.

Client Alert

The Sting of a Thousand Cuts 不可承受之痛China Cleans Up its Act on the Environment 中国治理环境执法行动

November 20, 2017

Download as a PDF

Share this page

2017年11月

Authors 作者

Peter Corne, Office Head and Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
美国德汇律师事务所上海代表处管理合伙人
Chair, Cleantech Business Group, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
美国德汇律师事务所清洁能源业务团队主席

Johnny Browaeys, Director of Corporate Services, Greenment Environment
格林曼环境技术有限公司全球营运部总监
Director of International Operations, Greenment Environment
格林曼环境技术有限公公司服务部总监

The thousand cuts ….
不可承受之痛….

On October 18, 2017, President Xi Jinping, in a three and a half hour speech to the Party Congress emphasized that building an ecological civilization is necessary for the continued development of China. He chose his words carefully:
2017年10月18日,习近平主席在中国共产党第十九次代表大会上做了长达三个半小时的报告讲话,其中,他着重强调了生态文明建设对中国可持续发展的必要性。他字斟句酌地说道:

“The damage that humanity does to nature will ultimately harm humanity itself – this is an unavoidable rule.”
“人类对大自然的伤害最终会伤及人类自身 — 这是无法抗拒的规律。”

This announcement, together with the latest in a series of central environmental inspections covering 30 provincial regions has ushered in an era in which the environment is at the forefront of enforcement action.  In a centrally-led enforcement campaign as far-reaching as anything that the government has undertaken, over 5,700 officials have been nabbed and over 30,000 companies have been penalized. The campaign was a massive coordinated effort between central inspection teams and a multiplicity of local government authorities. The government has committed to rolling out the inspections on an ongoing biennial basis, to address the ever-present risk of environmental relapse, with the next phase targeting air pollution in the Hebei-Beijing-Tianjin triangle.  
习主席的这一发言,伴随最近对30个省市地区的一系列中央环境检查,开创了环境问题立于执法行动最前沿的时代。在一次中央领导的政府深入执法行动中,逮捕了5,700多名官员,30,000多家企业受到处罚。这场行动是中央检查组与多地地方政府的一次大规模协调努力。政府已承诺以后每两年展开一次检查,解决一直存在的环保破坏风险,下一阶段目标是冀京津三角地区的空气污染。

But the campaign's impact, felt so keenly by local government officials and corporations alike, would be nowhere near as severe if not for the new tools that have been placed in the hands of the inspectors through recent legislative action.
但当地政府官员和企业均强烈感受到,如果检察人员手中没有最新立法作为新手段,这一次行动所产生的影响不会如此强烈。


A while coming….
一段时间以来….

Few people at the time fully appreciated the significance of Premier Li Keqiang's declaration of war against pollution following the 'airpocalypse' experience in Beijing several years ago.  But it set in train a series of measures that reversed the sense of helplessness and apathy that had come to be associated with environmental protection in China. The ramp-up of environmental targeting in the central government's five year plans, the issuance over the past few years of very focused environmental policy action statements – the "Air Ten", the "Water Ten" and, most recently, the “Soil Ten" – and the issuance of long-awaited laws and regulations with teeth, provided a clear sign of what was to come.  
很少有人在当时完全体会到李克强总理在北京几年前遭遇“末日空气”后对污染宣战的意义。但之后中国制定一系列措施,扭转了对环境保护的无力和冷漠。中央政府五年计划中对环境目标的加速、过去几年出台的聚焦环境政策行动的说明 — “大气十条”、“水十条”及最近的“土壤十条” — 以及出台翘首以盼的法律法规,均提供了明确的信号。

But it was the amended Environmental Law, which came into effect without huge fanfare at the beginning of 2015, that promised to change the status quo that has so long favored “growth at any cost”. It did so by providing enforcement authorities with a greatly enhanced set of enforcement tools, aimed not only at environmental infringers, but also at corporate senior managers and regulators. The most potent of these measures changed the basis of fining infringers from a 'per event' basis to a daily basis, drastically altering the "pollute vs comply" equation. Responsible senior managers could be thrown into administrative detention for up to 15 days at a time for repeated infringements by their company. And in associated rules, the career advancement of government officials was made contingent on environmental performance. To round out the key changes, freed from the pre-requisite to demonstrate some sort of loss or damage, a number of NGOs became qualified to bring environmental lawsuits.
但是,2015年初静静生效的修订后的《环境保护法》,虽然没有被大力宣传,但提出了要改变长期以来“不惜任何代价发展”的现状。通过为执法机关提供一系列有力的执法手段,不仅针对环境违法者,还针对公司高级管理人员和监管人员,《环境保护法》确实对现状有所改变。这些措施最有效地把“按每一次污染事件”处罚违法者,改为按天数计算处罚违法者,彻底改变了“污染对比合规”的天平关系。承担主要责任的高级管理人员可能由于其公司的屡次违法行为而受到最高至15天的行政拘留。并且,相关的规则中,政府官员的升职发展也视环境治理业绩而定。为完善重要变更,在无需事先证明某类损失或损害的情况下,一些非政府组织也有资格提起环境诉讼。

NGOs also drive compliance through other methods. On 13 October, the Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI) was released at the 2017 China Green Supply Chain Forum by the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE, China’s most reputable environmental NGO). It accorded CITI performance/scores to approximately 260 brand-name companies. Most of the multinational companies that attended the forum expressed their concern with the increasingly stringent environmental regulations and ensuing enforcement, which meant more risks and challenges for their supply chain management. Some companies shared their countermeasures and proactive actions and others admitted that they lacked both experience and resources to make their supply chain compliant.
非政府组织也通过其他方式推动合规。10月13日,公众与环境研究中心(简称“IPE”,中国最著名的非政府环保组织)在2017年中国绿色供应链论坛上公布了企业信息透明度指数。它提供了对约260家知名品牌公司的企业信息透明度指数表现/分数。大多数参加论坛的跨国企业表示对日益严格的环境法规及随后强行执法的担忧,这意味着其供应链管理上更多的风险与挑战。部分企业分享了他们的对策和积极行动,另一些企业则承认缺乏经验和资源来确保其供应链的合规。

Such changes represent a fundamental shift in environmental philosophy. Prior to the amended Environmental Law, environmental authorities focused on up-front approvals, with environmental impact assessments, and construction approvals, taking up most of their attention. Now the emphasis is on corporate operational compliance, and its responsible oversight.
这些变化代表了环境哲学的根本性变化。修订版《环境保护法》出台前,环保机构注重于事先批准、环境影响评估及建设审批,这是他们最关注的问题。如今的重点则放在企业运营合规及其责任监督方面。

The law provides tools. But without underlying unequivocal policy support, it struggles as an instrument of social change. It has become clear in a succession of policy initiatives that environmental enforcement is here to stay and indeed has taken centre stage, having been put on a par with anti-corruption as a government's priority. What we are therefore seeing is an elusive convergence of two critical factors underpinning implementation. Other contributing factors are coming together too, such as the build-up of numbers of trained staff in the environmental authorities, and the proliferation of specialist environmental tribunals within the court system.
法律提供了手段。但是,如果没有相关明确的政策支持,它将辗转于如何成为社会变革的工具。一系列政策倡议逐渐明确的是,环保执法在此扎根并成为焦点,与反腐败一起成为政府优先考虑的问题。因此,我们看到的是两个支撑实施的关键要素的艰难结合。其他促成因素也在一一呈现,例如在环保机构中组建训练有素的团队,以及在法院系统中培养专门的环境法庭。

One need not look further than the mighty packaging company Tetra Pak to understand how much local government attitudes towards development have changed. Twenty-six years ago, when Tetra Pak wanted to set up shop in southern China, the government of Foshan offered a plot on a new industrial park a few miles out of town.
没有一家公司比包装业巨头利乐公司更了解当地政府对发展所持的态度的改变。二十六年前,利乐想在华南设厂时,佛山政府在城外几英里的新工业园区提供了一块地皮。

Tetra Pak accepted, and its factory thrived. It became the dominant local packaging firm, with a 90% share in China’s beverage paper packaging market at one point. And for many years, it was Foshan’s largest taxpayer.
利乐接受了政府提供的地皮,并且工厂逐渐繁荣发展起来,成为当地最大的包装公司,一度占据中国饮料纸品包装市场90%的份额,多年来一直是佛山最大的纳税人。

But Foshan today is not what it was 30 years ago. The population has doubled and the city has spread. Tetra Pak’s once out-of-town factory is now surrounded by residential communities worried about air pollution. This summer, after years of lobbying by angry locals (and a US$100 million antitrust fine by the Chinese authorities last year), Tetra Pak shut the plant. Production, it announced, would transfer to its three other factories in Hohhot, Kunshan and Beijing.
但今日的佛山不再是30年前的佛山。人口翻番,城市扩张。利乐在城外的工厂现在被居民区所包围,而居民们十分担心空气污染。今年夏天,经过愤怒的当地居民的多年游说(并且去年中国有关部门对利乐处以了1亿美元的反垄断罚款),利乐关闭了工厂,宣布其生产将转移至利乐在呼和浩特、昆山和北京的其他三家工厂。

The enforcement wave does not distinguish between foreign and Chinese corporations. Enforcement actions have led the phone lines of the foreign commercial chambers and other professional business organizations to ring hot with calls from affected member companies, urging the chambers to organize working group sessions for members to share experiences and recommendations on how to address the “environmental wave”. As a result, corporations have started to perform their own ‘self-environmental audits’ to gain a greater level of comfort in the new environment. 
执法浪潮并不区别对待外资企业和中资企业。这些执法行动导致外国商会和其他专业商事机构的热线电话被受到执法行动影响的商会/机构成员企业打爆,要求商会为成员组织工作小组会议,分享解决“环境风波”的经验和建议。结果是,企业开始自行开展“自我环境审计”,以期更自如地应对新的环境。

Skeptics may question whether environmental compliance will retrogress as soon as the central inspectors have returned to Beijing, and localities will return to the 'growth at all costs' approach. But another law that just came into effect is designed to nip this risk in the bud. The Environmental Tax Law turns discharge fees into a type of tax, and takes monitoring and collection out of the hands of local authorities and into the hands of joint platforms set up by tax and environmental bureaus. This means that local governments will bear great risks if they continue skirting around environmental law by waiving or subsidizing the payment of discharge fees of favored local companies. The environmental equation now favors environmentally responsible companies over polluters. And private investors are recognizing the business prospects for environmental technology as a result, especially with the proliferation of carbon financing options entering the market.
有人可能会质疑,一旦中央巡视员回到北京后,环境合规是否会倒退,地方政府将回到“不惜一切代价发展”的模式。但是,刚刚生效的另一项法律则将这种风险扼杀在摇篮中。《环境税法》将排污费改为一种税费,并且,监管和征税部门由地方政府改为税务局和环保局共同设立的平台。这意味着,如果地方政府继续通过免征或补贴其青睐的当地企业应缴付的排污费来规避环境法的话,地方政府将承担巨大风险。环境天平更倾向于对环保负责的公司而不是排污者。结果就是,私人投资者正在意识到环保技术的商业前景,尤其是随着碳融资期权进入市场的扩散。


Supply chain compliance – a hard nut to crack
供应链合规 — 棘手问题

Indirect vulnerability arising from one’s own supply chain appears to be a risk that is more elusive but no less important.
来自自身供应链的间接隐患似乎是更难以捉摸但同样重要的风险。 

On September 19, Dr. Zhang Yilin, CEO of Schaeffer Group Greater China, sent a note to the Pudong and Jiading governments asking them to allow their steel wire supplier to continue operations for another three months in order to find alternative suppliers for their production, estimating that the damage arising from the shutdown of this one supplier to Schaeffer and subsequent companies in the value chain could amount to 300 billion RMB.
9月19日,舍弗勒集团大中华区首席执行官张艺林,致函浦东新区和嘉定区政府,要求允许其钢丝供应商继续运营三个月,使得它能够为其生产活动找到另一家替代供应商,这家舍弗勒的供应商以及后续企业的停工对价值链所造成的损失预计可达3000亿元人民币。

Corporations that pro-actively engage their supply chain to enhance their awareness and compliance have proven to be able to weather the environmental storm more effectively.  Other corporations have started screening their suppliers to better understand their indirect vulnerability.
积极组织供应链以提高其意识及合规性的企业,被证明能够更有效地应对环保风暴。其他企业已开始筛选其供应商,从而更好地了解他们的间接隐患。


Soil remediation - the next frontier
土壤修复 — 下一个前沿领域

Most efforts to date have been to tackle air and water discharge pollution, with the most insidious of all pollution, soil and groundwater contamination, generally placed in the 'too hard' category.  Several years ago, a leaked survey of the extent of the nation's soil contamination shone a spotlight on the problem that has been hard to shift. The central government eventually issued the "Soil Ten" policy action plan which committed to the enactment of a "Law on Soil Pollution Prevention and Control" (“Soil Law”) in due course, rectifying the fragmented state of regulation over this area.
迄今为止,大多数努力都在于解决空气和水排放污染,而所有污染中最隐蔽有害的土壤和地下水污染,一般被放入“太难解决”类别。数年前,一份泄露全国土壤污染程度的调查报告引发了人们对这一难以转变问题的关注。中央政府最终发布了“土壤十条”政策行动计划,决心在适当的时候颁布《土壤污染防治法》(简称“《土壤法》”),整顿这一领域监管的零散状态。

True to its word, a Soil Law is on track to be promulgated next year, and in advance of that, temporary rules that give authorities to test the various concepts that will be introduced by the law, have been issued. These rules, the "Measures on Soil Environmental Management for Contaminated Sites”, announced by the MEP on December 31, 2016 and in effect from July 1, 2017, mandate the sealing off or remediation of sites targeted by the government as those already at most risk of contamination.
言而有信,《土壤法》将于明年颁布,在此之前,已经有临时规则颁布,让有关部门对该法律将引入的各种概念进行测试。这些规则,即《污染地块土壤环境管理办法》,由环境保护部于2016年12月31日公布并于2017年7月1日生效,授权政府对那些已处于极大污染风险的地块进行封闭或修复。

The Remediation Rules have kicked off a process whereby 'the polluter pays' principal will gradually become entrenched in the consciousness of polluters in China. A more systematic approach to surveys and enforcement promises to help address deep concerns in the population about the quality of locally sourced food and water. As the consequences of environmental contamination become quantifiable and acknowledged by the new environmental courts, companies will begin to seek apportioning liability, which will lead to the growth of environmental insurance products and render the application of environmental technologies more attractive.
修复规则打开了一个进程,借此,“污染者付费”原则将在中国逐渐在污染者的脑海中确立。更系统化的调查及执法方式保证有助于解决人们对本地食品及水资源质量污染的深切忧虑。随着环境污染的后果变得可量化并且被新的环境法院所认识,企业将开始寻求分摊责任,这将有利于环境保险产品的发展,并使环保技术的应用更具有吸引力。


So what you should look out for to manage your risk?
因此管理你的风险须注意什么?

Companies should, in conjunction with their environmental assessors and legal counsel, audit themselves to guard against the following red flags that will be picked up in an investigatory visit by environmental officials:
企业应当与其环境评估人员及法律顾问共同进行自身审计,以防范环保官员调查访问时可能会指出的下列重要问题:

  • Absent or incomplete EHS permits
    无环境健康安全许可证或环境健康安全许可证不完备
  • Non-compliance with land use or industrial policy
    不遵守土地使用或行业政策
  • Inadequate environmental protection facilities
    环境保护设施不足
  • Hazardous waste disposal by unlicensed parties
    危险废物交由无执照方处理
  • Any soil or ground water contamination
    任何土壤或地下水污染
  • Noxious odors such as VOCs
    有毒气味,例如挥发性有机污染物
  • Outstanding fees or fines
    未缴付费或罚款
  • Disputes with neighboring residents or facilities
    与附近居民或工厂的纠纷
  • Occupational health or safety compensation issues
    职业健康或安全赔偿问题
  • Media or NGO exposure for non-compliance
    媒体或非政府机构对不合规的曝光

The rigor of the current environmental enforcement environment is highly likely to prevail.  Proactive self-assessment with periodic follow ups, combined with a strong compliance policy is the best way to both guard against nasty surprises, and to have a ready defense demonstrating that a company has robust environmental compliance policies.
当前严格的环保执法环境极有可能一直保持下去。积极的自我评估及定期追踪,结合严格的合规政策,是防范意外惊吓及展示企业拥有强大环保合规政策防御准备的最佳方式。


Conclusion
结论

China may not be able to save the world, but there is still time for China to save its own environment. And in initiating an era in which environmental enforcement is the ‘new normal’, China will be making a massive contribution to improving ecosystems far beyond its own borders in the years to come. Western companies will in the main weather the inconvenience, and emerge from the initial investigatory shock in a stronger market position. As playing fields are leveled through the increase in costs to polluters, and as other areas of problematic enforcement, such as IP protection, are addressed, compliant Western companies will be better placed to compete on their own terms, and to prosper.
中国可能不能拯救世界,但中国仍有时间拯救自己的环境。启动环保执法成为“新常态”的时代,中国将为未来几年直至本国边境以外的生态系统改良作出巨大的贡献。西方企业基本上将经历这些风雨打击,从初始调查冲击中恢复过来后,会有更强大的市场地位。随着污染者成本的提高,竞技平台日趋公平,同时其他领域问题执法(如知识产权保护)得到解决,合规的西方企业将能更好地以自身条件竞争,获得成功。

 


About Dorsey & Whitney LLP 
关于美国德汇律师事务所

Clients have relied on Dorsey since 1912 as a valued business partner. With locations across the United States and in Canada, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, Dorsey provides an integrated, proactive approach to its clients' legal and business needs. Dorsey represents a number of the world's most successful companies from a wide range of industries, including leaders in the banking, energy, food and agribusiness, health care, mining and natural resources, and public-private project development sectors, as well as major non-profit and government entities. 
1912年以来,美国德汇律师事务所一直是客户信赖的重要业务合作伙伴。德汇凭借其遍及美国、加拿大、欧洲和亚太地区的分布网点,为客户的各类法律及商业需求提供一体化、积极的解决方案。德汇服务于众多全球知名成功企业,涉及行业广泛,包括银行、能源、食品与农业、医疗保健、矿业与自然资源、公私合作项目开发领域以及主流的非盈利组织与政府机构。


About GREENMENT ENVIRONMENT 
关于格林曼环境

GREENMENT ENVIRONMENT is the largest and fastest growing independent Chinese environmental consultancy operating in accordance with international standards.  GREENMENT's leadership is made up of environmental pioneers who have been supporting foreign companies entering China since the 1990's.  GREENMENT today helps the same foreign companies and their supply chains to keep up with fast changing environmental regulations and engages with site operators to create self-motivated compliance through enhanced environmental awareness.  Greenment's clients, when they open, close and move their operations, ask Greenment's help with environmental permitting, soil and groundwater cleanup and environmental compliance.  At the same time, GREENMENT serves foreign and Chinese clients outside of China through a network of local partners, currently covering 31 countries.
格林曼环境是一家依据国际标准经营的中国最大及最快速发展的独立环境咨询公司。格林曼的管理团队由环保领域的领先专家组成,一向为1990年代以来进入中国的外资企业提供支持服务。格林曼如今助力相同的外资企业及其供应链跟上快速变化的环保法规,协同实地人员,通过增强环保意识,实现积极主动的合规。格林曼的客户,无论开业、闭业还是转移经营,均寻求格林曼帮助其环保许可、土壤及地下水净化及环保合规。与此同时,格林曼通过各地合作伙伴网络,为中国境外的外国及中资客户提供服务,目前覆盖至31个

Firm Highlights

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

Materials Symposium Agenda Sessions 8:30 am - 9:30 am CT Session A: The Corporate Compass: Finding True North When Ethical Duties Conflict Philip Kaplan, Senior Legal Counsel, Howden Re Lucia Suljic, Vice President, Corporate Legal, Canon USA Nicole Stanton, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Dorsey & Whitney LLP This panel addresses ethical obligations of in-house counsel, including balancing obligations and duties that may conflict with each other. How should a responsible in-house lawyer deal with those challenging situations? Rather than stick to an academic discussion, this panel will revolve around a series of practical scenarios that are designed to be realistic and timely, including situations where counsel is asked to represent both the company and an individual, how and when to disclose uncomfortable facts and inconvenient documents, issues involving changing firms and companies, and multijurisdictional practice. The panel will feature discussion from two experienced in-house lawyers and Dorsey’s Deputy General Counsel. Session B: Managing Rapid Regulatory Change in International Trade and Cross-Border Investment Nathan Brower, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Nature’s Sunshine Greg Ogunsanya, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, H.B. Fuller Kathryn Wood, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, DecoPac, Inc. Dave Townsend and Lawrence Ward, Dorsey & Whitney LLP This program is designed for attorneys advising on cross-border transactions, international trade, regulatory compliance, and corporate governance matters. Panelists will examine recent developments in U.S. trade and investment law and policy, as well as their impact on international collaborations, corporate compliance, and mergers and acquisitions. The discussion will explore how general counsel and in-house legal teams assess and manage evolving trade-related risks within their organizations. Particular focus will be given to developments during the first two years of the second Trump Administration, including changes in tariff policy, tariff refunds, export controls, economic sanctions, and national security reviews of foreign investment. Through a discussion of regulatory trends and practical case studies, attendees will gain a deeper understanding of the legal risks and compliance obligations associated with cross-border business activities, and hear about practical strategies for advising clients and managing compliance obligations in a rapidly changing trade and investment environment. 9:45 am - 10:45 am CT Session A: The Elon Musk Cases: What Tesla and Twitter Can Teach Your Board of Directors Loren Unterseher, Managing Partner, Oxbow Industries, LLC Shulamite White, Chief Legal Officer and Head of People, Motive Technologies Kirsten Schubert, Tom Swigert, and Jonathan Van Horn, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Recent cases involving Elon Musk and his businesses have had significant impact on principles governing board of directors’ fiduciary duties and corporate processes. This panel will examine recent litigation involving Elon Musk, Tesla, and Twitter, and its effects on the law governing the duties of directors and executives, including the executive compensation and director compensation processes, conflicts that may arise when a single executive has control over multiple businesses, and the ramifications of tweets or other public statements by an executive. Session B: All Eyes on DEI: Managing Diversity Efforts Amid Regulatory Scrutiny and Potential Litigation Maggie Dalton, Senior Commercial Attorney, Cargill; Board Co-Chair, Twin Cities Diversity in Practice Laura A. Vannelli, Legal Counsel, Mayo Clinic Susan Lorenc and Jack Sullivan, Dorsey & Whitney LLP The legal and regulatory landscape surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has changed dramatically over the past two years. Law firms and legal departments are continuing to grapple with how to recruit, retain, and develop talent from a wide range of personal backgrounds, in a world where previously accepted recruiting and employment practices are facing increased scrutiny and litigation. This program will provide a practical overview of the current legal regime, including recent federal enforcement actions and litigation trends associated with DEI initiatives. Panelists will discuss practical ways in which organizations can pursue and retain legal talent and increase inclusion while minimizing legal, business, and reputational risk. 11:00 am - 12:00 pm CT Session A: Governance in an Age of Increasing Unpredictability James Chosy, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel, U.S. Bancorp Todd Hartman, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal and Risk Officer, Best Buy Co., Inc. Alan Rosselot, Associate General Counsel & Assistant Secretary, Delta Air Lines, Inc. Cam Hoang and Robert Rosenbaum, Dorsey & Whitney LLP More than ever, ensuring that boards are well-informed and forward-thinking is critical to a company’s success. Join our panel of corporate governance experts as they share their experiences advising boards through crisis and unpredictable events; capitalizing on, but also checking, disruptive technologies; and positioning the company to succeed in an environment of shifting government priorities. Session B: A Day in the Life of a Trademark, Copyright & Advertising Attorney: A Hypothetical Case Study Alexander Kim, Vice President and General Counsel, Binks Nate Whitaker, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel, Crumbl Cathy Dahl and Tiffany Shimada, Dorsey & Whitney LLP What issues are companies facing daily while developing rights in intellectual property, protecting those rights, and staying in compliance with myriad potential issues related to advertising, social media, relationships with influencers, and environmental or governmental claims? This panel will feature two in-house counsel who are navigating these issues, utilizing a hypothetical case study, with the support of two Dorsey attorneys helping to develop a roadmap for meeting business objectives and minimizing the risk of claims. 12:00 pm - 1:15 pm CT Keynote Address Dr. Rebecca Heiss, Stress Physiologist Dr. Rebecca Heiss is a stress physiologist, author, and sought-after speaker who helps audiences transform fear and stress into fuel for greater performance and resilience. Her research has been recognized as “transformative” by the National Science Foundation, and she is the author of two books, Springboard and Instinct. Through her Fear(less) message, Rebecca inspires audiences with practical, science-based strategies to train our brains to work for us – not against us – and navigate change and uncertainty with greater confidence.

Insights

Observations on the SEC’s 2027 Examination Priorities

The SEC’s Division of Examinations (the “Division”) recently announced its examination priorities (“Exam Priorities”) for fiscal year 2027.1 Although many of the Division’s core areas of focus remain consistent with fiscal year 2026, the 2027 Exam Priorities include notable changes and refinements, which we discuss below, along with other key 2027 examination priorities. Dorsey Observations Renewed focus on economic conflicts of interest. After certain economic-incentive topics received less emphasis in the 2026 Exam Priorities2, the Division has again expressly identified economic conflicts as an examination focus. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will prioritize reviewing advisers’ fiduciary obligations relating to economic conflicts of interest raised by fee rebates, fee and expense calculations, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, and deposits and withdrawals. Greater emphasis on private-fund practices. Building on the private-fund items in the 2026 Exam Priorities, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that the Division will assess private-fund disclosures and controls relating to investment allocations, leverage, affiliated service providers, and fees and expenses. The Division also identified investments in private companies through special purpose vehicles (“SPVs”) and loans provided by private funds and business development companies (“BDCs”) as products the Division will scrutinize. Advisers, particularly private-fund advisers, should evaluate whether their disclosures and compliance programs address these areas. Expanded focus on AI-related cybersecurity risks. While the 2026 Exam Priorities focused on advisers’ use of and representations regarding artificial intelligence (“AI”), the 2027 Exam Priorities specifically highlight AI-enabled cybersecurity threats, including AI-generated phishing and synthetic or “deepfake” voice and video used for social engineering. The shift signals that registrants should consider whether their cybersecurity policies and controls adequately address these evolving threats. New focus on proxy advisory firms. The 2027 Exam Priorities state that the Division will examine advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms, including how those advisers evaluate the firms’ recommendations, assess the bases for those recommendations, identify potential conflicts of interest, and determine whether that reliance satisfies applicable legal obligations. Advisers that rely on proxy advisory firms may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas. Updated focus on Regulation S-P and Regulation S-ID. The 2026 Exam Priorities stated that the Division would engage firms during examinations regarding their progress in preparing incident response programs ahead of the compliance dates for the amendments to Regulation S-P and would examine compliance with the amended rule after those dates. The 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examinations will focus on whether firms have developed, implemented, and maintained reasonably designed policies and procedures addressing administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect customer information and that, in accordance with the amended rule, staff will evaluate response program policies and procedures for unauthorized access to or use of customer information, including customer notification procedures and oversight of service providers. With respect to Regulation S-ID, the 2027 Exam Priorities indicate that examiners will assess whether firms are updating their Identity Theft Prevention Program to address emerging risks, such as those related to AI and stolen credentials. Advisers may wish to consider whether their compliance programs address these areas, as applicable. Summary of Other 2027 Examination Priorities Beyond the developments discussed above, many of the Division’s core examination priorities remain consistent with fiscal year 2026. These include investment adviser fiduciary obligations and compliance programs, examinations of never-examined and recently registered advisers, and cybersecurity and operational resiliency. The Exam Priorities are not exhaustive, and examinations will vary based on each registrant’s business, activities and risks. Advisers should consider the 2027 Exam Priorities in reviewing their compliance programs and preparing for potential examinations, including by: Reviewing risk disclosures and controls. The Division states that, when examining advisers to private funds, it will assess whether investment-related risk disclosures are consistent with fiduciary standards and whether compliance policies, procedures, and controls are designed to address both fund-level and investment-level risks. Reviewing disclosures on allocations, leverage, and affiliated service providers. The 2027 Exam Priorities identify disclosures related to certain investments and allocations, the use of debt and fund-level lines of credit, and the use of affiliated service providers as examples. Confirming the accuracy of fee and expense calculations. The Division states that it will assess the accuracy of fee and expense calculations at both the fund and investment levels, and it identifies fee rebates, cash management, quid pro quo arrangements, deposits, and withdrawals as areas in which economic conflicts of interest may affect the impartiality of advice. Reviewing recommendations of illiquid or hard-to-trade products. The Division states that it will prioritize advisers that recommend products that are difficult to trade, have unusual features, or are illiquid, including loans provided by private funds or BDCs and investments in private companies through SPVs. Confirming that the compliance program is implemented and reviewed. The Division states that it will review compliance program components such as marketing, valuation, and custody, as appropriate, and will typically analyze the annual compliance review. It will also focus on compliance practices when advisers have started advising new asset classes or clients or grown through mergers or acquisitions. 1 SEC Division of Examinations 2027 Examination Priorities. 2 See Dorsey’s Client Alert on the SEC’s fiscal year 2026 exam priorities.

Insights

Minnesota Consumer-Fraud Enforcement: Disclaimers Won’t Cure Deception, and Penalties Can Add Up

Misleading advertising claims can lead to costly consequences. In State of Minnesota ex rel. Ellison v. Wall & Associates, Inc., No. A25-2064, 2026 WL 3118291 (Minn. App. Oct. 19, 2026), the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently affirmed a bench trial verdict against a tax-relief company and two executives for violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act (“MCFA”) and the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“MDTPA”). The decision, which affirmed a substantial restitution and civil penalty judgment, underscores the broad power of the Minnesota Attorney General to act against deceptive sales practices. The decision also offers practical lessons for businesses seeking to reduce liability risks in consumer-facing communications. Background Wall & Associates (“W&A”), a Virginia-based tax-relief company, marketed assistance to taxpayers seeking relief from outstanding federal and state tax liabilities, often with offers in compromise—agreements to settle tax liabilities for less than the amount owed. In its extensive advertising campaigns, W&A represented that its average client received a 90% reduction in their tax debt, that it was a local company with Minnesota offices, that it provided legal services, and that it would “Solve ALL Tax Problems.” In reality, W&A’s promises bore little resemblance to what many clients received. Most of W&A’s clients saw just a 9.5% reduction in federal tax debt and 1.2% in state tax debt. W&A had no permanent Minnesota offices. And W&A provided neither legal representation nor assistance with filing tax returns—those services required referrals to separate firms for an additional fee. All the while, W&A clients paid upfront and recurring fees, including during periods when W&A did no work on their cases. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sued W&A, its founder and owner Ernest Kenneth Wall, and its president and CEO Patrick Mark Yates, alleging violations of, among other laws, the MCFA and the MDTPA. Following a 12-day bench trial, the district court determined that W&A violated the MCFA and MDTPA through its false and embellished advertising. The district court also held Wall and Yates individually liable for those violations because they directed, participated in, and acquiesced in the violations. The district court ordered injunctive relief, $2.7 million in restitution (with Wall and Yates jointly and severally liable for $1.3 million), and civil penalties of $786,517 against W&A, $415,500 against Wall, and $207,750 against Yates. The district court also awarded over $2.5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to the state. W&A, Wall, and Yates appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s decision on October 19, 2026. Although W&A, Wall, and Yates challenged the judgment on numerous grounds, several highlights of the decision provide important takeaways for consumer-facing businesses. Individual Reliance Is Not Required for Statutory Liability W&A argued that Attorney General Ellison had to prove a causal nexus between each violation of the MCFA and MDTPA and the injury to a particular consumer to establish liability. In W&A’s view, this required proof that each injured consumer had personally relied on W&A’s false representation. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument based on the MCFA’s and MDTPA’s plain language, which requires no proof of actual deception or confusion by consumers. The Court of Appeals finally pointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., which held that when a defendant’s misrepresentations are directed at and affected “a broad group of consumers, proof of direct individual reliance is not required to establish a causal nexus between MCFA violations and the harm suffered by consumers.” 935 N.W.2d 124, 135 (Minn. 2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed, however, that a causal nexus is necessary to support an award of damages under the MCFA and MDTPA. In making that determination, district courts look to various factors, including whether the misrepresentations were “longstanding, pervasive, and widespread in communications directed to consumers,” whether the seller intended and understood that consumers would rely on the misrepresentations, and whether the information was of a kind on which consumers would typically rely. The Court of Appeals’ decision continues Minnesota School of Business’s broad interpretation of liability under the MCFA and the MDTPA. Coordinated marketing campaigns to a “broad group of consumers” may expose businesses to MCFA and MDTPA liability without customer-by-customer proof of injury. That said, a causal nexus remains an element of an MCFA and MDTPA claim, and businesses involved in litigation should build a clear record at trial and on appeal showing how each of the relevant factors bears on the causal-nexus inquiry. Contractual Disclaimers Are Not an Automatic Defense to a Misleading Pitch W&A next argued that disclaimers in its client contracts prevented consumers from claiming they had been misled by its advertising. Reiterating that individual reliance is not required under the MCFA and MDTPA, the Court of Appeals held that a contractual disclaimer does not necessarily defeat a claim based on a conflicting oral representation. And on the facts of this case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that W&A’s contractual disclaimers were insufficient given the extensive misrepresentations by W&A and the unequal bargaining power between it and its customers. This holding confirms that contractual disclaimers are not a cure-all for misleading advertising or sales practices. Businesses should review the entire customer journey, including pre-contract representations, as those representations may survive a contractual disclaimer to the contrary. And if faced with litigation, businesses should build a strong record, both at trial and on appeal, showing why any disclaimer is effective in context. The State Has Broad Authority to Seek Restitution W&A also challenged Attorney General Ellison’s authority to seek restitution under the state’s parens patriae authority to protect residents’ collective interests, arguing that injury to only 228 Minnesotans did not affect a sufficiently substantial segment of the population. The Court of Appeals rejected a simple headcount approach, instead explaining that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting residents’ economic well-being as a whole. In any event, the Court of Appeals held that if restitution was not appropriate under the state’s parens patriae authority, then it would still be appropriate under the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under Minn. Stat. § 8.31. The decision reinforces that the broader and more sustained the deceptive advertising, the stronger the case for restitution to protect Minnesotans’ economic interests. Civil Penalties Accrue Per Violation, Not Per Defendant The Court of Appeals finally rejected W&A’s claim that the Attorney General’s enforcement powers under Minn. Stat. § 8.31 permit only civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each defendant. Rather, the Court of Appeals explained that penalties are limited to $25,000 per violation. Multiple violations can therefore produce substantially greater penalties. The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that restitution made penalties unnecessary: repaying consumers does not eliminate the need to address gains from deceptive conduct and deter future violations. Final Takeaways Align every consumer-facing communication. Broad and extensive marketing campaigns can expose businesses to stronger enforcement standards under the MCFA and MDTPA, making it critical that consumer communications remain accurate and consistent from the first advertisement through the final sale. Plan for layered enforcement exposure. Penalties under the MCFA and MDTPA can add up quickly: W&A, Wall, and Yates ultimately faced more than $6 million in civil penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. The decision continues a line of Minnesota cases recognizing the Attorney General’s broad consumer-protection authority. Details matter. Although the Attorney General’s enforcement power is broad, it is not boundless. As the Court of Appeals explained, issues of causation, the effectiveness of contractual disclaimers, and the availability of restitution and civil penalties all turn on the specific facts of the case. Effective advocacy at trial and on appeal is critical to developing the facts relevant to liability and damages.

Insights

The Methane Regulatory Pendulum Swings Again: EPA Proposes Sweeping Changes to Federal Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector

Few environmental regulations better illustrate Washington’s regulatory “ping-pong” than EPA’s methane standards for the oil and natural gas sector. Over the last decade, successive administrations have repeatedly expanded, narrowed, rescinded, reinstated, and revised federal methane requirements, leaving industry to navigate a shifting compliance landscape with each change in administration. EPA’s October 27, 2026 proposal to reconsider significant portions of the 2024 oil and natural gas New Source Performance Standards (“NSPS”) and Emission Guidelines (“EG”) under Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc represents the latest swing of the regulatory pendulum. If finalized, the proposal would substantially reduce compliance obligations in several areas, particularly with respect to lower-producing wells, associated gas flaring, equipment and control-device standards, and the Super Emitter Program. EPA estimates that the proposal would result in approximately $45 billion in savings, while preserving what the agency considers appropriate methane emission controls. EPA’s proposal was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2026. Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2026.  Significantly, EPA is not using this rulemaking to reconsider its general authority to regulate methane emissions from the oil and natural gas sector. Rather, the agency is addressing specific requirements adopted in the 2024 methane rule, while broader questions concerning greenhouse gas regulation are being addressed in separate proceedings. The present proposal therefore focuses on the appropriate design and scope of particular methane regulations, rather than resolving the threshold question of whether methane may be regulated under the Clean Air Act at all. I.    EPA Proposes to Eliminate the Super Emitter Program Among the proposal’s most consequential changes is the complete elimination of the Super Emitter Program. Adopted in 2024, the program created a regulatory framework under which EPA-certified third parties could identify large methane releases using approved remote-sensing technologies. Upon receiving a qualifying notification from EPA, owners and operators were required to investigate the reported emissions event, report findings to EPA, and take corrective action where necessary. EPA now proposes to repeal the Super Emitter Program in its entirety. The agency questions the program’s legal and policy foundations, including the role of third parties in identifying emissions events and triggering regulatory obligations. EPA also questions whether the program is necessary or effective given other requirements applicable to regulated sources and whether its expected emissions reductions justify its costs and implementation challenges. Because the program was incorporated into both the NSPS applicable to new, modified, and reconstructed sources and the EG applicable to existing sources, its removal would affect federal requirements as well as the presumptive requirements that States otherwise would be expected to address in Clean Air Act § 111(d) plans. Importantly, EPA’s proposed repeal does not prevent States from developing and implementing their own Super Emitter Program based on the existing requirements, which several states are already doing.  II.    EPA Reconsiders Associated Gas Requirements Another centerpiece of EPA’s proposal is its reconsideration of the 2024 rule’s restrictions on flaring associated gas from oil wells. The 2024 rule determined that the best system of emission reduction (“BSER”) generally required operators to capture and beneficially use associated gas by routing it to a sales line, using it onsite, or reinjecting it, rather than routinely flaring it. Although EPA provided certain transition periods and compliance flexibilities, particularly for wells facing infrastructure constraints, the rule ultimately established a framework strongly favoring capture and utilization over flaring. Since promulgation, EPA has received significant feedback regarding gathering-system limitations, gas quality issues, and other practical barriers operators face in securing outlets for associated gas. In response, EPA proposes to replace the existing capture-focused approach with a substantially more flexible standard. EPA argues that the 2024 rule relied too heavily on the availability of third-party gathering and processing infrastructure that is often beyond an operator’s control, raising questions regarding achievability and cost-effectiveness. Under the proposal, BSER would be based on routing associated gas to a flare or other control device capable of achieving at least a 95 percent reduction in methane and volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions. Operators could continue to capture gas for sale, use it onsite, or reinject it where feasible, but those practices would no longer be required. EPA also proposes that if a portion of associated gas is routed to sales or used for another purpose, the remaining portion must comply with the 95 percent standard. For example, if a company can route 40 percent of its associated gas to a sales line, the company would need to route the other 60 percent to a control device with a 95 percent reduction, or to a flare. EPA is also soliciting comment on less sweeping alternatives that would preserve the basic structure of the 2024 associated-gas program, while providing additional compliance flexibility. In particular, EPA requests comment on whether it should retain the current capture-and-sales framework but expand the circumstances under which temporary flaring is permitted or extend the duration of temporary flaring allowances where operators face infrastructure constraints. EPA appears to recognize that gathering-system availability, processing constraints, and other third-party factors can affect an operator's ability to route gas to sales, even where the operator ultimately intends to comply with the capture requirements. These requests for comment suggest that EPA is considering whether targeted revisions to the existing framework could address implementation concerns without fully abandoning the 2024 rule's underlying preference for gas capture and beneficial use. III.    EPA’s Reconsideration of the “No Identifiable Emissions” Standard EPA's proposal would substantially revise the 2024 rule’s “no identifiable emissions” (“NIE”) requirements applicable to certain covers and closed vent systems (“CVS”) associated with storage tanks. Under the existing rule, covered equipment generally must operate without identifiable emissions, creating a compliance framework that focuses heavily on the absence of observable emissions rather than solely on equipment design or overall control effectiveness. Since promulgation, industry has argued that the standard effectively functions as a zero-emissions requirement that may be difficult to satisfy under all operating conditions, even where equipment and vapor control systems are properly designed, maintained, and operated. Moreover, EPA stated in the preamble to the 2024 rule that any identified emissions would constitute a deviation of the emissions limitation, resulting in a framework under which the observation of emissions could itself establish noncompliance. EPA now proposes to separate the requirements into distinct design and operational components and to fundamentally alter how compliance with the operational NIE requirement is evaluated. EPA proposes to distinguish between deviations of the design requirements and deviations of the operational NIE requirements. Under the proposed approach, failure to repair an identified emission or defect within 24 hours would constitute a deviation of the design requirement, although not necessarily an underlying violation. Separately, operators could demonstrate compliance with the operational NIE requirement by making repairs as soon as practicable, with an initial repair attempt within five days and final repair within 30 days, or by qualifying for the existing delay-of-repair provisions. A deviation of the operational requirement would occur if the applicable repair deadlines are not met and the delay-of-repair provisions do not apply. The proposal also establishes a new framework for addressing recurring or “chronic” emissions events. After the third emissions event or defect from the same cover or CVS within a year, the owner or operator would be required to conduct an investigative analysis within 10 days to determine whether the underlying cause relates to equipment design, operation, maintenance, or prior repair efforts. The results of that investigation would have important compliance implications. If recurring emissions are attributable to a design flaw, EPA would treat the issue as a deviation of the design requirements. If the emissions result from inadequate prior repairs, the deviation would be attributed to the repair requirements. If operations, maintenance, or other site practices are responsible, the deviation would be classified under the operational requirements. EPA would also require implementation of corrective measures identified through the analysis, including design modifications within 90 days and operational or maintenance-related corrective actions within 30 days. Taken together, these revisions would shift the NIE standard away from a framework in which the mere presence of emissions may establish noncompliance and toward one that focuses on whether operators identify emissions, complete timely repairs, investigate recurring problems, and address the root causes of repeated emissions events. IV.    Solicitation of Comment on “Legally and Practicably Enforceable” Standard EPA is also soliciting comment on the definition of “legally and practicably enforceable” (“LPE”), which industry has identified as one of the more problematic existing requirements. Under the 2024 rule, EPA adopted an interpretation of LPE that many commenters argued effectively disqualifies numerous state regulatory programs, permits, and other federally enforceable mechanisms from serving as the basis for remaining below applicable Subpart OOOOb storage tank thresholds. In particular, stakeholders have asserted that the current LPE framework makes it difficult for state air permitting programs and other state regulatory requirements to satisfy EPA's criteria, thereby causing more storage tanks and other emission units to remain subject to Subpart OOOOb requirements than would otherwise be the case. EPA now requests comment on whether its current interpretation of LPE is overly restrictive and whether alternative approaches would better account for the manner in which state permitting and regulatory programs are administered and enforced. The request is significant because a broader interpretation of LPE could allow a wider range of federally enforceable state permits and regulatory requirements to satisfy exemption criteria under OOOOb, potentially reducing the number of storage tanks and other sources subject to direct NSPS regulation. As a result, the LPE issue has implications that extend beyond compliance mechanics and could materially affect the scope of sources regulated under the federal methane program. V.    Revised Requirements for Marginal Wells EPA is also proposing significant revisions to the treatment of lower-producing wells under Subparts OOOOb and OOOOc. The agency notes that marginal wells constitute a substantial portion of the nation’s producing well inventory but account for a relatively small share of overall production. At the same time, EPA discusses studies estimating that marginal wells contribute a disproportionate share of methane emissions from oil and natural gas production. The agency is evaluating whether the 2024 rule appropriately accounts for the operational characteristics, emissions profiles, and compliance costs associated with these wells. To address those concerns, EPA is proposing two alternative approaches to well-site subcategorization. Under the first option, EPA would distinguish between marginal and non-marginal well sites. EPA proposes to define a marginal well as a well that produced no more than 15 barrels of oil equivalent (“BOE”) per day over the prior 12-month period and a marginal well site as a site consisting exclusively of marginal wells with total site-wide production of no more than 15 BOE per day over the same period. EPA is also soliciting comment on whether marginal wells should be further subdivided based on production levels, including a potential distinction between sites producing 6 BOE per day or less and sites producing more than 6 BOE but no more than 15 BOE per day, which could result in additional regulatory flexibility for the lowest-producing wells. Under the second option, EPA would distinguish between conventional and unconventional well sites and tailor requirements based on that classification, including reduced requirements for conventional wells. The agency is seeking comment on which framework better reflects the operational and emissions characteristics of different well sites, as well as whether additional subcategories should be established within the marginal-well population and the extent to which compliance requirements should differ among categories. VI.    LDAR, Pneumatic Controllers, Control Device Monitoring, and Facility Modifications EPA's proposal also includes several targeted revisions to the 2024 rule's leak detection and repair (“LDAR”) requirements. Most notably, EPA proposes additional flexibility in the use of advanced monitoring technologies and seeks to move away from compliance frameworks that rely heavily on a single detection method. The agency is proposing changes intended to facilitate the use of multiple monitoring technologies, including optical gas imaging and other alternative detection approaches, and is seeking comment on whether technology-neutral compliance options can achieve equivalent emissions reductions at lower cost. EPA also proposes revisions for components and equipment that are particularly difficult to monitor using conventional LDAR methods, reflecting concerns that certain 2024 requirements may not be practical or cost-effective in the field. More broadly, EPA questions whether some of the monitoring frequencies adopted in 2024 appropriately balance compliance burdens and emissions-reduction benefits and seeks comment on additional opportunities to tailor LDAR obligations based on emissions risk and source characteristics. EPA also proposes technical revisions to requirements governing control devices and related equipment. These include changes addressing continuous pilot-flame requirements, flame-monitoring data deviations, control-device alerts, visible-emissions test conditions, temporary or backup control devices, temporary process controllers, and control-device categories. The agency’s stated objective is to provide additional compliance flexibility while maintaining appropriate emissions controls. The practical effect will depend on the final requirements and the equipment and circumstances to which each amendment applies. The proposal also addresses pneumatic controllers and equipment leaks at gas processing plants. For certain high-pressure process controllers at transmission compressor stations, EPA proposes a separate regulatory approach based on its reassessment of technical feasibility and cost. The proposal should not be read as establishing a general exemption for pneumatic controllers across the industry. EPA also proposes changes to other equipment-specific requirements, including requirements applicable to pumps, storage vessels, and equipment leaks at gas plants, in response to concerns raised following promulgation of the 2024 rule. Finally, EPA proposes changes to certain requirements governing liquids unloading and other well-site operations, as well as technical corrections and clarifications to the existing regulatory text. These provisions form part of EPA’s broader effort to address implementation concerns and reassess the costs and expected emissions reductions associated with selected requirements in the 2024 rule. Operators should evaluate the specific proposed amendments applicable to their facilities rather than assume that the proposal would provide across-the-board relief from existing monitoring, equipment, or control-device obligations. VII.    Implications for States and Future Congressional or Administrative Action EPA’s proposal would substantially revise several consequential elements of the 2024 methane rule, but it would not eliminate regulation of existing oil and natural gas sources under Clean Air Act § 111(d). As a result, states remain subject to the existing obligation to develop and submit plans for existing sources. If the proposed revisions are finalized, states currently developing those plans may need to reevaluate key program elements, including requirements relating to associated gas, well-site subcategories, the Super Emitter Program, and other compliance obligations. The proposal does not itself extend the January 22, 2027 deadline for state-plan submissions established under the existing framework. The Congressional Review Act (“CRA”) remains a potential source of uncertainty. Depending on when EPA submits a final rule to Congress and the applicable congressional-session timing, a future Congress and President could seek to disapprove the rule under the CRA. A successful disapproval would invalidate the rule and generally restrict the agency from issuing a rule in substantially the same form absent subsequent statutory authorization. The CRA’s lookback provisions can affect the period during which a rule remains subject to congressional review, so the risk cannot be assessed solely by reference to the calendar year in which the rule is finalized. The timing of finalization and submission to Congress, together with the applicable congressional calendar, will determine the extent of that exposure. Finally, unlike the CRA, which can nullify a recently promulgated rule through legislative action, a future administration seeking to unwind this rule would generally need to proceed through a new notice-and-comment rulemaking. EPA would need to revisit the underlying BSER determinations, cost analyses, technical feasibility findings, and enforceability conclusions that support the final rule. Because this proposal is grounded heavily in findings regarding achievability, legal and practical enforceability, and cost-effectiveness, a future administration would need to develop a sufficient record supporting different conclusions before reinstating more stringent requirements. Consequently, the final rule may prove more durable than prior pendulum swings, even if it remains politically controversial.

News

Dorsey & Whitney Advises Beijing Xunzhong on Two Consecutive H Share Placings Raising HK$418.5 Million

International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP acted as Hong Kong legal advisors to Beijing Xunzhong Communication Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xunzhong”) as to Hong Kong law in connection with two consecutive placings of new H shares under general mandate (the “First Placing” and the “Second Placing”, respectively, and together, the “Placings”). Xunzhong’s H shares are listed on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (Stock Code: 2597). Winbull Securities International (Hong Kong) Limited acted as sole overall coordinator and placing agent on both Placings. The First Placing of 11,190,000 new H shares at HK$28.20 each was completed on September 17, 2026, followed by the Second Placing of 3,550,000 new H shares at HK$29.00 each on October 30, 2026. The Placings raised approximately HK$315.56 million and HK$102.95 million in gross proceeds, respectively, or approximately HK$418.51 million in aggregate (approximately HK$415.96 million in aggregate net proceeds). Both Placings were conducted under the same general mandate granted by shareholders at Xunzhong’s 2025 annual general meeting, and each was completed within one week of the signing of its placing agreement. Completing placings in consecutive months is relatively uncommon in the Hong Kong market, and doing so called on the technical depth of Dorsey’s Hong Kong Capital Markets team. Working closely with Xunzhong to understand its business needs and prepare the transaction documents, the team addressed in quick succession the remaining capacity under the general mandate, disclosure of the use of proceeds and the maintenance of Xunzhong’s public float, enabling both Placings to be completed seamlessly. “We are pleased to have advised Xunzhong on both Placings,” said Rachel Han, Partner and Co-Head of Dorsey’s Asia Capital Markets practice. “We appreciate the trust placed in our team and the close collaboration among all parties involved. We look forward to supporting Xunzhong as it continues to execute its growth strategy and pursue future capital markets opportunities.” Xunzhong is principally engaged in cloud-based communications services and enterprise digitalization services in the PRC. As disclosed in its announcements, the net proceeds of the First Placing are allocated to developing Xunzhong’s new computing power operation services business, while those of the Second Placing will be used to integrate model-as-a-service (MaaS) and AI agent capabilities into its existing cloud communications platform-as-a-service (PaaS) platform and software-as-a-service (SaaS) products. Approximately 55% of the net proceeds of the Second Placing will be used for computing power equipment upgrades for the MaaS system, approximately 35% for MaaS, PaaS and SaaS platform upgrades, and approximately 10% for working capital and general corporate purposes. With a single MaaS platform and shared computing power supporting its PaaS and SaaS offerings, Xunzhong intends for its MaaS, PaaS and SaaS capabilities to complement and reinforce one another, and to address customer needs from multiple angles, from embedding AI in customer communications and business workflows to maintaining stable performance at scale and keeping customer data within controlled environments. Partner and Co-Head of Dorsey’s Asia Capital Markets practice Rachel Han and Of Counsel in the Capital Markets and Corporate Compliance group Carlton Ng, along with Associate Kristy Ting, led the Dorsey Hong Kong Capital Markets & Corporate Compliance group in advising Xunzhong on both Placings.