.

Client Alert

U.S. National Security Issues in Cross-Border Food, Beverage & Agribusiness Deals

November 4, 2021

by Lawrence Ward, Dave Townsend, and T. Augustine Lo

Download as a PDF

Share this page

On October 28, 2021, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced the Food Security is National Security Act of 2021 (the “Act”). Among other things, the Act would require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) to consider the “potential effects of [certain foreign investment transactions] on the security of the food and agriculture systems of the United States, including any effects on the availability of, access to, or safety and quality of food.” In other words, certain foreign investment in the U.S. agricultural industry would be treated similarly to foreign investment in U.S. companies that hold critical technology or that collect and maintain sensitive personal data. Additionally, the Act would expand CFIUS from its current nine members to 11 members by adding the Secretaries from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”).

Despite the apparent bipartisan support for the Act, it is far too early to know if Congress will enact this new legislation into law. Moreover, CFIUS regularly reviews foreign investments and acquisitions in the food, beverage, and agribusiness sector (“FB&A sector”) even without such legislation. As detailed below, CFIUS already has the legal authority and established procedures for any concerned federal agencies to weigh-in on proposed foreign investments or acquisitions in the FB&A sector. In short, U.S. companies operating in the FB&A sector will likely not face a sea-change in CFIUS jurisdiction or practice even if Congress passes the Act or a similar proposal to ramp up CFIUS reviews on the basis of food safety or food security concerns.

Background.

Generally speaking, the term “food safety” refers to the principles to establish production,  processing, and distribution environments that prevent contamination and food-borne illnesses in the U.S. food supply, and the term “food security” means the availability of sufficient food and the ability of U.S. households to access that food. As so defined, food safety and food security have been mainstays of U.S. agriculture policy for decades. Congress has long recognized the importance of these two concepts and has regularly provided and frequently updated authorities for both the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) within HHS to ensure that these twin policy goals are met. In the past two years, the COVID-19 pandemic has had severe and dramatic effects on the health of essential workers in the nation’s food production, processing, and distribution systems, and that has only heightened public concerns about food safety and food security across the United States.

The President of the United States is authorized to investigate, and to suspend or to prohibit, certain transactions involving investment in or acquisitions of a U.S. business by a foreign person when he determines that such transaction threatens to impair U.S. national security and no other adequate and appropriate means are available to address that threat. CFIUS is an interagency committee chaired by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to which the President has delegated his powers of such national security reviews. The only way to “cut off” this enormous Presidential power is to make a filing with CFIUS and then to receive a CFIUS “clearance” of the transaction.

Historically, filings with CFIUS were entirely voluntary. However, Congress passed the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (“FIRRMA”) to expand CFIUS jurisdiction and to make certain kinds of transactions subject to mandatory reviews by CFIUS. Thus, since 2018, CFIUS has mandated filings in certain transactions involving critical technology, critical infrastructure, or sensitive personal data, including transactions that would not necessarily involve a change of control of such a U.S. business. Companies that fail to submit a required CFIUS filing  for such a transaction risk penalties up to the value of the entire transaction. Whether a transaction comes to CFIUS on a voluntary or mandatory basis, when examining transactions within its jurisdiction, CFIUS customarily analyzes both the national or homeland security vulnerability posed by the U.S. business and the nature and extent of the threat posed by the foreign investor or acquirer.

The Act and Current CFIUS Practice.

The Act would formally add the Secretaries of USDA and HHS as full and regular members of CFIUS. Additionally, the Act would require CFIUS to consider the “security of the food and agriculture systems of the United States as a factor…when determining to take action with respect to foreign investment.” The full text of the Act can be found here.

Congress has considered similar proposals in the past that ultimately failed to become law. It is still too early to tell whether the Act will be successful or will meet a similar fate to those earlier legislative efforts. Nevertheless, U.S. companies operating within the FB&A sector who may be seeking foreign investors or acquirers should understand that CFIUS has had a considerable history of reviewing foreign investments or acquisitions in the FB&A sector and, even without either the USDA or HHS Secretary being CFIUS members, CFIUS can and does regularly seek and receive input from USDA and FDA as appropriate in reviewing foreign transactions within the FB&A sector.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), whose Secretary is a CFIUS member, has long considered the FB&A sector as one of its 16 critical infrastructure sectors “whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.” In fact, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) within DHS, in conjunction with USDA and FDA, published a detailed sector-specific plan to strengthen and maintain secure, functioning, and resilient critical infrastructure within the FB&A sector. That FB&A sector-specific plan can be found here.

CFIUS routinely requests assistance from other federal departments and agencies that are not full-members of CFIUS whenever appropriate. Such non-member departments and agencies provide needed expertise and experience to CFIUS and can thus play a crucial role when determining whether a specific foreign investment or acquisition threatens to impair U.S. national security. CFIUS also regularly considers if a regulatory agency’s existing authorities are sufficient to cope with any security risks associated with a given transaction subject to CFIUS review because that is a core mandate of the original CFIUS legislation. The Congressional intent was always for CFIUS to step in and act only when no other existing legal means are available and practical to deal with the identified security risk. For example, in transactions within the FB&A sector, CFIUS regularly consults with USDA and FDA and considers whether these agencies’ existing laws and enforcement powers are sufficient to adequately protect food safety or food security outside the CFIUS review process.

Historically, CFIUS has operated by consensus when evaluating each transaction within its jurisdiction. Each member department “approves” a transaction that is notified to CFIUS, usually through the vote of either an Assistant Secretary or Deputy Secretary from that department acting on behalf of that Department’s Secretary who is a formal member of CFIUS. Ultimately, if the Act were to add the USDA and HHS Secretaries as new CFIUS members, that could further complicate the CFIUS review and clearance process and would place additional responsibilities on USDA and HHS and FDA leadership, especially in transactions where there would be no clear nexus to those agencies’ core responsibilities or expertise. For that reason, even if the Act were to become law, CFIUS could consider revising its internal procedures to require participation by USDA and FDA only when appropriate for deals touching upon food safety or food supply issues, rather than requiring them to take part in every case under CFIUS review.

National Security Concerns within the FB&A Sector.

Within the last ten years, focus on CFIUS within the FB&A sector has changed dramatically. A decade ago, U.S. FB&A companies and their foreign investors or acquirers generally only considered voluntarily filing with CFIUS if the U.S. business had contracts with the U.S. Government or one of its agencies (e.g., providing food supply to a U.S. military base) or had property proximate to a U.S. Defense or Energy Department facility. In multiple states, FB&A companies own or lease property that is proximate to sensitive U.S. Defense Department facilities, and CFIUS has long been concerned about such proximity issues and their impact on U.S. national security.

However, much has changed since 2010. Today U.S. companies from across all industries, including the FB&A sector, regularly assess whether to make CFIUS approval a condition of closing when seeking foreign investments or are undergoing a foreign acquisition. For example, in addition to adding mandatory filings to CFIUS in certain transaction, the 2018 FIRRMA amendments also authorized CFIUS to review certain U.S. real estate transactions for the first time. Because of the FIRRMA changes that added real estate transactions to CFIUS’s jurisdiction, even if an FB&A company does not own or lease any property that is proximate to a U.S. Defense facility but does own or lease other U.S. real property that might be near another kind of key installation such as a dam, bridge, airport or seaport, a foreign investment in or acquisition of that company might now fall within CFIUS’s jurisdiction.

Increasingly, U.S. FB&A companies may also be technology companies. Some of the technologies relied upon or developed by FB&A companies are, or may become, “critical technologies” controlled for U.S. export purposes. For example, U.S. FB&A companies’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles and certain robotics continues to grow. The U.S. Department of Commerce has also been exploring whether to control various emerging technologies under its Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”). Many of the emerging technologies that the Commerce Department is considering controlling – such as biotechnology; artificial intelligence/machine learning; position, navigation, and timing (“PNT”) technology; logistics technology; and robotics – are also technologies that are increasingly relied upon within the FB&A sector. CFIUS will thus continue to be keenly interested in foreign investments in or acquisitions of FB&A companies that work with such new technologies. As the FB&A sector continues to adopt such technologies to increase productivity, CFIUS will likely become more concerned about foreign investment in or acquisitions within the sector, particularly if the foreign persons are from countries that CFIUS views as U.S. adversaries.

Within the last five years, CFIUS’s interest in protection of sensitive personal data and the impact of cyber-attacks on U.S. businesses has also increased dramatically. For example, the proposed foreign acquisition of StayNTouch (a hotel management platform company) ultimately had to be dropped because of CFIUS concerns related to data and potential cyber-attacks. The evolving business models of some FB&A companies now require them to collect significant volumes of sensitive personal data, bringing such data-driven FB&A companies within these CFIUS data privacy and security concerns. Furthermore, CFIUS could easily see the crippling effects of the spring 2021 cyber-attack on JBS, the world’s largest meat processing company (measured by sales), which caused the temporary shutdown of JBS facilities that supplied roughly one-quarter of the total meat supply to American consumers. That attack again highlighted particular vulnerabilities of FB&A companies in terms of the nation’s food safety and food security.

Through FIRRMA, Congress also placed greater emphasis on CFIUS reviewing transactions post-closing (that is, transactions that were not voluntarily notified to CFIUS before closing).  As a result, in overseeing the work of CFIUS, the U.S. Department of the Treasury established a new unit, the Office of Investment Security Monitoring & Enforcement (“Monitoring & Enforcement”).  Monitoring & Enforcement watches for non-notified transactions (e.g., by media coverage of large business transactions) and regularly requests information about closed investments or acquisitions across all business sectors. Inquiries from CFIUS post-closing used to be rare, but now they happen regularly because this specific government unit was stood up to make such requests so that CFIUS would be better able to review any such foreign transaction within its expanded jurisdiction, months or even years after such a transaction has closed. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become painfully clear the impact that FB&A companies can have on the nation’s food supply and safety. Going forward, Monitoring & Enforcement will undoubtedly ensure that CFIUS will continue to be involved in foreign company investment in or acquisition transactions with U.S. companies in the FB&A sector, closed or otherwise.

Going Forward.

Regardless of whether the Act becomes law, leading members of Congress will likely continue to press CFIUS to consider food safety and food security issues in cross-border deals in the FB&A sector, and CFIUS will certainly continue to do so. Accordingly, both foreign and U.S. FB&A companies involved in such cross-border investments or acquisitions should consider the impact CFIUS may have on a proposed transaction and assess whether a mandatory filing is required or a voluntary filing is advisable and the impact of the whole CFIUS process on the closing timetable of such transactions.

If a CFIUS filing is mandatory, then the parties to such a transaction must file either a “declaration” or a “notice” with CFIUS at least 30 days before closing (and they may need to delay their closing if informed by CFIUS that it needs more time to review and clear that transaction). If a filing is only voluntary but the parties choose nonetheless to condition their closing upon a CFIUS clearance, that process could take anywhere from 60 to 120 days or more. Failure to consider such CFIUS issues early in the transaction process may result in unexpected delays and significant disruption to the parties and their business plans.

 

Firm Highlights

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.

News

Dorsey Earns 167 Rankings in 2027 Edition of Best Law Firms®

The image shows an organized stack of white paper documents and reports with colored index tabs and binders on a desk.

Insights

2027 IARD Renewal Program Deadlines

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.

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.

News

Partner Mark Churchman Recognized in Financier Worldwide’s Power Players: Private Equity 2026

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 Celebrates Pro Bono Week and Honors Attorneys and Business Professionals for Impactful Pro Bono Work

News

Capital Markets Lawyer Cameron Half Joins Dorsey’s London Office