.
Marquee

Designs

The UK Government Consults on Proposed Reforms to Design Laws

February 5, 2026

by Ron Moscona and Sam Fitzgerald

Download as a PDF

Share this page

A consultation process proposing extensive reforms to the framework for design protection in the United Kingdom has come to a close on 27 November 2025.

One of the stated objectives of the proposed reforms is to tackle a legal system for the protection of designs that some commentators argued is “a complex patchwork that many find difficult to navigate, particularly small businesses”. The consultation paper lays down proposals to create what the Government suggests is a simpler, more effective system which will be better able to support UK creativity and innovation.

The main characteristics of the current design protection system in the UK

In many respects, the design system in the UK is extremely simple. The law protects registered designs for up to 25 years and unregistered designs for shorter periods. All designs must meet the requirements of novelty and individual character to enjoy protection.

Registered designs (in the UK and the EU) are broadly similar to US design patents, and are the embodiment of simplicity. The application contains little more than images of the design itself (multiple views of the same design are allowed) and the examination is limited to verifying a few basic formalities. Designs are registered in the UK and the EU on a notification basis, with no examination of the application’s compliance with the substantive legal requirements. Once registered, the design is renewable every 5 years up to 25 years.

Where the system is somewhat complex is in relation to unregistered designs. For historic reasons, the UK protects unregistered designs under two largely overlapping, parallel systems. The UK introduced the “design right” as part of its copyright legislation in 1988 (with the aim of separating design protection from general copyright protection). A unique right existing only in the UK, it provides protection for 3D designs of an article whether or not visible during normal operations. The right can therefore protect internal design features as well as external ones. Protection lasts for the shorter of 15 years from the date of creation of the design or 10 years from the date when articles made with the design were first made available for sale or hire. There is also a ‘licence as of right’ that any person can take advantage of in the last 5 years of protection of the design right.

Around the turn of this century, the EU introduced its own protection for unregistered designs (extending to both 3D and 2D designs, including surface decorations, but only those that are visible during normal use of the article and provided the design is not dictated by function). The right is granted for a limited period of 3 years from the date on which the design is made available to the public in the EU. Until the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the EU unregistered design extended also to the UK and existed in parallel to the UK’s own design right. As part of the Brexit process, the UK adopted legislation that effectively continues the EU unregistered design protection in the UK (known as the supplementary unregistered design). Like the EU right, the UK supplementary unregistered design provides protection to unregistered designs for a period of 3 years from the date on which the design is made available to the relevant public in the UK.

The Proposed reforms

Some of the reforms proposed are to address the weakness of the current notification system for registered designs. Such a system allows anyone to obtain an enforceable right without substantive examination, which opens the door to bad faith applications and for registerations without justification, forcing defendants to challenge the validity of the registration once it is asserted against them.

The proposals relating to unregistered designs focus largely on the desire to move to a singular system of protection. The proposals (covering both registered and unregistered designs) can be summarised into five main reform objectives:

  1. Targeted measures to combat design theft, anti-competitive filings or bad faith applications.
  2. Simplifying the designs regime and streamlining processes so that it is more accessible and easier to understand.
  3. Modernising the designs regime to protects emerging forms of design, including virtual and animated designs and computer generated designs in an era of AI.
  4. Addressing the impact of Brexit on the designs framework.
  5. Addressing barriers to justice in design disputes.

The consultation paper is detailed and extensive. Below we discuss three key proposals suggested by the consultation and provide a brief summary of some other proposals of note.

1. UKIPO examination of design applications

Search and examination of designs

Two alternative proposals attempt to address the current system’s absence of prior art searches and examination on substantive grounds. The first is to allow the UKIPO to search prior designs and examine applications, with the power to search, investigate and object to design applications where it suspects that the design lacks novelty or individual character. Alternatively, a two stage process is proposed by which designs would be registered, as now, without substantive examination but when a rights holder sought to enforce the design against a third-party they would be required to request substantive examination by the UKIPO, before the design can be enforced.

Neither proposal seeks to introduce a substantive search and examination requirement for every application (which would make the system slow and expensive). The first is useful to eliminate clear cases of bad faith and unmeritorious applications, but many cases would fall through the net. The second option has the disadvantage of delaying enforcement action when the rights holder needs to tackle infringements (although applicants could seek a voluntary examination before they face the need to take enforcement action).

A new bad faith provision

This proposal introduces a stand-alone ground for rejection by the UKIPO of applications filed in bad faith. The grounds could be useful in some cases although it is doubtful the UKIPO would have sufficient tools and access to information to identify many bad faith applications.

A new opposition procedure

This proposal introduces third party opposition proceedings, either pre-registration or a post-registration (where the design is “registered at risk” until the opposition period expires). The consultation paper notes that there may be some technical concern over how the publication of a design prior to registration may impact the novelty of the design in other territories (and see further below in relation to another proposed new procedure to allow deferment of the publication of new designs).

2. Simplification of unregistered designs

The consultation paper sets out a number of alternative options to consolidate the system for the protection of unregistered design under one regime.

One option is to retain supplementary unregistered designs for a 3 year term of protection in the format of the EU unregistered design right and to abolish the unique UK design right (which lasts for a longer period and offers protection for internal design elements as well as visible designs). Whilst this proposal offers simplification and harmonisation with the EU, the consultation paper acknowledges that it would result in the loss of protection for many designs that currently qualify for the design right, including those that include internal (non-visible) elements.

Another proposal is to consolidate the unregistered designs system into a single unregistered designs framework protecting both the aesthetic and non-visible design elements of a product. This would result in a single term of protection and consistent qualification requirements for unregistered design protection.

The consultation paper proposes a term of protection of three years, five years, five years plus an additional period in which the right would be subject to a “licence as of right term”, or 10 years. The government’s preferred option is a straight five year term. In all cases, the term of protection would start on the date the design becomes available to members of the relevant public in the UK.

3. Clarification of computer generated designs

Existing copyright and design legislation in the UK provide that the person who makes the arrangements for a work or design to be generated by a computer is deemed to be the author of the work. The implications of those provisions (which were introduced as early as 1988 in anticipation of developments in artificial intelligence) particularly in relation to the legal protection of works and designs generated entirely by AI without human contribution have not yet been tested in the courts.

The government suggests a range of proposals but its preferred proposal, in line with views expressed as part of another ongoing consultation relating to copyright and artificial intelligence, is to abolish those provisions and for the time being leave the law without specific provisions relating to computer-generated designs until further experience in the matter can be gained.

4. Additional proposed reforms

The consultation paper proposes a variety of additional reforms. The following may be of interest:

  1. Addressing mismatches with the EU: As a result of Brexit and the absence of a mutual recognition arrangement between the UK and the EU in relation to unregistered design rights, there is uncertainty and potential loss of rights particularly where design products are launched in the EU before they are introduced in the UK. The consultation paper proposes a number of partial solutions but acknowledges that a satisfactory position can only be achieved through an agreement with the EU on this issue which is unlikely to be negotiated in the foreseeable future. A degree of uncertainty and potential loss of some unregistered rights is therefore likely to continue. However, some of the proposals may help ensure that unregistered designs will be protected in the UK even if the product is first launched or exhibited outside the UK.
  2. Provisions for deferment of design applications: The consultation proposes introducing a right to defer the publication of details of an application to register a design for 18 months from the earliest of the priority or filing date of the application. Only basic information would be published but the design itself will be kept confidential until the deferment period expires. This will allow design companies to register their designs well in advance of launching the product whilst avoiding the risk of copies appearing on the market before or shortly after commercial launch.
  3. Animated designs and graphical user interfaces: There is insufficient clarity in the law as to how design protection applies to animation and design elements of user interfaces. The consultation paper proposes either requiring the UKIPO to issue guidance on how it applies the existing law, or to amend the legislation to clarify that animations and transitional designs can be registered and to permit filings in file formats such as video or providing an option to provide a description of the design.
  4. Small claims track at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC): To address barriers to justice posed by more lengthy and expensive proceedings in the IPEC ‘multi-track’ proceedings that are currently available to design owners, the government is considering extending access to IPEC’s small claims track – a simpler ‘no frills’ procedure - for registered designs cases. The government seeks further evidence from stakeholders regarding the proposal.
  5. Criminal sanctions: Currently, criminal offences exist in the UK in relation to the intentional copying of a registered design to make a copycat product and in relation the commercial stocking, offering for sale and other commercial dealing with the copycat product. Those offences do not extend to infringements of unregistered designs. By contrast, criminal offences do exist in relation to similar commercial activities involving infringements of copyright (which is also unregistered). The government is yet to formulate a view on whether to introduce new criminal sanctions relating infringements of unregistered designs and seeks further evidence from stakeholders.

Now that the consultation process has been closed, the UK government and the UK Intellectual Property Office will consider the feedback from industry and other stakeholders and should publish their final reform proposals ahead of starting the legislative process in Parliament.

Firm Highlights

News

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

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.

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

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.

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 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

The image shows photovoltaic solar panels in sunset converting sunlight into clean, renewable electricity.

Insights

Energy Law: Month in Review - October 2026

News

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