.

Client Alert

Prepare to Comply with SEC’s Share Repurchase Disclosure Rules

September 21, 2023

by Cam C. Hoang

Download as a PDF

Share this page

Beginning with the first filing that covers the first full fiscal quarter that begins on or after October 1, 2023, most US-listed issuers will be required to make more extensive disclosures on their share repurchase programs and insider transactions proximate to a program’s announcement. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted final rules for these disclosures. The rules do not require day-after reporting of share repurchases, as was originally proposed; however, they do require a quarterly report on share repurchases on a daily basis (vs on a monthly basis, as currently required) and additional detail regarding the structure of an issuer’s repurchase program. Furthermore, the rules require issuers to tag the disclosure using Inline XBRL.

Domestic issuers will disclose the total repurchases made each day for the quarter in their Form 10-Qs and Form 10-Ks (for their fourth fiscal quarters) on a new Exhibit 26, pursuant to Items 703 and 601 of Regulation S-K. We have linked a Word version of Exhibit 26 for easy reference.

Corporate share repurchase programs have been under public scrutiny, and subject to allegations that they are used to enhance short-term performance and boost executive compensation metrics, such as earnings per share, at the expense of long-term investment in the business. And with the implementation of these rules, investors and other third parties will be able to analyze the timing of issuer repurchases in relation to insider transactions and corporate events at a more granular level.

The US Chamber of Commerce has sued the SEC in an effort to block implementation of the rule, under the Administrative Procedure Act and the US Constitution, saying the mandatory disclosure requirements "not only risk the public airing of important managerial decisions but also compel speech in violation of the First Amendment.” As of this date, the Fifth Circuit has not enjoined implementation of the rules.

Which issuers are subject to the share repurchase disclosure requirements?

All US-listed issuers are subject to the amended disclosure rules, including foreign private issuers filing on Form 20-F (“FPIs”), emerging growth companies (“EGCs”) and smaller reporting companies (“SRCs”). Multijurisdictional disclosure system (“MJDS”) filers that file on Form 40-F are not subject to the amendments.

Commenters who supported an exemption for all FPIs were generally concerned that the requirements would deviate from the SEC’s historic practice of deferring to an FPI’s home country disclosure requirements, and would subject FPIs to multiple, differing disclosure regimes.

Will the disclosure be “filed” or “furnished”?

In a change from the proposed rulemaking, the daily data will be treated as “filed” instead of “furnished,” which means that the disclosure is subject to the liability provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, to the extent that the information gets incorporated by reference into registration statements.

How frequently and where will the share repurchase transactions be disclosed?

Domestic issuers will disclose the total repurchases made each day for the quarter in their Form 10-Qs and Form 10-Ks (for their fourth fiscal quarters) on a new Exhibit 26, pursuant to Items 703 and 601 of Regulation S-K.

Listed Closed-End Funds will disclose daily quantitative repurchase data in their semiannual and annual reports on Form N-CSR.
FPIs reporting on the FPI forms will disclose daily quantitative repurchase data at the end of every quarter in new Form F-SR, which will be due 45 days after the end of each of the issuer’s fiscal quarters. This obligation will be an adjustment for many FPIs, since FPIs that report on the FPI forms do not have a quarterly reporting obligation under the Exchange Act and generally provide repurchase disclosure only in their annual report on Form 20-F.

What details about the share repurchase transactions will be required?

The disclosure will include, for each day:

  • The class of shares;
  •  Average price paid per share;
  • Total number of shares purchased, including the total number of shares purchased as part of a publicly announced plan;
  • Aggregate maximum number of shares (or approximate dollar value) that may yet be purchased under a publicly announced plan;
  • Total number of shares purchased on the open market (new disclosure);
  • Total number of shares purchased that are intended to qualify for the safe harbor in Rule 10b-18 (new disclosure);and
  • Separately the total number of shares purchased pursuant to a plan that is intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c) (new disclosure).

The issuer will footnote the date any such plan was adopted or terminated.

Issuers will continue to disclose the number of shares (or units) purchased other than through a publicly announced plan or program, and the nature of the transaction (ie, whether the purchases were made in open-market transactions, tender offers, in satisfaction of the issuer’s obligations upon exercise of outstanding put options issued by the issuer, or other transactions), and certain disclosures for publicly announced repurchase plans or programs under Item 703 of Regulation S-K. The disclosure will now be included in the main text of the narrative discussion instead of as a footnote to a monthly table.

For foreign private issuers, SEC guidance in the form of C&DIs issued in August indicate that a Form F-SR is not required to be filed if, during the covered fiscal quarter, the FPI or affiliated purchaser did not repurchase any of registered equity securities. However, even the repurchase of a very small number of equity securities would trigger a Form F-SR filing. Furthermore, in the absence of repurchases during the covered fiscal quarter, no Form F-SR is required to be filed solely to check the box under “Registrant Purchases of Equity Securities” section of Form F-SR for the covered purchases or sales of securities by a director or member of senior management. Unlike domestic issuers that may report repurchase activity on exhibits attached to periodic reports, FPIs are not permitted to wait to report repurchases during the final quarter of the fiscal year in the Form 20-F for that fiscal year. Rather, a Form F-SR would be required for that final quarter and must be filed within 45 days after the end of the quarter.

For domestic issuers who have not made repurchases during the applicable quarter, there is no comparable guidance on whether they are required to file the applicable Exhibit 26 with blanks. In light of the foregoing C&DIs for FPIs, many issuers may be comfortable omitting the blank exhibit.

What are the new disclosure requirements for director and officer trading?

Issuers will be required to check a box before the tabular disclosure of share repurchases, indicating if certain directors or officers traded in the relevant securities within four business days before or after the public announcement of their repurchase plan or program. The announcement of an increase of an existing share repurchase plan constitutes a new repurchase plan for purposes of the requirement.

  • For domestic issuers and Listed Closed-End Funds, this checkbox requirement applies to any Section 16 officer or director, and the issuer may rely on Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed with the SEC in determining whether to check the box provided that the reliance is reasonable.
  • For FPIs, this requirement applies to any director and member of senior management who would be identified pursuant to Item 1 of Form 20-F, regardless of whether the FPI is reporting on the forms exclusively available to FPIs or on the domestic forms. Because the securities of FPIs are exempt from Section 16, however, Item 601(b)(26) and Form F-SR permit an FPI to rely on written representations from its directors and senior management provided that the reliance is reasonable. Because FPIs may elect to report using Forms 10-Q and 10-K, for those issuers the checkbox on those forms will include the Form 20-F reference to directors or senior management.

There are no exemptions for trades made pursuant to Rule 10b5-1 plans or employee benefit plans, even though for example, purchases under an employee stock purchase plan would not trigger Form 4 reporting within two business days. In the adopting release, the SEC takes the position that an issuer may include additional disclosure to provide context to investors, and would be required to do so if such additional disclosures are material and necessary to prevent the required disclosures from being misleading.

What are the new disclosure requirements on issuer repurchase programs and practices?

Issuers will be required to provide narrative disclosure about their repurchase programs and practices in each periodic report. Specifically, with regard to the transactions listed in Exhibit 26 of that Form 10-Q or Form 10-K, the final amendments require an issuer to disclose:

  • The objectives or rationales for its share repurchases and the process or criteria used to determine the amount of repurchases; and
  • Any policies and procedures relating to purchases and sales of the issuer’s securities during a repurchase program by its officers and directors, including any restriction on such transactions.

The disclosure may need to refer to particular repurchases in the related Exhibit 26 that correspond to different parts of the narrative, if applicable. We have provided additional guidance under “Preparing for Compliance with the New Requirements.”

What are the new disclosure requirements on issuer Rule 10b5-1 plans?

Under new Item 408(d)(1) of Regulation S-K, an issuer will be required to provide quarterly disclosure in its Forms 10-K and 10-Q of whether, during its most recently completed fiscal quarter (the issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report), the issuer adopted or terminated a contract, instruction, or written plan to purchase or sell its securities intended to satisfy the affirmative defense conditions of Rule 10b5-1(c), along with material terms of the plan except for pricing. This information will also be reported using Inline XBRL. To prevent potential duplicative disclosures, if the repurchase disclosure provided pursuant to Item 703 contains disclosure that would satisfy the requirements of Item 408(d)(1), a cross-reference to that disclosure is adequate.

In a change from the proposal, issuers will not be required to disclose information about the adoption or termination of a non-Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement as defined in Item 408(c).

When are the new share repurchase disclosure requirements effective?

FPIs that file on the FPI forms will be required to comply with the new disclosure and Inline XBRL tagging requirements in new Form F-SR beginning with the Form F-SR that covers the first full fiscal quarter that begins on or after April 1, 2024 (the quarter ending June 30, 2024 for calendar year-end FPIs). The Form 20-F narrative disclosure that relates to the Form F-SR filings, which is required by Item 16E of that form, and the related tagging requirements, will be required starting in the first Form 20-F filed after the first Form F-SR has been filed.

Listed Closed-End Funds will be required to comply with the new disclosure and Inline XBRL tagging requirements in their Exchange Act periodic reports beginning with the Form N-CSR that covers the first six-month period that begins on or after January 1, 2024 (the six-month period ending on June 30, 2024 for calendar year-end Listed Closed-End Funds).

Domestic issuers and all other issuers will be required to comply with the new disclosure and Inline XBRL tagging requirements in their Exchange Act periodic reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K (for their fourth fiscal quarter) beginning with the first filing that covers the first full fiscal quarter that begins on or after October 1, 2023 (Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023, as it relates to repurchases made during the quarter ending December 31, 2023, for calendar year-end issuers).

Preparing for Compliance

Issuers should:

  • Develop a quarterly process to collect, audit and report share repurchase information on a daily basis.
  • Develop a quarterly process to track and disclose the adoption, modification and termination of Rule 10b5-1 plans entered into by the issuer.
  • Discuss the objectives or rationales for its share repurchases and the process or criteria used to determine the amount of repurchases. The SEC suggests that issuers could discuss the factors driving the repurchase, including whether their stock is undervalued, whether prospective internal growth opportunities are economically viable, or whether the valuation for potential targets is attractive. Issuers might additionally discuss the sources of funding for the repurchase, where material, such as, for example, in the case where the source of funding results in tax advantages that would not otherwise be available for a repurchase. The final amendments do not require issuers to provide disclosure at a level of granularity that would reveal any competitive or sensitive information beyond what may already be gleaned from other disclosures regarding the business and financial condition of the issuer.
  • Discuss any policies and procedures relating to purchases and sales of the issuer’s securities during a repurchase program by its officers and directors, including any notification requirements for, or restrictions on, such transactions. Most insider trading policies currently do not restrict the timing of insider transactions during repurchase programs. However, under the new rules, it will be possible for investors to analyze the timing of insider transactions, the release of material nonpublic information and other corporate events in relation to issuer share repurchases, to see if the repurchases appear to advantage insiders.
  • Discuss whether the company is prepared to “check the box” for insider transactions within four days before or after the announcement of a share repurchase program. While there is nothing inherently improper about such transactions as long as they are conducted while the insider is not aware of material non-public information, it remains to be seen whether issuers will restrict trading by directors and officers, or at least require notice of trading, that is effected during this window, in order to preempt questions about their propriety.

Firm Highlights

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

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.

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.

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

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.

News

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

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?