.

Mike structures acquisitions, navigates bankruptcy proceedings, and resolves commercial disputes for Alaska businesses and Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) — turning complicated transactions into closed deals and contested claims into workable resolutions.

Mike has built his practice around the full arc of business life: getting deals done, restructuring when things go sideways, and litigating when they go wrong. He advises companies ranging from multinational corporations to emerging companies on mergers and acquisitions (M&A), corporate restructurings, complex financings, and commercial disputes — often serving as outside general counsel on strategic matters well beyond any single transaction.

On the transactional side, Mike has guided buyers and sellers through stock sales, asset purchases, and multi-jurisdictional financing arrangements. His M&A work spans industries, including— aviation, seafood processing, construction, healthcare, technology services, and hospitality — as well as the ANC sector, where he has represented corporations in dozens of acquisitions over many years. He also advises clients on corporate governance, debt restructurings, and buy-out arrangements when ownership or capital structures need to change.

Mike's bankruptcy practice covers the full range of stakeholder positions. He has represented debtors, creditors' committees, individual creditors, and bankruptcy trustees — in Alaska courts and in proceedings filed in Delaware, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Texas, Washington, and Oklahoma. That breadth gives him a practical understanding of how each party at the table thinks, which makes him an effective advocate whether he is confirming a reorganization plan, defending a preference action, or pursuing a 363 acquisition of distressed assets.

When disputes arise, Mike litigates and negotiates resolutions in the Alaska Superior Court and federal courts. His commercial litigation experience includes breach of contract claims, complex lease disputes, wrongful death matters arising from aviation incidents, and ownership disputes. He approaches litigation with the same business-practical lens he brings to transactions: understanding what a client needs out of a proceeding, not just what the pleadings demand.

Mike's long-standing relationships with clients across the business community reflect a practice built on repeat engagements — from a single acquisition to decades of ongoing counsel. Clients in the ANC community, the healthcare sector, the fishing industry, and the auction and remarketing industry return to him because he understands their industries and the specific legal landscape of doing business in Alaska and beyond.

Select Experience

  • Represented Geneva Woods Pharmacy shareholders in the stock sale of the business to CVS Pharmacy, with the durable medical equipment division spun out to shareholders prior to closing.
  • Represented The Chenega Corporation in numerous multi-million dollar acquisitions over more than a decade, including one transaction exceeding $50,000,000, and the sale of several hotels.
  • Represented VECO Corporation's major shareholder in the $463,000,000 sale of an oil and gas related engineering and construction company to CH2M HILL.
  • Represented Janicki Industries as borrower in three successive financings totaling $129,000,000, including a $52,000,000 facility, a $15,000,000 Utah plant expansion financing, and a $62,000,000 facility.

Education

  • University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1987)
  • University of Queensland, Australia (1984)
    • Rotary Foundation Fellowship
  • University of Notre Dame (B.A., 1983)

Professional Affiliations

  • Policy Committee Member (Board), Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 2020-2026
  • Co-Chair, Bankruptcy Section of Alaska Bar, 1995-1997

Accolades

  • Chambers USA, Corporate/M&A; Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Alaska, 2005-2026
  • Best Lawyers® Lawyer of the Year, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Anchorage, 2022-2023, 2026
  • Best Lawyers in America®, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, 2003-2026
  • Alaska Super Lawyers®, 2013-2015, 2026
  • Business Law, Alaska Business Legal Elite, 2023-2024
  • IFLR1000, Highly Regarded – State, 2019-2023

Bar Admissions

  • Alaska

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Districts of Alaska and Colorado
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Texas, the Western District of Washington, the Northern District of Oklahoma

Charitable & Civic Involvement

  • Iditarod Trail Committee
    • President, 2018-2026
    • Board of Directors, 2018-present
  • Covenant House Alaska
    • Board Member, 2008-present
    • Chair, 2014-2016
  • Anchorage Community Development Authority
    • Board Member, 2012-present
    • Chair, 2015 – 2021, 2024-present
  • Stadium Committee, South Anchorage High School

Insights

Client Alert

Trump Administration’s Anti-DEI Effort Comes for Section 8(a) Program—Small Businesses and Alaska Native Corporations May be the Next Targets of Significant Federal Change and Scrutiny

January 27, 2026

Recent SBA directives and statements by senior leaders suggest a fundamental shift in the viability and risk associated with the Small Business Administration’s Section 8(a) contracting program. Federal contractors who are participants of the Section 8(a) Program, as well as those who utilize 8(a) vendors as subcontractors, should reassess risk, compliance strategies, and program viability. On January 22, 2026, SBA announced: (1) new guidance to agency program officials seeking to dramatically reshape admission qualifications for the 8(a) Business Development Program; and (2) the suspension of over 1,000 current 8(a) Program participants—nearly one-fourth of the total program participants. Further, senior officials, including Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, have publicly expressed hostility toward the 8(a) Program, which has been a cornerstone of Federal contracting for decades. These steps are the clearest signals yet that 8(a) participants and ANCs may have significant change to navigate in the near and long term. In this client alert, Dorsey identifies several announced—and likely forthcoming—steps that the Administration may undertake over the coming months. Changes to SBA Admission Qualifications Consistent with “President Trump’s broader effort to eliminate DEI across the federal government,”1 SBA’s new guidance provides that “[n]o applicant to the 8(a) Program shall be denied, nor given any presumptive preference, based solely on his or her race,” and all applicants shall be treated “fairly and equally in compliance with” President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders: EO 14151 and EO 14173. In addition, “SBA will not approve admissions to the program based on the Biden-era ‘social disadvantage narratives,’ nor will SBA utilize in any way or refer applicants to the related ‘Guide for Demonstrating Social Disadvantage.’” Instead, when considering whether 8(a) Program applicants are socially disadvantaged, SBA “shall consider, for example, such factors as whether such individual has been the victim of illegal or radical DEI policies or illegal affirmative action policies or has otherwise been the victim of discriminatory practices such as race-based quotas, set asides, or hiring targets, in each case, whether by governmental or non-governmental actors.”  This guidance appears to revise key qualifications for program admission in a way that may expand dramatically the pool of entities that could be eligible for participation in the 8(a) program.2 At the same time, traditionally socially disadvantaged individuals and groups may find it difficult to gain access to the program and its suite of benefits.  Suspensions of Current Contractors As Dorsey discussed in a December client alert, SBA directed all entities in SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program to “provide financial documents for the last three fiscal years, including bank statements, financial statements, general ledgers, payroll registers, contracting and subcontracting agreements, and employment records” by January 5. Following that deadline, SBA announced that over 1,000 8(a) Program participants have already been suspended from the program, the effects of which SBA has not publicly clarified, but appears to mean they are ineligible to receive forthcoming 8(a) awards. SBA explained the suspension was because “they failed to submit the documents SBA requested in December.”3 SBA has reportedly said the suspended firms have 45 days to appeal the suspension and it will release further information in coming days.  What’s Next for the 8(a) Program The 8(a) Program is both statutory, see 15 U.S.C. § 637(a) (authorizing subcontracts to “disadvantaged small business concerns”), and regulatory, see 13 C.F.R. § 124.101 (describing the 8(a) Program). And while some may take comfort in those legal bases for the program, as we have seen for other efforts by the Trump Administration, the existence of statutory appropriations or other provisions has not stopped the Administration from termination of thousands of grants and contracts across a wide spectrum of Federal programs and agencies.  If the Administration follows that playbook, then 8(a) Participants and ANCs should prepare for terminations for convenience. As Dorsey has written elsewhere, although most Federal contracts include express rights for government termination, the exercise of those rights can be challenged in court. Further, to the extent that a contractor accepts the termination for convenience, the contractor is typically entitled to its incurred costs and reasonable profit at the time of the termination, plus reasonable settlement expenses (including attorney fees and consultant costs). A good system to track costs, familiarity with the termination settlement proposal, and good termination project management will be important for contractors to maximize recovery.  Program participants should also prepare for fraud investigations, including by SBA Office of Inspector General and by the Department of Justice. Given recent Administration rhetoric about “widespread fraud and abuse” in the 8(a) Program, we anticipate significant investigations and audit activity.4 Contractors should be aware of the False Claims Act, its treble damages provision, and the qui tam mechanism, which awards to a whistleblower a sizable percentage of any government recovery in a False Claims Act case. Should the Administration maintain its position that the 8(a) Program is subject to fraud and abuse, participants must be prepared to defend FCA claims and should review their compliance programs.  Given the likelihood of further actions by the Administration targeting the 8(a) Program, Program participants such as ANCs should develop a comprehensive legislative, political, and legal strategy to preserve the program. In addition, participants might consider diversification strategies to avoid drawing the ire of the administration.  Dorsey has significant experience advising government contractors, including 8(a) Program participants and ANCs, in analyzing compliance programs, responding to contract terminations, handling FCA-based investigations and complaints, and diversification strategies.  1 SBA ISSUES CLARIFYING GUIDANCE THAT RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION IS NOT TOLERATED IN THE 8(A) PROGRAM, SBA News Release 26-23, available at https://www.sba.gov/article/2026/01/22/sba-issues-clarifying-guidance-race-based-discrimination-not-tolerated-8a-program (last visited January 25, 2026). 2 Applicants still must satisfy the remaining 8(a) Program admission standards.   3 See SBA News Release 26-23, supra. 4 Id.

Client Alert

Does My Business Qualify for Federal Funding under the CARES Act?

April 1, 2020

Updated April 21, 2020 What small business owners need to know The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act” or “Stimulus Act”), signed into law on March 27, 2020, includes a program administered through the Small Business Administration (SBA) that will assist small businesses, non-profits, and other concerns that have reduced staff, missed payroll, or are simply struggling to make payroll in response to COVID-19 (known as the Paycheck Protection Program). Generally, the Stimulus Act will provide up to $10 million in federal assistance to eligible businesses to pay for a wide range of business expenses incurred through June 30, 2020, without the usual collateral or personal guarantee requirements.  For businesses that retain their employees and hold salaries steady during this time, the federal assistance may be forgiven in its entirety.  Apply for this loan program through your local bank or credit union—most will be authorized to facilitate these loans. Below are the questions that small business owners should consider when determining whether their business qualifies for federal assistance under the Stimulus Act, and a hypothetical applying the legislation as drafted.  A more detailed list of the requirements of the Paycheck Protection Program as set forth in the Stimulus Act may be found here. Note: Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Treasury and the SBA, and local lenders are continuing to promulgate rules, regulations, and guidelines further refining and providing guidance on the Stimulus Act.  Given the fluid and dynamic regulatory landscape at the time of publication, businesses should consult their counsel and local lenders for any additional rules or regulations that may impact their business decisions related to the Paycheck Protection Program.  We hope that this article will help you craft an overall loan strategy. 1. Is my business eligible for federal assistance through the SBA loan program (administered by your local bank or credit union)? For your business to be eligible for federal assistance through the SBA loan program, your business must be the right size and have been in operation at the right time. Is my business the right size? Otherwise eligible businesses that employ less than 500 employees and, as of February 15, 2020, was in existence and had employees will qualify. Nonetheless, if a business has more than 500 employees, it may still qualify for federal assistance under the Stimulus Act as a “small business concern.”  Specifically, the SBA determines whether a business is a “small business concern” using either its total number of employees or its annual receipts.  These standards can vary by industry, so it is important to check the specific rule that applies to your business, but “[m]ost manufacturing companies with 500 employees or fewer, and most non-manufacturing businesses with average annual receipts under $7.5 million, will qualify as a small business.”1 Regardless, a business the employs less than 500 employees and was in operation with at least one employee as of February 15, 2020 is eligible to receive federal assistance under the Stimulus Act.  Importantly, the business’s legal form can be a limited liability company, a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, non-profit, or tribal entity. Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) that are eligible under the SBA’s Section 8(a) business development program are eligible to receive federal assistance under the Stimulus Act.  ANCs that are not Section 8(a) eligible – such as non-profits – may still be eligible if they employ no more than 500 employees or if they otherwise satisfy the requirements for a “small business concern.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, a business concern (excluding non-profits) described under 13 CFR §120.110 remain ineligible. Such concerns include financial businesses primarily engaged in the business of lending, life insurance companies, businesses located in a foreign country (businesses in the U.S. owned by aliens may qualify), pyramid sale distribution plans, businesses engaged in any illegal activity among others. Was my business in operation at the right time? The business must have been in operation on February 15, 2020, and had employees for whom the business paid wages or salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors as of that date. 2. How much federal assistance can I ask for? The amount of federal assistance that your business may be eligible for is based on a calculation tied to your business’s payroll costs, and cannot exceed $10 million.  Generally, the SBA will average your payroll costs over the 12 month period before the loan application is made and multiply that monthly average by 2.5.  However, you do not need to borrow the maximum amount. The intent of the Stimulus Act is to provide a loan that will cover your payroll expenses for about 8 weeks, but it can be used for other qualifying expenses (as further discussed below).  To qualify for a loan, you will need to certify that your business needs financial assistance for ongoing operations in light of COVID-19 disruptions and acknowledge that the loan proceeds you receive from the Stimulus Act will be used to retain workers, maintain payroll or pay other permitted expenses. What if my business ramps up during the summer tourist season? If you are a seasonal employer (as determined by the SBA), the SBA will average your payroll from, at the election of the business, February 15, 2019 or March 1, 2019 and, in either case, ending June 30, 2019, and multiply that monthly average by 2.5. If your business ramps up during the summer tourist season, you may want to elect to have the SBA use your March 1 through June 30, 2019, payroll numbers because it will likely result in a higher average, and thus a higher potential loan amount for your business. 3. Will I have to provide a personal guarantee or collateral for the federal assistance I receive? No.  A business seeking federal assistance through the SBA under the Stimulus Act will not have to provide a personal guarantee or collateral for the loan.  This usual requirement for receiving loans through the SBA has been waived by the Stimulus Act. Similarly, the usual SBA requirement that businesses demonstrate that they cannot obtain credit elsewhere before seeking a loan from the SBA and the application fee for seeking SBA assistance have been waived. 4. How can I use the federal assistance I receive? You can use the Stimulus Act loan to pay for the following business expenses incurred from February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020: Payroll costs Rent (including rent under a lease agreement) Utilities Payments of interest on any mortgage obligation (but this cannot be used toward the payment of any principal on a mortgage obligation) Costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits, including insurance premiums and the costs of paid sick leave, medical leave, or family leave, and insurance premiums Employee compensation (wages, salaries, commissions, or similar) Interest on any other debt obligations incurred prior to February 15, 2020 If you cannot use the entirety of the loan for eligible expenses incurred on or before June 30, 2020 or if you do not use the loan for forgivable expenses (as further explained below), the remainder becomes a loan with a maximum maturity date of 10 years (unless shortened by additional rules or regulations promulgated by federal agencies) with an interest rate not to exceed 4%.2  The Stimulus Act requires that payments on the principal, interest, and fees on the loan be made on a monthly basis but are deferred for at least 6 months, and up to 1 year, at the discretion of the lenders. 5. Will I have to pay back the federal assistance I receive? It depends.  The intent of the Stimulus Act is to forgive a portion or all of the loan where businesses have retained their employees and maintained wage levels.  However, the loan forgiveness analysis and calculation is complicated. My business has retained its employees and maintained wages – how much of my loan can be forgiven? For businesses that have retained their employees and maintained wages, the loan – up to the principal amount – may be forgiven in the amount equal to certain business expenses incurred and paid in the eight weeks following the disbursement of the loan (the “Forgiveness Expenses Period”).  Those qualifying business expenses are: Payroll costs (including salaries, wages, commissions, or similar compensation) Rent (obligated under a rental/leasing agreement in force before February 15, 2020) Utilities for a service for the distribution of electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone, or internet access for which the service began before February 15, 2020 Interest on any mortgage obligation (obligated under a debt instrument for a mortgage on real or personal property incurred before February 15, 2020), but not the payment of any principal on a mortgage obligation It is important to note that, although you are permitted to use the loan toward a variety of business expenses, only some of those expenses qualify for loan forgiveness.  Therefore, there is a difference between eligible expenses and eligible forgivable expenses. Another important distinction to note is that eligible forgivable expenses must be incurred and paid in the eight weeks following the disbursement of the loan.  The loan can also be used toward eligible expenses that are incurred from February 15 through June 30 (rather than just the eight weeks following the disbursement of the loan); however, these expenses would not qualify for loan forgiveness. My business has had to reduce the number of its employees – can my loan still be forgiven? Yes.  If your business laid off employees on or after February 15, 2020, the amount of your loan forgiveness may be reduced. The SBA calculates whether you have reduced the number of your employees by comparing: numerator: the average number of full-time employees per month in your employment during the Forgiveness Expenses Period to denominator:  either (at your option): (a) the average number of full-time employees per month in your employment from January 1, 2020, to February 29, 2020, or (b) the average number of full-time employees per month in your employment from February 15, 2019, to June 30, 2019. These numbers will form a fraction, which will then be multiplied by the amount of eligible expenses you have paid during the Forgiveness Expenses Period.  In order to obtain the greatest loan forgiveness possible, you will want this fraction to be as close to 1 as possible. For example, if you employ 90 full-time employees during the Forgiveness Expenses Period, but employed 100 full-time employees during the same period last year, your calculation should look like this: 90 full-time employees per month during Forgiveness  X  qualifying costs   =   90% costs forgiven 100 full-time employees per month Feb. 15-June 30, 2019     If, however, you employed fewer employees in the beginning of 2020 than you did from February to June last year, you would likely want to elect to use the number of employees you had at the beginning of 2020: 90 full-time employees per month during Forgiveness X  qualifying costs   =   94.7% costs forgiven 95 full-time employees per month Jan. 1-Feb. 29, 2020 My business has had to reduce employee salaries – can my loan still be forgiven? Yes.  If your business has been unable to maintain the salaries of its employees from February 15, 2020, to June 30, 2020, the amount of your loan forgiveness may be reduced. The amount of the loan forgiveness will be reduced by the amount of any reduction in total salary or wages of any qualifying employee (under $100,000 in annualized wages for any pay period in 2019) of more than 25% of the total salary or wages the employee received during the most recent full quarter during which the employee was employed before February 15, 2020 (presumably Q4 in 2019). Can I rehire employees or raise salaries to have a greater percentage of my loan forgiven? Yes.  If, prior to June 30, 2020, you rehire your employees or raise salaries that were previously reduced, you can increase the amount of loan forgiveness. The SBA will use the number of full-time employees or salaries of the employees your business employed on February 15, 2020, as a baseline.  If you reduce or have reduced the number of full-time employees or salaries of employees between February 15, 2020, and April 26, 2020, you can rehire those employees or raise those salaries to their previous levels by June 30, 2020, without having that brief reduction impact your loan forgiveness calculation. For example, if you had 90 full-time employees on February 15, 2020, and had to let go 60 employees on March 12, 2020, you could rehire some or all of those 60 employees on or before June 30, 2020, without having the brief reduction in payroll negatively impact your loan forgiveness calculation (in other words, the rehired employees are considered to have worked during the Forgiveness Expenses Period so they are included in the “average monthly” employee count).  As previously noted, however, only eligible forgivable expenses incurred and paid during the Forgiveness Expenses Period, may be utilized in the loan forgiveness calculation. HYPOTHETICAL ABC LLC had a monthly average of 300 employees for the look-back period chosen by the borrower and a monthly average payroll of $1 million for the 12 month period prior to the loan application.  On March 15, 2020, ABC LLC laid off 250 employees due to COVID-19. ABC LLC could be eligible for a loan of up to $2.5 million (2.5 x $1 million monthly payroll average).  ABC LLC applies for the full $2.5 million loan, which is funded on May 1, 2020. Scenario A: Full Forgiveness ABC LLC applies all $2.5 million toward eligible forgivable expenses incurred and paid from May 1 through June 30, 2020.  These eligible forgivable expenses include $2 million in payroll and $500,000 in rent and utilities. Because ABC LLC laid off its employees between February 15 and April 26, 2020, it is eligible for loan forgiveness calculated as though it had not laid off its employees if it rehires the employees before June 30, 2020. Therefore, if ABC LLC hires back all of the employees before June 30, 2020, its entire loan would be forgiven.  This forgiveness calculation would be as follows: 300 (monthly avg. full-time employees during Forgiveness Expenses Period)   X    qualifying costs = 100% forgiven 300 (monthly avg. full-time employees Feb. 15-June 30, 2019)       Because this fraction equals 1, the full loan amount would be forgiven based on the requirements set forth in the Stimulus Act. Scenario B: Partial Forgiveness  During the Forgiveness Expenses Period commencing May 1, ABC LLC spends $1 million of its $2.5 million Stimulus Act loan toward eligible forgivable expenses (e.g., payroll costs, rent, and utilities) and $500,000 toward other eligible (but not forgivable) expenses (e.g.,  utility expenses other than for electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or internet).  Although ABC LLC received $2.5 million under the Stimulus Act, it only had $1.5 million in eligible expenses, leaving a remainder of $1 million from the disbursement. ABC LLC rehires only 85 of its laid-off employees effective on May 1, 2020 (perhaps because the remaining 165 laid-off employees would prefer to stay on the increased unemployment benefits).  With these rehired employees, ABC LLC’s monthly employee average is 135 (50 retain employees plus 85 rehired employees) because ABC LLC is eligible for loan forgiveness calculated as though it had not laid off those employees.  The forgiveness calculation would be: 135 (monthly avg. full-time employees during Forgiveness Expenses Period)   X    qualifying costs = 45% forgiven 300 (monthly avg. full-time employees Feb. 15-June 30, 2019)   Under these facts and the requirements set forth in the Stimulus Act, the $1 million spent on forgivable expenses would be forgiven at 45% equaling $450,000.  The remaining $550,000 would not be forgiven.  Additionally, the $500,000 spent toward eligible but not forgivable expenses would not be forgiven. Therefore, the $1,050,000 in non-forgivable expenses ($550,000 plus $500,000) plus the remaining $1,000,000 of the Stimulus Act disbursement, would become a loan for $2,050,000.  The loan would have a maximum maturity date of 10 years (unless shorted by federal agencies’ additional rules or regulations) with an interest rate no higher than 4% interest rate and monthly payments becoming due only after the mandatory minimum 6 month deferral period (which could be extended up to a year at the discretion of the lender). CONCLUSION The small business relief provisions of the CARES Act provide small businesses with powerful tools to help them stay in business and maintain employee continuity.  The loan and loan forgiveness programs of the Act, which are currently being refined by additional rules and regulations promulgated by federal agencies, are intended to keep local economies going by providing small businesses with access to low interest funding and potentially broad loan forgiveness provided the money is used for payroll expenses (for current or rehired employees) and other eligible forgivable expenses. 1 Basic Requirements, U.S. Small Business Administration, https://www.sba.gov/federal-contracting/contracting-guide/basic-requirements. 2 For example, the U.S. Treasury disseminated an information sheet for Paycheck Protection Program borrowers which indicates that the maturity of the loan will be 2 years at a fixed interest rate of 1.00%.  However, at the time of publication of this article, it is unclear whether this guidance from the U.S. Treasury is final or will be further revised.  

Firm Highlights

Event/Resource

Corporate Counsel Symposium 2026 Materials Hub

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

News

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

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

Insights

Observations on the SEC’s 2027 Examination Priorities

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

Insights

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

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