.

Client Alert

The UK National Security and Investment Act 2021: A New Regime For Acquisition and Investment Transactions: Update

December 16, 2021

by Mark Taylor

Download as a PDF

Share this page

 

GENERAL

There have been a number of key developments in the evolution of the UK’s national security regime since our e-bulletin earlier this year (UK to Adopt New Powers Over M&A Activity To Protect National Security). First and foremost, the National Security and Investment Bill has now taken its place on the UK Statute Book as the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”).  The new legislation is set to come into force on the 4th January 2022.

The Act and its associated secondary legislation will confer powers on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”), acting through the newly established Investment Security Unit (the “ISU”), to “call-in” transactions involving the acquisition of control or material influence over entities and assets where those transactions involve national security considerations. The Act will also mandate the prior notification and clearance of any acquisitions of material influence over entities which are active in one or more of 17 prescribed “sensitive” sectors.  Those prescribed sectors are considered in more detail below but we would highlight at the outset that (in addition to defence, civil nuclear and military and dual use technologies) they include advanced materials, artificial intelligence, communications, data infrastructure, suppliers to the emergency services and transport. The new notification and clearance regime will therefore have application to a broad range of acquisitions and investments.

Significantly, once the Act comes into force, the call-in powers referred to above will apply to any qualifying transaction completed from the 12th November 2020 onwards. We discuss the implications of this for current investment and M&A activity later in this note. 

WHICH ACQUISITIONS AND INVESTMENTS ARE CAUGHT BY THE ACT?

It is notable that whilst a principal objective of the Act is to retain domestic control over sensitive assets, information and technology, the new regime does not specifically target overseas purchasers and investors.  Instead, the Act will apply to any transaction which results in either an individual, or a UK or overseas entity, acquiring control over a qualifying entity or qualifying asset. Any such acquisition is defined in the Act as a “Trigger Event”, and the same definition has been adopted within this e-bulletin.

For this purpose, a “qualifying entity” includes any company, partnership, unincorporated association or trust which provides goods or services within or to the UK, regardless of its geographical base. A “qualifying asset” includes intangible assets such as trade secrets, designs and other intellectual property which are either used in connection with activities carried on in the UK or in the supply of goods or services to persons in the UK.

Since the Act focuses on the nature of the underlying activities or assets being acquired, no monetary thresholds apply.

The Act defines “control” in the broadest terms. With regards to qualifying entities, the definition captures any situation in which a buyer or investor is able to exercise material influence over the activities of that qualifying entity. In the case of qualifying assets, the term “control” means the ability to use, or direct or control the use of, that asset (or the ability to do so to a greater extent than before the acquisition).

More specifically, the Act provides that control over qualifying entities will be acquired where:

  • the acquirer’s percentage interest in the shares or voting rights exercisable in the qualifying entity increases: (i) from 25% or less to over 25%; or (ii) from less than 50% to over 50%; or (iii) from less than 75% to over 75%. In the case of a partnership or other business medium which does not have shares, these thresholds relate to rights in the percentage shares of the surplus assets on a winding up; or
  • the acquirer gains the ability to control sufficient voting rights in the qualifying entity with the power to pass or block resolutions governing the entity’s affairs; or
  • the acquirer gains the ability to exercise material influence over the policy of the qualifying entity, such as by acquiring the right to appoint members of the board to influence its strategic direction.  Notably, a holding of 15% or less of shares or voting rights may suffice here when considered alongside other material factors such as the acquirer’s status and sector expertise.

Control may therefore be acquired through a broad range of transactions including share transfers, share allotments, share buybacks and joint venture arrangements.

The Act specifically addresses numerous types of interests in qualifying entities, including joint holdings, holdings by connected persons, persons who share a common purpose, acquisitions of shares in holding companies in which a chain of control exists down to the qualifying entity and acquisitions of interests in nominees and in controllers of rights and interests over qualifying entities.

Importantly, an interest will not generally arise from the granting of security over shares unless the terms of the security allow the holder to direct how the rights attaching to those shares are exercised prior to the occurrence of an event of default. The Act also contains a general exemption for rights exercised by administrators and creditors.

APPLICATION OF THE ACT TO OVERSEAS ENTITIES AND ASSETS

The Act applies to entities which carry on activities or supply goods or services to persons in the UK, regardless of their geographical base.

BEIS-issued guidance makes it clear that the Act also captures overseas entities which carry out research and development activities in the UK, have UK-based offices or branches or whose supervisory functions are performed in the UK, as well as those which supply goods to a UK hub (unless such hub only places orders to be sent elsewhere). The same guidance also explains that an overseas target will not be treated as a qualifying entity where its only nexus with the UK is one or more of the following:

  • it has staff based in the UK who are working remotely from a non-UK office; or
  • it has owners or investors based in the UK; or
  • it buys goods or services from UK-based suppliers; or
  • it has a parent with other subsidiaries that carry on activities in the UK; or
  • its securities are listed on a regulated or exchange-regulated market in the UK.

If a qualifying asset is based outside the UK, it remains a qualifying asset if it is either used in connection with activities carried on in the UK or in the supply of goods or services to persons in the UK.

CONSEQUENCES OF ACQUIRING CONTROL OVER A QUALIFYING ENTITY OR A QUALIFYING ASSET

Categorisation of Transactions

Having established that a transaction constitutes or will constitute a Trigger Event, the next step is to determine:

  • whether the transaction must be notified to, and thereafter cleared by, the ISU under the mandatory notification regime once this comes into force on the 4th January 2022 (the Act defines such transactions as “notifiable acquisitions”). The mandatory notification regime and its application is discussed later in this e-bulletin;
  • whether the transaction, whilst not falling within one of the sensitive sectors, is one which might reasonably be regarded as having implications for national security and which may therefore be susceptible to the issue of a call-in notice if (and when) it comes to the attention of the ISU; or
  • whether the transaction is neither a notifiable acquisition nor one which may be susceptible to the issue of a call-in notice.

In the last of these three cases, no action is required under the Act. However, where it is concluded that the transaction may be susceptible to the issue of a call-in notice, consideration should be given to the making of a voluntary notification.

We discuss the impending mandatory notification regime, the new call-in powers and the concept of notifiable transactions below.

Mandatory Notification Regime

When the Act and attendant regulations (which are currently in draft form and can be found here) come into force, acquisitions of qualifying entities which operate in one or more of 17 designated sensitive sectors must be notified and given advance clearance before proceeding to completion.

The 17 sensitive sectors are as follows:

Advanced materials    Critical suppliers to government     Quantum technologies
Advanced robotics    Cryptographic authentication    Satellite and space technologies
Artificial intelligence    Data infrastructure    Suppliers to the emergency services
Civil nuclear    Defence    Synthetic biology
Communications     Energy    Transport
Computing hardware    Military and dual-use

On the 15th November 2021, the Government issued a Guidance Note on notifiable acquisitions. This provides essential information on each of the above sectors and should be consulted in all cases where there is a concern that the target’s activities may bring it within the mandatory notification regime.

After receiving notification of a transaction or proposed transaction in the prescribed online form, the ISU will have an initial review period of 30 working days to either clear the transaction or call it in for a full national security assessment. The ISU can also make requests for further information or ask to hold meetings with a party’s representatives within this period.

If a call-in notice is served, a further 30 working days is allotted for the ISU to carry out a full risk assessment of the transaction. This assessment period is subject to an extension of up to a further 45 working days. Further extensions are possible, but will require the acquirer’s agreement.

Notifiable acquisitions must not be completed until they have been notified and cleared. As such, a notifiable transaction which is completed without clearance will be void. Given the severity of this sanction, the Act provides for a retrospective validation process which, in appropriate cases, will alleviate the consequences of an initial failure to notify and obtain clearance. However, sanctions for non-compliance may still be levied.

Exercise of Call-In Powers

The Act will confer power on the Secretary of State to issue call-in notices in respect of any transactions completed on or after the 12th November 2020, where he or she reasonably suspects that either a Trigger Event has taken place (being an acquisition of control over a qualifying entity or a qualifying asset, as above) or where arrangements are in progress which, if carried into effect, would give rise to a Trigger Event taking place. In either case, the acquisition must be considered to pose an actual or potential risk to national security.

A call-in notice may be issued at any time prior to the fifth anniversary of a transaction and must, in any event, be issued no later than 6 months after the Secretary of State (acting through the ISU) becomes aware of the deal. The call-in power cannot be exercised where the deal was previously approved following the making of either a mandatory or voluntary notification.

On the 2nd November 2021, the Government issued a statement providing information on how the Secretary of State expects to utilise the call-in power. The statement makes it clear that the Secretary of State will primarily (but not exclusively) focus on acquisitions involving one or more of the 17 sensitive sectors, and that the following three principal risk factors will be applied in making an assessment of risk to national security:

  • Target risk: whether the target of the qualifying acquisition (the entity or asset being acquired) is being used, or could be used, in such a way that poses a risk to national security;
  • Acquirer risk: whether the acquirer possesses characteristics which suggest that there is, or may be, a risk to national security as a result of the acquirer having control of the target; and
  • Control risk: assessing the amount of control that has been, or will be, acquired through the qualifying acquisition, it being assumed that a higher level of control may increase the level of national security risk.

Sanctions and Penalties

Where national security risks are identified, the ultimate sanction available to the Secretary of State will be to unwind the transaction or otherwise block it from proceeding to completion. In practice, it is more likely that sanctions such as limiting the number of target shares that an investor can acquire or exercise voting rights over, restricting access to operational works or particular sites or forbidding access to certain commercial information will be utilised.

It is worth noting that failure to comply with the requirements of the Act could lead to fines of the greater of £10 million or up to 5% of worldwide turnover, a maximum 5 year prison sentence and director disqualification for up to 15 years.

Voluntary Notification

Whilst the Act does not require parties to notify or seek clearance for transactions which fall outside the scope of the mandatory notification regime, it does contain provisions which enable an acquirer to voluntarily notify acquisitions of qualifying entities or qualifying assets to the ISU. The same time periods apply here as for assessments made under the mandatory notification regime.

We believe that voluntary notification and clearance will become a useful tool for managing transaction risk. In particular, it has the potential to enable parties to create certainty around closing conditions and to dispense with, or at least limit, indemnification and escrow arrangements which might otherwise prove to be a stumbling block in negotiations.

PLANNING AHEAD

Despite the likelihood that only a fraction of deals will present real national security risks and thereby become subject to the full weight of the new regime, the Act will have a significant impact on the planning and implementation of transactions.

Clients contemplating any acquisition or investment (including transactions projected to complete before the 4th January 2022) should review the activities undertaken by the target and, where appropriate, seek guidance as to whether those activities might make the deal susceptible to being called-in once the Act comes into force or, if the timetable projects beyond 4th January 2022, require it to be notified and cleared as a condition to closing. We can assist clients with this analysis and will also advise on matters such as closing conditions and on the process for seeking informal guidance from the ISU on the likelihood of the deal being called-in.

As no formal notification procedure is currently in place, discussions with the ISU conducted prior to the 4th January 2022 will, at best, result in a non-binding indication from the ISU as to whether the proposed transaction is potentially at risk of being called in.  However, such discussions carry the incidental benefit of limiting the period for serving a call-in notice to 6 months from the 4th January 2022, once the Act is in force.

We have advised numerous clients on the implications of the new regime and we will be happy to discuss any concerns that you may have around the application or potential application of the Act to any proposed or concluded transactions.

Please call Tim Maloney or Mark Taylor for further information.

This e-bulletin is issued to provide general guidance on the above topic. It is not comprehensive or exhaustive and does not constitute legal advice given by this Firm.

 

Firm Highlights

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.

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

Materials Symposium Agenda CLE & CPD Information 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.

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.

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.