confirm the eligible loan amount using required documents submitted.”  But underwriting loans, where time is short and the desire to help borrowers is extremely high, may lead in hindsight to questionable loan acceptances.  Law enforcement may pursue lenders for recklessly disregarding false statements in loan applications.  Qui tam actions are inevitable.

Hospitals and Medical Providers

When the CARES Act was signed into law on March 27, it allotted $100 billion in relief funds specifically to hospitals and other healthcare providers on the front lines of the pandemic.  On April 10, as part of the “CARES Act Provider Relief Fund,” the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) distributed $30 billion of these allotted funds to eligible providers.  Payments to providers are based on their share of total Medicare fee for service reimbursements in 2019.  The payments are not loans, they are not to be repaid, and they are being automatically deposited into provider accounts via direct deposit.

Providers must sign an attestation, within thirty days of receiving the payment, confirming receipt of the funds and agreeing to HHS’s terms and conditions of payment.  These terms and conditions include a certification from the provider “that the Payment will only be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, and shall reimburse the Recipient only for health care related expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to coronavirus.”  In addition, the terms and conditions require the provider to certify “that it will not use the Payment to reimburse expenses or losses that have been reimbursed from other sources or that other sources are obligated to reimburse.”  Providers receiving other federal stimulus loans for similar relief, such as PPP loans for small business providers, may be targets of qui tam relators under the False Claims Act.  Task forces and relators will examine data months and years from now for anomalies and evidence of double dipping.

Retail Stores, Wholesalers, and Suppliers

Retailers should be wary of price increases for items that limit the spread or effect of COVID-19, such as facemasks, sanitizers, disinfectants, cough medicine, and others.  As scarcity continues to be a concern, the Department of Justice and state governments are responding by implementing and increasing enforcement of price gouging orders.

President Trump recently issued Executive Order 13910 on March 23 authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to designate certain healthcare and medical items as protected.  Under the Order and the Defense Production Act, it is a crime to accumulate designated items—which include ventilators, respirators, PPE such as face masks and gloves, sterilization products, and disinfectant products—either over a person’s reasonable needs or to sell it over prevailing market prices.  Attorney General Barr issued a March 24 Memorandum (described in the introduction) stating the Department’s intent to investigate and prosecute violators of the Order and creating the COVID-19 Hoarding and Price Gouging Task Force.

Retail stores are at particular risk of enforcement actions related to these orders and should take care when adjusting prices for protected equipment.  In New York City alone, the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection has received more than 7,200 complaints of price gouging related to COVID-19.  New York City has filed three lawsuits against repeat offenders seeking over $100,000 in fines.  With more states putting similar orders into place and the creation of the federal task force, greater enforcement of price gouging rules is inevitable.

Procurement Fraud

Although it received less attention than the new loan programs, the straight appropriations in the CARES Act presents increased fraud risk.  Appropriated funds will be used to procure PPE, vaccines, COVID-19 tests and other medical supplies, cleaning services, and to fund the construction of new field hospitals and healthcare facilities.

Enforcement against procurement fraud is already underway.  As noted in the introduction, the Department of Justice announced on April 10 that it arrested and charged a Georgia man with wire fraud after fraudulently misrepresenting his ability to deliver 125 million facemasks and other personal protective equipment from domestic suppliers to the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The orders would have totaled more than $750 million.  As precedent, in the two years after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Justice brought 800 prosecutions and conducted numerous qui tam and non-qui tam investigations.

Businesses working to fulfill orders for personal protective equipment and other supplies are facing significant increased demand.  Businesses must guard against producing substandard products, ignoring product failures and flaws, and passing through counterfeit product, all of which may lead to civil and criminal enforcement actions.

These concerns apply equally to products in development.  Businesses developing therapies and treatments for COVID-19 are under intense market pressure to bring their product to market.  While there is insatiable demand for products that treat the virus, its symptoms, and/or prevent its spread, a business that prematurely brings a product to market that causes patient harm may face substantial exposure after the emergency passes.

Whether businesses are new to the government procurement process or serve only government customers, the desire to move quickly cannot ignore compliance risk.  Businesses must certify compliance with applicable regulations in exchange for payment from the government.  Businesses must still pay attention to the details while working fast to satisfy government needs and being paid for that work.

What Can My Organization Do Now?

  • Understand the key legal remedies that will drive future risk—statutes like the False Claims Act.
  • Pay attention to the details of government loan and procurement programs.  Know what is required and comply.  The implementing rules are a moving target and are being created “on the fly”—there is no substitute for understanding the details to minimize enforcement risk.
  • Maintain internal controls and due-diligence procedures—through the good times and the hard times.
  • Internal investigations remain—even in this environment—the key tool to identify and mitigate risks.  While internal investigation activity may be slowed by the pandemic and its economic effects, curtailing investigations creates risk that the organization lacks visibility into misconduct or allegations of misconduct.
  • Take internal complaints seriously.  A cottage industry of qui tam relators is coming; the False Claims Act bar is recruiting whistleblowers now.  You can mitigate that risk when internal whistleblowers feel “heard” and have their complaints addressed promptly and effectively.
  • Understand the value of a timely, well-packaged voluntary disclosure to law enforcement or to the applicable agency.  Busy agents and prosecutors may be receptive to “fully potted” disclosures and offer maximum cooperation credit in return.

Firm Highlights

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

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.