.

Client Alerts/eUpdates/Alerts

CARES Act Provides Significant Payroll Tax Relief and Relief for Business Taxpayers and Individuals

April 3, 2020

by Katina M. Peterson and Kendall R. Fisher

Download as a PDF

Share this page

The federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act” or the “Act”), signed into law on March 27, 2020, contains significant (and mostly temporary) changes to federal tax law that provide immediate and short-term economic relief to both individual and business taxpayers.  This briefing provides general summaries of these provisions in three categories: (1) payroll tax relief, (2) relief for business taxpayers, and (3) relief for individuals.  For more specific information relating to any of these provisions, please reach out to any of the authors.

PAYROLL TAX RELIEF

Employee Retention Credit for Employers Adversely Affected by COVID-19

Section 2301 of the Act provides certain employers adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with payroll tax credits for wages paid to employees in 2020, including related health insurance costs, under specified circumstances.  These credits operate similarly to the sick leave and family leave credits provided for under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) enacted on March 18, 2020, although they do not result in credits for the entire amount of wages paid.  Under the circumstances that qualify employers for credits, employers may be incentivized by the credits to retain employees for longer than they might otherwise and in any case will be compensated in the form of a payroll tax reduction or refund for up to $5,000 per employee for all qualified wages paid, mitigating some of the financial strain on employers caused by the emergency.

More specifically, the Act provides “eligible employers” for any calendar quarter in 2020 with credits against FICA tax liability for such quarter in an amount equal to 50 percent of the “qualified wages” paid to employees for the quarter.  The aggregate amount of qualified wages that can be taken into account with respect to any employee in 2020 shall not exceed $10,000, and thus the credit for each employee cannot exceed $5,000 for the year.

“Eligible employers” are employers carrying on a trade or business during calendar year 2020 (including, for this purpose, tax-exempt organizations) with respect to any calendar quarter in 2020 for which either of the following eligibility thresholds is satisfied:

  1. The operation of the employer’s trade or business is fully or partially suspended during the calendar quarter due to orders from an appropriate governmental authority limiting commerce, travel, or group meetings (for commercial, social, religious, or other purposes) due to COVID-19 (the “Suspension Circumstances”); or
  2. The calendar quarter is within the period beginning with the first calendar quarter in 2020 for which the employer’s gross receipts for the quarter are less than 50 percent of the employer’s gross receipts for the same calendar quarter in the prior year and ending at the end of 2020 (the “Gross Receipts Circumstances”).  The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue guidance regarding the application of this provision to any employer who was not carrying on a trade or business for all or part of the same calendar quarter in the prior year.

“Qualified wages” is defined differently depending on whether the employer’s average number of full-time employees (as determined under rules set forth in Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”)) during 2019 was (1) greater than 100, or (2) 100 or fewer, as follows:

  1. For employers whose average number of full-time employees during 2019 was greater than 100, “qualified wages” are wages paid only with respect to which an employee is not providing services due to the Suspension Circumstances or the Gross Receipts Circumstances.  Aggregation rules borrowed from Sections 52 and 414 of the Code apply to treat certain persons as a single employer for purposes of this provision.
  2. For employers whose average number of full-time employees during 2019 was 100 or fewer, “qualified wages” are (a) wages paid to any employee during any period in which the Suspension Circumstances are present, even if they are providing services; and (b) if not taken into account pursuant the foregoing clause, wages paid to any employee during any quarter in 2020 from and after the first quarter in which the Gross Receipts Circumstances are present, even if they are providing services.

The Act further provides that “qualified wages” shall include so much of the eligible employer’s qualified health plan expenses as are properly allocable to the wages described above, but only to the extent that these expenses are excluded from employees’ gross income.

Among other limitations set forth in the Act, “qualified wages” does not include any sick leave or family leave wages for which dollar for dollar tax credits already are provided under the FFCRA or wages paid to specified family members of the employer or controlling owner.  Additionally, employers who receive a Paycheck Protection Program loan provided for in Section 1102 of the Act are not eligible for the credits.

Refundable Nature of Credits:  The credits are available for the calendar quarter for which the qualified wages are paid, and are refundable to the employer to the extent they exceed the employer’s tax liability for such quarter.  The Act provides that the Secretary shall waive any failure to deposit penalty for applicable payroll taxes if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that such failure was due to the reasonable anticipation of the credits allowed under this section of the Act.

Credits for Amounts Paid to Employees Covered by Railroad Retirement System:  The Act provides similar credits and penalty relief for qualified wages paid by eligible employers to employees who are covered under the Railroad Retirement Act system rather than under the FICA tax system.

Effective Date: The credit applies with respect to wages paid after March 12, 2020, and before January 1, 2021.

Delay of Payment of Employer Payroll Taxes

Section 2302 of the CARES Act treats any employer as having timely deposited all “applicable employment taxes” accrued during the period beginning on the date of enactment of the CARES Act and ending on January 1, 2021 (effectively, “applicable employment taxes” due for the remainder of 2020) if 50 percent of such taxes are deposited no later than December 31, 2021 and the remainder is deposited no later than December 31, 2022.  For most employers, the “applicable employment taxes” consist of the employer portion of Social Security taxes, which are currently imposed at a rate of 6.2 percent of wages paid to employees (applicable to wages paid up to $137,700 per employee) (Code Section 3111(a) taxes).  A separate definition applies for purposes of the employment taxes with respect to employees who are covered under the Railroad Retirement Act system.

Taxpayers that have indebtedness forgiven under either Section 1106 or Section 1109 of the CARES Act with respect to a Paycheck Protection Program loan are not eligible for the foregoing deferral provisions.

For taxpayers subject to self-employment tax, the CARES Act permits the deferral of 50 percent of self-employment taxes accrued during the period beginning on the date of enactment of the CARES Act and ending on January 1, 2021 (effectively, 50 percent of the self-employment taxes due for the remainder of 2020) if 50 percent of the deferred taxes are deposited no later than December 31, 2021 and the remainder is deposited no later than December 31, 2022. Taxes deferred under the CARES Act will also be excluded for purposes of calculating estimated tax payments under Code Section 6654.

Effective Date: March 27, 2020.

RELIEF FOR BUSINESS TAXPAYERS

Temporary Suspension of Limitations on Corporations’ Cash Charitable Contributions

Section 2205 of the Act modifies the limitations on deductions of qualified charitable contributions.  For corporations, the 10-perecnt of taxable income limitation is increased to 25 percent of taxable income for qualified contributions, with any excess eligible to be carried forward.

For purposes of this provision, a “qualified contribution” means any charitable contribution if (i) paid in cash during the calendar year 2020 to an organization described in Code Section 170(b)(1)(A) (e.g., churches, education institutions, organizations that receive a substantial portion of support from public contributions, etc.), and (ii) the taxpayer has elected the application of this section with respect to such contribution.  Contributions to donor-advised funds and supporting organizations do not qualify.

This provision also increases the limitation on deductions for contributions of certain food inventory to 25 percent of the taxpayer’s aggregate business income from businesses in which such contributions were made (previously, deductions were limited to 15 percent of such income).

Effective Date: This section of the CARES Act applies in taxable years ending after 2019.

Modifications for Net Operating Losses

Section 2303 of the CARES Act delays the effective date through the current taxable year of certain limitations on a corporation’s ability to deduct net operating losses (“NOLs”) that were enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”).  Under this relief provision, a corporate taxpayer’s NOLs arising in a taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2021 generally can be carried back to the five years preceding the taxable year of such loss (see Code Section 172(b)). In addition, the “80 percent limitation of taxable income” rule regarding use of NOLs will not apply to taxable years after December 31, 2017 and beginning before January 1, 2021 (additional rules are provided for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2020) (see Code Section 172(b)).  The increased ability to use NOLs to offset taxable income both in current and previous taxable years should increase an affected corporation’s cash flows to maintain operations and payroll during the COVID-19 emergency.

The TCJA prohibited taxpayers from carrying back NOLs to taxable years ending after December 31, 2017. The CARES Act provides that NOLs that arose in a tax year that “straddled” December 31, 2017 are eligible for the two-year carryback period and twenty-year carryforward provisions that applied prior to the enactment of the TCJA. For the 120 days following the date of enactment of the CARES Act, taxpayers are permitted to file an election under Code Section 6411(a) to carryback eligible NOLs during that arose during a taxable year straddling, but not ending on, December 31, 2017, or to elect to forego the carryback under Code Section 172(b)(3).

The TCJA also introduced what is commonly known as a “transition tax” under Code Section 965, whereby U.S. corporations were deemed to have repatriated certain income from their non-U.S. subsidiaries. For most taxpayers, this deemed repatriation occurred in their 2017 taxable year, unless the taxpayer elected to defer such tax to their 2018 taxable year. For a taxpayer that previously recognized taxable income under Code Section 965, the CARES Act provides that an NOL arising in 2018, 2019 or 2020 cannot be used to offset such income previously recognized under Code Section 965 (by technically deeming the taxpayer to have made the election provided in Code Section 965(n). However, the NOL may still be carried back to such Inclusion Year to offset non-Code Section 965 income. Alternatively, the CARES Act permits taxpayers to apply a carryback method which “skips over” Inclusion Years.

Exceptions: NOLs for REITS shall not be an NOL carryback to any taxable year preceding the taxable year of such loss. Any NOL for a taxable year in which a corporation is not a REIT cannot be carried back to a taxable year in which the corporation is a REIT. In addition, if an NOL is carried back for a life insurance company in a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2018, such NOL shall be treated in the same manner as an operations loss carryback. Finally, for any NOLs carried back to any taxable year with respect to a deferred foreign income corporation (see Code Section 965(a)), the taxpayer will be treated as having made the election not to apply NOL deductions with respect to any taxable year so described (see Code Section 965(n)).

Effective Date: The amendments made by this section apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017 (with special rules for NOLs arising in taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018 and ending after December 31, 2017).

Modifications of Limitation on Losses for Taxpayers Other than Corporations

Similar to the relief provided for in Section 2303 of the CARES Act with respect to NOLs, Section 2304 of the CARES Act delays the effective date of the “excess business loss” limitations for non-corporate taxpayers that were enacted in the TCJA.

By way of background, under the TCJA, for any taxable year of a non-corporate taxpayer beginning after December 31, 2017 and before January 1, 2026, the deduction of “excess business losses” was disallowed (see Code Section 461(I)(1)). Any such disallowed excess business losses were treated as an NOL carryover to the following taxable year under Code Section 172 (see Code Section 461(I)(2)). For these purposes, an “excess business loss” means the excess (if any) of:

  1. The aggregate deductions of the taxpayer for the taxable year which are attributable to trades or business of such taxpayer (determined without regard to whether or not such deductions are disallowed for such taxable year under Code Section 461), over
  2. The sum of (a) the aggregate gross income or gain of such taxpayer for the taxable year which is attributable to such trades or business, plus (b) $250,000 (200 percent of such amount in the case of a joint venture).

Under Section 2303 of the CARES Act, the effective date of these provisions in the TCJA is delayed from December 31, 2017 to December 31, 2020 (see Code Section 461(I)(1)), so that passthrough entities and sole proprietorships will be able to use excess business losses with respect to 2018, 2019, and 2020. Accordingly, for taxpayers that previously had an NOL carryforward in 2019 resulting from disallowed excess business losses in 2018 will no longer have such NOL resulting from the disallowed excess business losses. For tax years beginning in 2021 through 2026, taxpayers may treat disallowed excess business losses as NOLs for purposes of carrying such disallowed excess business losses forward to subsequent tax years.

The CARES Act also makes certain technical amendments to the definition of “excess business losses” as provided in the TCJA. These amendments include clarifying that: (i) deductions permitted under Code Sections 172 and 199A will be disregarded in determining excess business losses; (ii) the calculation of excess business losses will include the lesser of (A) capital gain attributable to a trade or business and (B) net capital gain income; and (iii) excess business losses will be determined without regard to any capital losses or any deductions, gross income, or gain attributable to any trade or business or performing services as an employee.

Effective Date: This section of the CARES Act applies to all taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Modification of Credit for Prior Year Minimum Tax Liability for Corporations

The TCJA repealed the corporate alternative minimum tax (the “AMT”) and amended Code Section 53(e) to allow for refunds of outstanding AMT credit carryforwards over a phase-in period ending on December 31, 2021. Section 2305 of the CARES Act would accelerate the ability of corporate taxpayers to claim credits and refunds for their outstanding AMT credit carryforwards.

Under Section 2305 of the Act, a corporate taxpayer’s AMT credit carryforwards are fully refundable in its tax year beginning in 2019.  In addition, a corporate taxpayer may elect for the AMT credit carryforward to be fully refundable in its tax year beginning in 2018.

Applications for refunds will be deemed as made under Code Section 6411, which generally means that such applications will be subject to a 90-day review, processing and payment timeline. However, the IRS can disallow an application in whole, or in part, as a result of omissions or errors noted during the 90-day review period. Further, any such refund will be treated as a “tentative refund,” meaning that the refund may be subsequently disallowed upon further examination by the IRS. Special rules may apply to taxpayers filing a consolidated return.

Effective Date: This section of the CARES Act applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

Modifications of Limitations on Business Interest

Section 2306 of the CARES Act relaxes the limitations on the deductibility of business interest that were enacted in the TCJA.

By way of background, prior to the enactment of the TCJA, business interest expense was generally fully deductible (subject to potential limitations in cases involving related or foreign parties). Under the TCJA, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, Code Section 163(j)(1) limited the deduction for business interest (subject to exceptions for taxpayers in specified businesses or with gross receipts below specified levels and subject to special rules for passthrough entities) to the sum of:

  1. “business interest income” (the term “business interest income” meaning interest includible in gross income and properly allocable to a trade or business);
  2. 30 percent of the “adjusted taxable income” of the taxpayer, but, in no event, less than zero (the term “adjusted taxable income” meaning taxable income computed without regard to any item of income, gain, deduction or loss not properly allocable to a trade or business, any interest income or expense, net operating loss, Code Section 199A deduction and, for tax years beginning before January 1, 2022, any deduction for depreciation, amortization or depletion); and
  3. “floor plan financing interest” (interest paid on indebtedness used to purchase, and secured by, motor vehicles held for sale or lease).

Any interest expense disallowed due to being in excess of the threshold provided above was considered as paid in the following year and could be carried forward indefinitely.

Section 2306 of the CARES Act relaxes the limitation described above for taxable years of taxpayers other than partnerships beginning in 2019 or 2020 by substituting “50 percent” for “30 percent” in the second part of the limitation. For partnerships, the limitation is relaxed only for taxable years beginning in 2020. In addition, unless a partner elects otherwise, in the case of any excess business interest of the partnership for any taxable year beginning in 2019 which is allocated to the partner, 50 percent of such excess business interest shall be treated as business interest which is paid or accrued by the partner in the partner’s first taxable year beginning in 2020. The limits of Code Section 163(j)(1), as set forth above, do not apply to such excess business interest. Instead, the partner may claim a deduction for such excess business interest to the extent that partner is allocated “excess taxable income” from the partnership as described above. A partner may carry-forward any disallowed excess business interest to future tax years indefinitely.

Any taxpayer may elect out of the foregoing amendments to Code Section 163(j), provided that, in the case of a partnership, the election must be made by the partnership (and applies to all partners with respect to that partnership). Such an election may only be revoked with the consent of the IRS.

The CARES Act also allows a taxpayer to elect to use its adjusted taxable income in its 2019 tax year for purposes of computing the limitation under the second part of Code Section 163(j) above for tax years beginning in 2020. In the case of a short tax year, a proportionate amount of the adjusted taxable income for the taxpayer’s 2019 tax year may be used for computing the limitation for such short tax year. In the case of a partnership, this election must be made by the partnership (and applies to all partners with respect to that partnership).  For taxpayers affected by the likely economic downturn in 2020, the ability to use their 2019 adjusted taxable income to determine their business interest deduction for their 2020 tax year will likely significantly increase their ability to claim business interest income expense deductions for their 2020 tax year, reducing their net cost of capital.

Effective Date: Section 2305 of the CARES Act is effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 2018.

Technical Amendments Regarding Qualified Improvement Property

Section 2307 of the CARES ACT corrects an error in the TCJA regarding the deductibility of “qualified improvement property.”  The TCJA erroneously required businesses to depreciate this property using the straight-line method over the 39-year life of a building.  The correction enables businesses to write off the cost of this property immediately.  “Qualified improvement property” means any improvement to the interior portion of a non-residential building if the improvement is placed in service after the date such non-residential building was placed in service. However, the following types of improvements are not considered “qualified improvement property” for this purpose: (1) enlargements to the building; (2) any elevator or escalator; or (3) any improvement to the internal structural framework of the building.

This correction is anticipated to be particularly beneficial for the hospitality industry.

Effective Date: This provision is effective as if it had been originally included in the TCJA, i.e., for tax years beginning after December 31, 2017. Taxpayers may amend prior year tax returns to claim this deduction.

Temporary Exception from Excise Tax for Alcohol Used to Produce Hand Sanitizer

Section 2308 of the CARES Act provides a temporary exception from the excise tax imposed under Chapter 51 of the Code on distilled spirits used for or contained in hand sanitizer. Under this amendment, any distilled spirits removed from bonded premises after December 31, 2019 and before January 1, 2021 for use in or contained in hand sanitizer products produced and distributed in a manner consistent with guidance issued by the Food and Drug Administration related to the outbreak of SARS or COVID-19 will not be subject to the excise tax imposed under Chapter 51. In addition, any distilled spirits or products described in this section will not be subject to any requirements related to labeling or bulk sales under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act or the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act.

Effective Date: This section applies to distilled spirits removed from bonded premises after December 31, 2019 and before January 2, 2021.

RELIEF FOR INDIVIDUALS

Stimulus Payments

Section 2201 of the CARES Act adds new Section 6428 to the Code to provide eligible, individual taxpayers a one-time refundable tax credit.  This “recovery rebate” (also referred to frequently in the media as a stimulus payment) is equal to the sum of (i) $1,200 ($2,400 for eligible individuals filing a joint return), plus (ii) $500 for each qualifying child (as defined in Code Section 24(c)) of the taxpayer.  An “eligible individual” means any individual who is not any of the following:  (1) a nonresident alien individual, (2) a dependent of another taxpayer, and (3) a trust or an estate.

The amount of the credit allowed under this section will be reduced (but not below zero) by $5 for each $100 by which the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income exceeds (1) $150,000 in the case of a joint return, (2) $112,500 in the case of a head of household, and (3) $75,000 in the case of an individual taxpayer. For example, the amount is completely phased-out for single filers with incomes exceeding $99,000, $146,500 for head of household filers with one child, and $198,000 for joint filers with no children.

In order to calculate and issue the stimulus payments, the IRS will review information reported on eligible taxpayers’ 2019 federal income tax return.  If a return has not yet been filed for 2019 (now due on July 15, see earlier Dorsey e-Alert here), the IRS will review an eligible taxpayer’s 2018 federal income tax return.  If the IRS doesn't have a 2018 or 2019 tax return, it will review information from a 2019 Form SSA-1099, Social Security Benefit Statement, or Form RRB-1099, Social Security Equivalent Benefit Statement, to calculate the stimulus check amount.

No action is required by eligible taxpayers to receive a stimulus payment.  The IRS will automatically issue the stimulus payment calculated in accordance with new Code Section 6428 based on eligible taxpayers’ return information.  If a taxpayer is not eligible to receive a stimulus payment now, he or she may still be eligible for a stimulus payment at the time the 2020 federal income tax return is filed.  Under new Code Section 6428, payments issued now are treated as advance payments of a refundable credit for the 2020 tax year.  So, for taxpayers who do not receive a stimulus payment in 2020, the taxpayer may be able to claim it next year as a refund or reduction of the tax owed on their 2020 federal income tax return.

Above-the-Line Deduction for Certain Charitable Contributions

Section 2204 of the Act adds a new permanent above-the-line deduction by way of adding Section 62(a)(22) to the Code.  The new rule provides that, beginning with 2020 federal income tax returns, certain taxpayers who do not elect to itemize will be able to deduct up to $300 in qualified charitable contributions.

For purposes of this provision, a “qualified charitable contribution” means a charitable contribution: (i) made in cash; (ii) for which a deduction is typically allowed for charitable contributions under the Code (see Code Section 170); (iii) made to a charitable organization, e.g., churches, education institutions, organizations that receive a substantial portion of support from public contributions, etc. (see Code Section 170(b)(1)(A)); (iv) not made to a supporting organization described in Code Section 509(a)(3); and (v) not made for the establishment of a new, or maintenance of an existing, donor advised fund (see Code Section 4966(d)(2)).

Charitable contributions carried over from a prior taxable year will not qualify for the new above-the-line deduction.

Temporary Suspension of Limitations on Individuals’ Cash Charitable Contributions

Section 2205 of the Act modifies the limitations on individuals’ itemized deductions of qualified charitable contributions.  The 50-percent of adjusted gross income limitation is temporarily suspended for qualified contributions, generally allowing individuals to fully deduct qualified contributions to the extent of their adjusted gross income (reduced by any other charitable contributions otherwise allowed), with any excess to be carried forward.

For purposes of this provision, a “qualified contribution” has the same meaning as set forth above in the discussion of this provision as it affects corporate taxpayers.

This provision also increases the limitation on deductions for contributions of certain food inventory from 15 percent to 25 percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income.

Effective Date: This section of the CARES Act applies in taxable years ending after 2019.

Expansion of Tax-Free Employer Educational Assistance to Include Student Loan Repayments

Section 2206 of the Act allows employers to provide a new category of educational assistance benefits to employees on a tax-free basis in 2020, subject to the existing $5,250 cap on tax-free benefits per employee: student loan repayments made by an employer to an employee or directly to a lender with respect to the principal or interest of an employee’s “qualified education loan” as defined in Section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, if made after March 27, 2020, and before January 1, 2021.

Any employee who receives such excluded income from an employer will not be able to also deduct the corresponding amount of interest paid with respect to such employee’s student loans (see Code Section 221(e)).

Effective Date: This section of the CARES Act applies to payments made after March 27, 2020.

 

Firm Highlights

News

Patent Partners Al Araiza and Lena Petrovic Join Dorsey in Palo Alto

Patent partners Al Araiza and Lena Petrovic have joined Dorsey & Whitney LLP in Palo Alto, the international law firm announced today. Al Araiza works with clients to develop and implement patent strategies that align with corporate objectives, supporting growth initiatives, financing efforts, and successful exits, including initial public offerings and acquisitions. He advises on building, managing, and optimizing patent portfolios across a broad range of emerging and frontier technologies, with depth in wireless communications, artificial intelligence, and energy innovation. Before practicing law, Al gained engineering experience in the defense industry, working on energy system modeling and communications circuitry design. He also conducted biomedical research, with findings published in peer-reviewed journals. He has been recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 for his work advising clients on patent strategy and portfolio development. Al received his J.D. from Duke University School of Law, his M.E. in Biomedical Engineering from Tulane University, and his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from UCLA. Lena Petrovic works across the software and hardware industries to develop clear, well-supported patent applications. She guides clients through the prosecution process and advises on global trademark and copyright matters, including licensing and portfolio management. Lena regularly supports clients developing technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, fintech, cryptography, interactive and immersive experiences, and digital media, and works with companies in entertainment, gaming, and sports. Before practicing law, Lena spent a decade at Pixar, where she contributed to major films including The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL‑E, and Brave. Lena received her J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law, her M.S. in Computer Science from Princeton University, and her B.S. from California Institute of Technology. “Al and Lena bring a practical, technical, and business-focused approach informed by extensive experience working with technology companies, startups, and investors,” said Gina Cornelio, Patent Practice Group Co-Leader. “We are thrilled to welcome them to the Patent team and our growing Palo Alto office.” “Dorsey’s Patent practice is dedicated to understanding each client's business deeply, tailoring patent strategies that directly advance their goals,” said Al Araiza. “We are proud to join this outstanding team and look forward to driving success for our clients.”

Insights

State Affordability Infrastructure Districts (SAIDs) — A Financing Tool for Taiwanese Investment in Arizona Science and Technology Parks

If you have developed a facility inside one of Taiwan's science or technology parks, you are accustomed to the one-stop-shop of government planning the park and delivering the roads, water, power, and other infrastructure before your building is even constructed. In the United States, including Arizona, land development generally does not work that way. In Arizona, the cost of infrastructure such as water, sewer, stormwater, roads, power, and the digital backbone, typically falls on the private landowner and is incurred up front before operations generate revenue to offset that cost. For a company entering the Arizona market, this is often the largest and earliest capital burden of the entire project. Arizona recently created a tool that provides a more cost-effective way for landowners and developer to finance some of that infrastructure. House Bill 2999, signed into law June 2026 and codified at Chapter 40 of Title 48 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, establishes the creation of a State Affordability Infrastructure District (SAID). How a SAID Works Landowners are now able to use a SAID to finance public infrastructure such as water, sewer, stormwater, roads, parking, lighting, communications, rail sidings and signalization, and similar improvements, through tax-exempt bonds. The bonds are repaid over up to 30 years and secured solely by the property within the SAID. No city, county, or state credit is pledged, and no obligation falls on other taxpayers, and therefore no city, county, or state approval other than from the Arizona Finance Authority (AFA). In effect, a SAID lets you spread the cost of horizontal infrastructure over the life of the asset instead of funding it entirely at the outset. And tax-exempt bonds often offer a lower interest rate than taxable or other types of financing. How a SAID is Formed A SAID is formed upon the filing of a petition with the AFA. The petition must include the finance plan, general plan, estimated costs, maximum tax rate, appraisal, bond counsel certificate, consultant list, petitioner experience, legal description, title report, and other materials. While the landowner is required to provide notice to the local governing jurisdiction, local governing jurisdiction does not have the right to approve or deny. The petition is reviewed administratively by the AFA through a standards-based process. For an inbound investor without long-standing local relationships, an objective, criteria-driven process is a meaningful advantage to the overt political process associated with other financing districts in Arizona. Formation requirements. A SAID requires consent from 100% of landowners within the proposed district; public infrastructure costs must exceed $5 million (easily met at any real scale); the district property must all be in the same county and need not be contiguous provided that noncontiguous property is located within five miles of the district's other property; and the board is initially appointed by the forming owners of the SAID district, later transitioning to election as ownership diversifies. Actual bond issuance requires an election of the SAID property owners. Ownership and corporate structure. Consent rights and board seats run with title. If you hold the Arizona land through a U.S. blocker beneath your Taiwan parent, the standard model for Taiwanese/Arizona real estate and operating investment, the U.S. property-holding entity, rather than it’s corporate parent, is the landowner of record for the district. Before formation, our Dorsey team will confirm that you have the proper corporate structure and board mechanics to be compliant.  Board composition has no citizenship or residency requirement. This is a common concern for foreign investors, and the statute answers it cleanly. Under A.R.S. § 48-7004, a director must either hold fee title to real property in the district or be an individual designated or appointed by a fee-title owner. Corporations, partnerships, and other business entities are expressly permitted to be those owners, to vote as owners, and to designate an individual to serve. There is no requirement that a director be a U.S. citizen or resident. So your U.S. property-holding entity, as landowner of record, can appoint whichever of your principals you choose, including a Taiwan-based individual, as the three-member board.  Power infrastructure limitation. The enacted definition of "public infrastructure" in A.R.S. § 48-7001 does not include electrical power generation or transmission. The reference to electrical facilities appears only as components of lighting and traffic-control systems, and the Legislature removed broader energy infrastructure from the definition during the Senate amendments. A SAID will likely not finance the high-load power infrastructure required for semiconductor fabrication, data storage, or heavy manufacturing.  Water infrastructure within a current utility CC&N. Where water, sewer, or wastewater facilities fall within a regulated utility's certificated service territory, the SAID cannot build or own them without the utility's written consent and must convey them to the utility on completion. Entitlements and zoning: The determination of entitlements, zoning, and other land use permitting, as well as construction permitting for a technology or manufacturing facilities remain with the local jurisdiction and run on a separate track. Our Dorsey team will help you coordinate the financing and entitlement timelines together. Our Dorsey team works regularly with Taiwanese and other Asia-Pacific companies entering the Arizona market. If a SAID fits your project, we can structure it for your cross-border ownership.

Insights

Litigation Privilege Does Not Automatically Protect Communications with Funders: The Commercial Court Clarifies the Limits of Privilege in the Context of Litigation Funding

In Uber London Ltd & Ors v Garry White & Ors; Mishcon de Reya LLP [2026] EWHC 1610 (Comm), the Commercial Court held that documents created to help a funder decide whether to invest in a claim will not ordinarily attract litigation privilege. This means that information a firm gathers while acting for a funder can later fall within the control of the claimants it goes on to represent in the same matter. Background The Claimants (a claim group of over 10,000 individual London black cab drivers and the assignee of two former minicab operators) alleged that the Defendants (three companies in the Uber group) obtained and retained their private hire operator's licence through an unlawful means conspiracy alleged to involve fraud. Because the claims were issued outside the ordinary six-year limitation period, the Claimants relied on section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, contending they could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud before June 2018. A preliminary issue trial was listed to determine the question of whether the Claimants discovered, or could have discovered with reasonable diligence, the alleged fraud and/or deliberate concealment only after June 2018. The Claimants were represented by Mishcon de Reya ("MdR"). However, before MdR’s engagement with the individual drivers had begun, in late 2017 it was engaged by the litigation funder Harbour to investigate the merits and value of the potential claim. During that stage, MdR corresponded extensively with Harbour and with the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association ("LTDA"), a black cab drivers' trade association. MdR was not formally engaged by the Claimants until October 2018 onwards. Once the proceedings had started, the Defendants sought disclosure of communications exchanged between MdR and Harbour before the engagement of MdR by the Claimants (the "Harbour Communications"). This included correspondence between MdR and Harbour, communications with the LTDA, and documents held on MdR's file opened in Harbour's name in connection with the potential claim. The Claimants resisted disclosure on four grounds: (i) that the documents were not relevant; (ii) on the grounds of litigation privilege; (iii) that the documents were outside their control; and (iv) that disclosure occurring so close to trial would be disproportionate. Judgment (i) Were the Harbour Communications relevant to the preliminary issue? The Court held that the Harbour Communications were likely to contain relevant material, on two bases. First, where the Claimants or the LTDA had communicated directly with MdR, that material could shed light on individual Claimants' actual knowledge of the alleged facts. Secondly, what MdR and Harbour had discovered during their investigation could inform the question of what a Claimant could reasonably have discovered at the time (even though the Defendants accepted that MdR's knowledge could not simply be imputed to the Claimants). (ii) Were the Harbour Communications protected by litigation privilege? As set out in the classic cases of Three Rivers (No. 6) [2005] 1 AC 610 and WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652, communications between parties or their solicitors and third parties for the purpose of obtaining information or advice in connection with existing or contemplated litigation are privileged when the following conditions are satisfied: Litigation must be in progress or in reasonable contemplation. The communications must have been made for the sole or dominant purpose of conducting litigation. The litigation must be adversarial, not investigative or inquisitorial. The Court rejected the Claimant’s claim to be able to withhold the Harbour Communications on the basis of litigation privilege. The Court confirmed that litigation privilege protects only communications created for the dominant purpose of conducting litigation. The Court found that Harbour had instructed MdR so that Harbour could decide whether to fund the proceedings. As such, the dominant purpose of the communications was in relation to funding, not the conduct of litigation. This was distinguished from the situation where an individual litigant who takes its own funding decision. In that situation, the decision whether to fund and the decision whether to litigate are one and the same, made by the person who will actually be the claimant, and so it forms a part of that person's conduct of their own litigation. In contrast, a third-party funder's commercial decision whether to fund someone else's claim is not necessarily part of conducting that litigation. The fact that litigation privilege can, in principle, be claimed by a non-party funder (as recognised in the case of Al Sadeq v Dechert [2024] EWCA 28) did not assist Harbour, since there was no evidence it intended to play any role in the litigation itself beyond funding it. Communications between Harbour and MdR did remain capable of attracting another kind of privilege: legal advice privilege, because of the solicitor-client relationship between Harbour and MdR. But communications with third parties such as the LTDA were not automatically protected in the same way. (iii) Were the Harbour Communications within the Claimants' control? The Court also rejected the argument that the Harbour Communications sat outside the Claimants' control because they belonged to Harbour and not the Claimants. The Court’s reasoning was that once the individual Claimant drivers became MdR's clients, MdR also owed them a duty to disclose material information. That included information that MdR had originally acquired while acting for Harbour. As held in the case of Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood (a firm) [2005] 1 WLR 567, a solicitor owing duties to two clients cannot simply prefer one over the other, and it was unrealistic to suppose MdR would investigate the same claims for Harbour, then represent the Claimants, while disregarding everything it had already learned. The obvious commercial expectation was that this earlier work would be used to advance the Claimants' case. MdR sought to rely on a confidentiality clause in a 2024 retainer agreement between it and RGL Management Ltd (a claims management company acting on behalf of the Claimants) to argue that it was relieved of any duty to disclose information obtained while acting for other clients. The provision stated that MdR may "have acted for persons in the same or similar sector as yours and by agreeing to the terms of this letter you agree that will have no duty to disclose to you any confidential information that we have obtained, or might in the future obtain, from acting for such persons or which is derived from any other source". The Court rejected this on several grounds. Claimants who had already become MdR's clients had an existing right to information in the Harbour Communications where it was relevant to their claims before the 2024 retainer agreement. If they were to surrender that right, it would have required their informed consent (also required under the SRA Code of Conduct). The Court found no evidence that such informed consent had been given. The terms had simply been made available to the Claimants through a portal, with no indication that Claimants understood they were giving up existing rights to relevant information. The Court found that even if the terms had been contractually binding, that would not have amounted to informed consent. In addition, the wording of the clause was not sufficiently clear to show that the Claimants had agreed to waive access to this information. (iv) Was disclosure reasonable, proportionate, and necessary at this stage? The Claimants argued that it was neither reasonable nor proportionate for disclosure to be given at such a late stage (approximately two weeks before the start of the preliminary issue trial) and that it was not necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings. The Court rejected this, but it drew a distinction between two categories of documents within the Harbour Communications: Documents bearing on the actual knowledge of the individual drivers, including communications with the LTDA, were not privileged, likely straightforward to review, and directly relevant to the preliminary issue. Their disclosure was ordered as reasonable, proportionate, and necessary. Documents reflecting only MdR's or Harbour's own assessment of the merits were of more marginal, indirect relevance and largely likely to fall under legal advice privilege. A review to isolate the smaller pool of non-privileged material in this category would be time-consuming for limited benefit, so this was excluded from the order. Key Points to Note The judgment is an important reminder of several practical points: However closely a funder is involved in evaluating a claim's merits, litigation privilege will only apply to communications where the sole or dominant purpose of the communication is the conduct of litigation, not the funder's own decision on whether to finance it. Unless that communication separately attracts legal advice privilege, it may need to be disclosed. The same considerations apply to other communications. For example, in RBS Rights Litigation [2017] 1 WLR 3539 the argument that an After the Event (ATE) policy was subject to litigation privilege was rejected on a similar basis. Whilst in this case, there was no dispute as to whether litigation was in contemplation, it is important to note that litigation privilege will not automatically apply to the investigative stages of a claim, i.e. before litigation is in contemplation. Even where litigation is reasonably contemplated, the dominant purpose test must still be satisfied. Material created primarily for fact-finding, risk assessment, or other investigative purposes will not attract litigation privilege unless those activities are actually undertaken for the dominant purpose of conducting the litigation. (See The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2017] EWHC 1017 (QB)). When engaging a law firm, clients should ensure that they understand whether the firm has previously obtained information about their claim while acting for another party (for example, a funder or another interested party) and how that information will be handled. Any restrictions on the firm’s ability to share relevant information with the client should be explained clearly at the outset, including what information may be withheld and why. If this decision raises questions about your own funding arrangements, disclosure strategy, or privilege position, please get in touch with our Commercial Litigation team.

News

37 Dorsey Attorneys Named 2026 Top Lawyers by Minnesota Monthly

Minnesota Monthly has recognized 37 Dorsey attorneys across 27 practice areas as 2026 Top Lawyers in Minnesota. Honorees are selected through a peer nomination process and a curated survey of practicing attorneys in Minnesota, who identify leading lawyers across a range of practice areas. Administrative / Regulatory Law Jennifer Coates Antitrust Law Michael Lindsay Banking & Financial Service Law Peter Nelson Copyright Law  Jeffrey Cadwell Corporate Law  Robert Hensley Robert Rosenbaum Criminal Defense: White-Collar  Beth Forsythe Edward Magarian RJ Zayed Health Care Law  Claire Topp Immigration Law  J. Mike Sevilla Insurance Law  Daniel Brown Intellectual Property and Patent Law  Stuart Hemphill International Trade Law  Jonathan Van Horn Labor and Employment Law  Edward Magarian Ryan Mick Melissa Raphan Land Use & Zoning  Jay Lindgren Marcus Mollison Litigation – Antitrust  Michael Lindsay F. Matthew Ralph Jaime Stilson Litigation – Commercial  Michael Lindsay Litigation – Construction  Eric Ruzicka Litigation – Intellectual Property  Peter Lancaster RJ Zayed Litigation – Labor Employment Benefits  Ryan Mick Melissa Raphan Litigation – Trusts and Estates  William J. Berens Theresa Bevilacqua Bridget Logstrom Koci Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions  James K. Langdon Mergers & Acquisitions Law  Keith Ahlgren Rachel Benedict Brian Burke Morgan Helme John Jorgenson Brian Moore Robert Rosenbaum Jonathan Van Horn Bri Whiting Municipal Law Jay Lindgren Nonprofit/Charities Law Claire Topp Securities / Capital Markets Law Cam Hoang Robert Rosenbaum Securities Regulation Theresa Bevilacqua James K. Langdon Tax Law William J. Berens Trusts and Estates Jennifer Ede Bridget Logstrom Koci Sonny Miller Kiley Petty Henry

Insights

Proposed CMS Rule Ramps Up Potential Medicare Fraud Administrative Remedies

On July 6, 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) proposed a rule that would expand its administrative remedies to combat potential fraud. The proposed rule is the latest in a round of administrative actions that signal CMS’s intent to aggressively pursue allegations of Medicare and Medicaid fraud and heighten the risk of fraud enforcement against even well-intentioned Medicare and Medicaid providers and suppliers. The proposed rule includes several changes to regulations that govern Medicare billing privileges. Providers and suppliers should be aware that these changes dramatically expand the flexibility afforded to CMS in enrollment and revocation actions, potentially leading to harsh consequences for ministerial and administrative errors. If finalized, moreover, the proposed rule could have material implications for providers and suppliers facing threatened revocation, including heightened risk of overpayment liability and increased hurdles to challenging revocations and denials of enrollment. Added Flexibility to Existing Revocation Grounds CMS has proposed to remove a number of factors that the regulations list as relevant to a determination of whether a provider has engaged in “abuse of billing privileges.” While acknowledging that the inclusion of these factors in the regulations was permissive (requiring consideration only where “as appropriate or applicable”), CMS stated that it must be afforded “the maximum flexibility to address all possible . . . scenarios without the rigid constraints of our existing factors.” CMS provided little guidance as to the outer bounds of what conduct could constitute an “abuse of privileges” that merits revocation of Medicare billing privileges. Instead, CMS noted that a “pattern of practice” of abuse of billing privileges might be established “by a simple finding that several of a provider’s claims do not meet Medicare requirements.” Similarly, CMS has proposed to expand the regulatory provision that permits revocation of enrollment if a provider certifies as “true” false or misleading information in Medicare enrollment application or renewal forms to include any scenario in which a provider submits “false or misleading information on or associated with any CMS Medicare enrollment-related form,” including materials submitted to Medicare contractors. CMS stated that it interprets this expanded rule to include anything related to Medicare enrollment, and not only those submissions that are “intended to gain or maintain Medicare enrollment.” If finalized, the proposed rule would add significant flexibility to CMS’s ability to pursue revocation of a provider’s enrollment. While CMS has assured providers that it would “invoke [the revised regulations]. . . only when legitimately warranted under the facts and circumstances and not as a matter of course,” such expanded flexibility threatens unpredictability in the event of even administrative or ministerial errors in submissions and claims. These changes would, moreover, make it more difficult for providers to challenge a revocation action. Expanded Revocation Grounds In addition to adding flexibility to existing grounds for revocation, CMS’s proposed rule adds to and expands CMS’s already broad authority to revoke provider and supplier enrollment. Such proposed changes include adding the following grounds for revocation: Denial of Enrollment Application. Where CMS could previously revoke a provider’s other enrollments if one enrollment is revoked, CMS would also be able to revoke a provider’s existing enrollments if an application for enrollment submitted by the provider is denied. High-Risk Enrollments. CMS would be able to revoke enrollment if it determines the provider or supplier (including owning/managing employees or organizations) poses a high risk of fraud, waste, or abuse due to “. . . an affiliation under [42 C.F.R.] § 424.519” or “the provider’s or supplier’s location within a limited geographic area that has an excessive number of providers and suppliers.” Certain Misdemeanor Convictions. CMS would be able to revoke enrollment if a provider or supplier—or its owners, managing employees, managing organizations, officers, or directors—are convicted of a “misdemeanor related to sexual assault or financial misconduct within the past 10 years that CMS deems detrimental to the best interests of the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.” Ownership Changes (HHA, Hospice, DMEPOS). CMS would have broad authority to revoke enrollment of home health agencies, hospices, and DMEPOS suppliers who do not comply with the regulations governing provider changes of ownership. These proposed, expanded grounds for revocation are notably broad, and CMS provides only limited guidance as to what conduct might result in revocation under these grounds. As with the proposed expansion of existing grounds for revocation, the open-ended nature of these proposed grounds for revocation may make it more difficult for providers and suppliers to challenge revocation actions. Expanded Grounds to Deny Medicare Enrollment As with revocations, CMS proposes to expand the grounds under which a provider’s application to enroll in Medicare can be denied. These expanded and additional grounds include many of the grounds added for revocations, but also include: Medicare Debt or Payment Suspension. CMS proposes expanding the ground to deny enrollment based on Medicare debt or payment suspension to include a provider or supplier’s “managing employee, managing organization, or individual or entity with any other form of business or financial relationship with the provider or supplier[.]” Significantly, this expansive definition (called an “associated party” under the proposed regulation) currently contains no material limitations, meaning almost any person or entity with whom an applicant does business could create denial liability. Sharing Locations with Denied/Revoked Providers or Suppliers. CMS would have authority to deny applications where a “provider’s or supplier’s practice location is in the same suite or office as another provider or supplier whose Medicare enrollment has been revoked or denied.” Hospices with Distant Medical Directors or Administrators. CMS would have discretion to deny hospice applications if the hospice’s medical director or administrator serves “multiple other hospices” or practices/is located “at such a distance (for example, in a different state) from the enrolling hospice that the medical director cannot realistically perform all medical director functions,” with a similar provision for administrators. In addition, CMS proposes applications denied for “other program termination or suspension,” may be applied to the provider or supplier in its own name or NPI or that of its owners, managing employees, or managing organization regardless of whether any appeals are pending. Retroactive Revocation CMS proposed to restructure and expand the regulatory grounds for retroactive revocation of billing privileges. Currently, Medicare regulations provide that revocations are, by default, prospective in nature: effective 30 days after CMS or the CMS contractor mails notice to the provider. Under certain circumstances, the regulations provide for revocations to be retroactive, such as when a provider is convicted of a felony, the date a professional license is suspended, revoked, or surrendered, or when a provider submits a false certification in their enrollment application. CMS has proposed to reframe the rule so as to default to retroactive revocation of billing privileges. CMS expressed concern that providers may collect payment from Medicare while remaining so non-compliant with enrollment requirements as to merit revocation. To address this concern, CMS proposed that all revocations be retroactive to the date of determined non-compliance.[1] As a result, providers suspected of misconduct or non-compliance are likely to face claims of retroactive overpayments in addition to the immediate concern no longer receiving Medicare payments while their enrollment is revoked. Reapplication Bar CMS’s proposed rule expands the grounds from which a provider may be prohibited from seeking reapplication as a Medicare provider. Under current regulations, CMS may prohibit prospective providers from enrolling in Medicare for up to 10 years if its enrollment application is denied because the applicant submitted false or misleading information in its application. Under the proposed rule, CMS will have the discretion to prohibit a provider from enrolling in Medicare if their enrollment application is denied for any reason. Conclusion As a part of the federal government’s increasingly aggressive push to combat real or perceived healthcare fraud, the proposed rule both broadens CMS’s authority to revoke and deny Medicare enrollment and raises the stakes for revocation and denial. What the proposed rule does not share is how CMS plans to exercise this expanded discretion: as a result, the proposed rule, if enacted, increases the unpredictability and potential ramifications of even technical noncompliance with CMS rules. As a result, Medicare providers should keep a close eye on potential revisions to these rules and their potential implementation and consider proactively evaluating their compliance under CMS standards. [1] In the proposed rule, CMS identifies, with respect to each ground for revocation, what it will consider to be the effective date of revocation.

Insights

Alaska HB 126: What Changes for Alaska Native Corporations, Proxy Filings, and Annual Reports

Alaska House Bill 126 (HB 126), sponsored by Representative Neal Foster and passed by the 34th Alaska Legislature, is now law. The bill changes which Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) must file proxy and annual report materials with the State of Alaska, and makes it easier to reinstate certain dissolved Village Corporations. For many smaller Village Corporations, the practical result is less public disclosure. For shareholders, advisors, and the public, it means some financial information that used to be available through the State will no longer be readily obtained. This eUpdate explains what HB 126 does in plain terms, walks through the practical trade-offs, and answers common questions. 1. What HB 126 Changes The old rule Under prior law (Alaska Statutes Sec. 45.55.139), an Alaska Native Corporation had to file its annual report, proxies, and proxy statements with the Alaska Division of Banking and Securities (the Division) if it had more than $1 million in assets and 500 or more shareholders on its current rolls. A filing ANC was also required to follow the Division’s proxy rules (3 AAC 08.305 through .365), which require specific disclosures such as top 5 executive compensation, and related-party transactions. Because these filings are treated as public records, they gave non-shareholders, including the public and the press, visibility into ANC financial information that is not filed with the SEC. The new rule HB 126 changes how the 500-shareholder test is measured. Now, the asset test is removed, and the shareholder count is based on how many shareholders the corporation originally enrolled when it was formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), not how many it has today. As shares have passed down through families over the decades, some Village Corporations that started with fewer than 500 shareholders now have more than 500 recordholders. Under the old current-count test, when those corporations had crossed the threshold, they had to file. Under the new original-enrollment test, they do not. Who is affected Village Corporations that originally enrolled fewer than 500 shareholders are the main beneficiaries. They no longer have to file proxy and annual report materials with the Division or follow the Division’s proxy regulations at 3 AAC 08.305 through .365. Two groups must continue to file as before: all twelve ANCSA Regional Corporations, each of which enrolled more than 500 shareholders at creation, and all Village Corporations that originally enrolled 500 or more shareholders. As reported by the Alaska Beacon, when the bill was under consideration, the Division identified 59 corporations then filing, expected at least seven village corporations to become exempt, and was reviewing roughly 30 more. 2. Practical Analysis HB 126 reduces a real compliance burden for smaller Village Corporations, which now need not spend time and money on State filings. In coming years, the exempt Village Corporations may experience benefits associated with less public disclosure and less regulation. But at the same time, less public disclosure carries trade-offs. Benchmarking will become harder Publicly-filed proxy statements and annual reports have long served as a reference set. Shareholders, corporations, advisors, and counsel use them to compare governance practices, compensation, and financial results across similarly-situated ANCs. Since fewer of these materials will be filed publicly, there will be fewer comparable documents available, which will make benchmarking and market-checking more difficult for like-sized ANCs over time. Executive compensation transparency may be reduced The Division’s proxy rules require disclosure of the compensation of ANC’s top five most highly compensated individuals (3 AAC 08.345(b)(2)), related-party transactions above $20,000 (3 AAC 08.345(b)(3)), and audited financial statements and management’s discussion and analysis (3 AAC 08.365). When a corporation is no longer required to file these disclosures publicly, it becomes harder for shareholders and others to obtain the information, to understand how compensation is set for their corporate leadership, and how it compares across corporations of similar size and complexity. Transparency may matter more as ANCs grow Some ANCs have grown into large, complex enterprises with substantial revenue and many subsidiaries, even with fewer than 500 shareholders. For an ANC with a broad and dispersed shareholder base, public materials can be an important way for shareholders and other stakeholders to understand governance, compensation, and performance across ANCs. Reduced disclosure may carry more practical weight in those settings than for a small corporation whose shareholders are closely connected to the business. The ANCSA annual report obligation continues It is important not to overstate what HB 126 does. HB 126 changes the state filing proxy requirements. It does not remove the separate obligation under ANCSA itself. That obligation comes from ANCSA at 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1625(c), which requires a Native Corporation that would otherwise be subject to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prepare and transmit to its shareholders an annual report containing substantially the information a company subject to that Act would include. Similarly, ANCs that solicit proxies for an annual meeting are still required to furnish shareholders with those proxy materials under general Alaska corporate law. However, ANCs are now no longer required to transmit proxy statements to the State. ANCs’ reporting obligations to their shareholders are unaffected by HB 126. Any corporation newly exempt from state filing still owes its shareholders a detailed annual report and a proxy statement, even though that report is no longer routed through the State and made public. Reinstatement of dissolved Village Corporations Separately, HB 126 amends AS 10.06.960(k) to remove the prior deadline (previously December 31, 2020) for reinstating an involuntarily dissolved Native Village Corporation. A dissolved Village Corporation may now apply to be reinstated under AS 10.06.633(e) at any time. Reinstatement still runs through the commissioner under AS 10.06.633(e). In general, that means the ANC must apply, cure the neglect or delinquency that led to dissolution, and pay the amounts owed, and the corporation’s name must be available or be changed to one that is. Once reinstated, the corporation and its shareholders are restored to the rights, privileges, liabilities, and obligations they would have had as if the dissolution had never occurred, and corporate and shareholder actions taken during the dissolution are treated as valid. If the previously-used corporate name is no longer available, the board alone may amend the articles to adopt a new name (without the necessity for shareholder approval). 3. Frequently Asked Questions What does HB 126 do? It changes how Alaska measures the 500-shareholder test that decides which ANCs must file proxy and annual report materials with the state. It removes the asset test, and it counts shareholders based on original enrollment rather than the current rolls. It also removes the deadline for reinstating an involuntarily dissolved Native Village Corporation. Which ANCs are affected? Village Corporations that originally enrolled fewer than 500 shareholders, because they may no longer need to file with the Division. Regional Corporations and Village Corporations that originally enrolled 500 or more shareholders must continue to file as before. Does HB 126 eliminate all reporting obligations? No. It changes the state filing requirement under AS 45.55.139, but it does not remove the separate ANCSA obligation (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1625(c)) to provide shareholders with an annual report, and general corporate law still calls for a proxy statement when the ANC solicits proxies. Corporations that remain subject to state filing requirements must also continue to comply with the Division's rules. We think we are now exempt. What should our ANC board and management consider? Confirm your ANC’s original enrollment number and whether your corporation falls below the new threshold. Watch for communications from the State on this topic as they proceed with their research. If your ANC is now exempt, decide how your corporation will meet its continuing ANCSA obligation to shareholders, review proxy and annual meeting materials and timelines, and consider what to communicate to shareholders about any change in how they will receive information. It is worth documenting the basis for any exemption. What should ANC shareholders watch for? Shareholders should watch for how and when they will continue to receive annual report and proxy statement information directly from their ANC, since some material that used to be available through the State’s online website will no longer be publicly filed. If something is unclear, shareholders can ask their ANC how it intends to meet its ANCSA reporting obligations. How Dorsey Can Help HB 126 lightens the State filing load for smaller Village Corporations, but it also raises practical questions: confirming who is exempt, meeting continuing ANCSA obligations to shareholders, keeping proxy and annual meeting processes on track, and maintaining benchmarking when public materials become less available. These are exactly the kinds of judgment calls that benefit from early planning. Dorsey’s attorneys work closely with Alaska Native Corporations and related stakeholders. If you have questions about HB 126, ANC governance, proxy filings, annual reports, disclosure obligations, or shareholder communications, please contact your Dorsey attorney, including the authors of this eUpdate.

News

Real Estate Attorney Alexis Olsen Joins Dorsey in Phoenix

Attorney Alexis Olsen has joined Dorsey & Whitney LLP as Of Counsel in the Real Estate group in Phoenix, the law firm announced today. Alexis focuses her practice on large-scale residential, mixed-use, and multi-asset development projects as well as multi-state commercial leasing transactions. She guides clients through sophisticated acquisitions, dispositions, leasing, entity structuring, investment strategies, and due diligence matters. She has structured co-investment arrangements that drive capital deployment into housing subdivisions nationwide and has represented both landlords and tenants in commercial leasing transactions involving office, retail, industrial, and specialty-use properties, including cannabis dispensaries. Alexis received her J.D. from Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and her B.A. from the University of Arizona. Alexis comes to Dorsey from Squire Patton Boggs. “Alexis strengthens Dorsey’s real estate capabilities at a time when Phoenix remains one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic real estate markets in the country,” said Scott Jenkins, Dorsey’s Phoenix office head. “Her addition further enhances our deep bench of 12 real estate attorneys in Phoenix and reflects our continued investment in serving clients throughout Arizona and supporting their real estate transactions and objectives across the country. We are thrilled to welcome Alexis to Dorsey.” “Joining a firm with such a deep bench of experienced attorneys in the Phoenix office, especially in the Real Estate group, presents an exciting opportunity not just for my own professional growth, but for the clients we service,” said Alexis Olsen. “I look forward to building on this strong foundation, growing our national practice, and delivering top-tier service to our clients.”

News

Dorsey Partner Melissa Raphan Elected a Fellow of the College of Labor & Employment Lawyers

International law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP is pleased to announce that Partner Melissa Raphan has been elected a Fellow of the College of Labor & Employment Lawyers (CLEL) as part of its 2026 class. “Melissa’s election to this prestigious fellowship comes as no surprise to those of us who have had the privilege of working with her,” says Peter Nelson, Dorsey’s Managing Partner.  “She is an exceptional employment lawyer, a trusted advisor, and a leader whose impact extends far beyond her matters. Clients rely on her deep knowledge, strategic counsel, and ability to navigate complex workplace disputes and sensitive employment matters with both confidence and compassion. She has helped shape our firm, strengthen our profession, and opened doors for countless others through her commitment to mentorship and diversity. We are incredibly proud of her accomplishments and delighted to see her receive this recognition.” CLEL is a nonprofit professional association that honors the nation’s leading attorneys in the field of labor and employment law. Originally established to recognize excellence in the profession, CLEL has evolved into a respected intellectual and practical resource for the legal community and its many audiences. Its mission centers on recognizing individuals who have made significant contributions to the field, fostering the exchange of knowledge and delivering value to academia, government, the judiciary, and the broader public. Election as a fellow represents the highest level of peer acknowledgment, reflecting sustained achievement, integrity, and a commitment to advancing the profession. Melissa’s career reflects CLEL’s mission. She has been recognized both regionally and nationally for her advocacy, leadership, and achievements both inside and outside of the courtroom. Her employment litigation experience spans class actions, collective actions, and high-stakes individual disputes in state and federal courts, as well as arbitration forums including the American Arbitration Association and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). She is also a trusted advisor on a full range of workplace issues, from hiring and performance management to sensitive terminations and organizational change. She brings decades of experience representing clients across the financial services, healthcare, food and agriculture, and energy sectors. Melissa will be formally inducted during CLEL’s installation ceremony held in conjunction with the American Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Law Conference in Washington, D.C., on November 7.

Insights

The Long-Awaited Public Infrastructure Financing Solution for Development in Arizona

Every developer who has taken raw Arizona ground to a finished project knows the largest upfront cost other than the land price is almost always the cost to install the public infrastructure. Water, sewer, stormwater, streets, dry utilities, and the fiber backbone all have to be in the ground before a single lot closes or a building opens. That capital is deployed early and generates no return for years. For decades the standard workaround has been the Community Facilities District (CFD). That tool has grown materially harder to use, for reasons cited below, and House Bill 2999, signed in June 2026 and now codified as Chapter 40 of Title 48, is Arizona's response. Some Background I have spent a good part of my career on the other side of this problem. In the 1990s and early 2000s I served as general counsel of SunCor Development Company, one of Arizona's most active master-planned community developers, where we used Community Facilities Districts to finance hundreds of millions of dollars of major infrastructure across Arizona in cities such as Goodyear, Phoenix, Tempe, Litchfield Park, and Prescott Valley. For its time the CFD was an effective structure, and a great deal of what is now on the ground in those communities was financed with this tool. Unfortunately, CFDs have over time become considerably harder to use. Successive legislative amendments have layered on tax-rate ceilings, homebuyer disclosure obligations, and added procedural steps. Another drag on the use of CFDs is that formation of them runs through the municipality, where approval can turn as much on local politics as on the merits of a project. Developers now routinely are asked to absorb delay and uncertainty that a project's economics cannot support, which is a large part of why Arizona has fallen behind Colorado, Texas, and Utah in getting infrastructure financed. A better tool was needed, and Chapter 40 is it. How a SAID Improves on a CFD A State Affordability Infrastructure District (SAID) keeps what worked about the CFD: tax-exempt, property-secured, non-recourse infrastructure financing — while shedding much of what made the CFD cumbersome. Its principal advantages over a traditional CFD: Administrative formation. A SAID is formed by the Arizona Finance Authority against fixed statutory criteria, through a yes-or-no compliance review on a sixty-day clock, rather than through the discretionary approval of a city council or a board of supervisors. Insulation from municipal politics. Because formation is a state-level compliance determination, a meritorious project is far less exposed to local political headwinds than it is under the CFD process. Landowner control of the board. A SAID is governed by a board of the landowners — appointed at formation, then elected on an acreage basis. In a typical municipal CFD, the city council sits as the district board; here, the developer controls governance. Advance funding of impact fees. A SAID can use bond proceeds to advance-pay municipal development impact fees, unlike CFDs, removing one of the largest upfront cash burdens in a project. A uniform, statewide process. The criteria are the same regardless of jurisdiction, replacing the municipality-by-municipality variation that has made CFD outcomes hard to predict. Flexible boundaries. A district may include noncontiguous parcels in the same county within five miles of one another, which fits phased and multi-tract development. Capped cost and a fixed timeline. Authority fees to form a district are capped at $15,000, and a complete petition must be acted on within sixty days. The full range of bonds. A SAID may issue general obligation, special assessment, revenue, and refunding bonds, secured solely by district property and creating no obligation for any other taxpayer. What is a SAID A SAID is a special taxing district that the owners of a development form to finance public infrastructure with tax-exempt bonds: general obligation bonds, special assessment bonds, and revenue bonds. The bonds are secured only by the property inside the district and are repaid over the long term, with terms up to 30 years. They do not affect the credit of the city, the county, or the State, and they create no obligation for any taxpayer outside the district. In practical terms, a SAID lets you finance horizontal infrastructure over the life of the asset instead of writing the check at the front end. The maximum ad valorem rate securing general obligation bonds is capped by statute at $5.00 per $100 of net assessed limited property valuation, with a limited step-up to cover a debt-service shortfall. SAIDs Work for Commercial as Well as Residential Development The SAID bill drew most of its press as a housing-affordability measure, and it appears to be a strong one. It is the first Arizona district statute to let bond proceeds advance-fund municipal development impact fees, which pulls one of the largest upfront cash burdens off a homebuilder's pro forma. But the statute's eligible infrastructure categories apply with equal force to commercial, industrial, and mixed-use projects. An industrial or logistics project can finance roads, rail crossings, sidings, and grade separations. A life-sciences or technology campus can finance its water, sewer, roads, and broadband the same way a subdivision can. Read Chapter 40 as a general-purpose infrastructure finance platform, not a subdivision-only device. How Formation Works A SAID is formed administratively by the Arizona Finance Authority. The Authority reviews the petition for compliance with the statute; it is a yes-or-no review against fixed criteria, not a discretionary negotiation with a city council or a board of supervisors, and it runs on a sixty-day clock once a complete petition is filed. Formation requires the written consent of 100% of the landowners in the proposed district and an engineer's certification that public infrastructure costs will exceed $5 million. The district may include noncontiguous parcels so long as they lie in the same county and within five miles of the district's other property, which accommodates phased and multi-tract development; if any part of the district sits inside a municipality, the whole district must stay within that municipality's limits or planning area. The Authority's fees to form a district are capped at $15,000. Issuing bonds requires a district election. Governance Simplified A SAID is run by a three-member board. The initial directors are named in the petition; after that, directors are elected by the landowners on an acreage basis as ownership diversifies. Board service runs with ownership; a director must either hold fee title inside the district or be an individual designated by a fee-title owner; and corporations, partnerships, and other entities may hold that ownership, vote as owners, and designate the individual who serves. A district has no power of eminent domain and no zoning authority, and directors may not be officials or employees of the municipality in which the district sits. What a SAID Does Not Do It finances; it does not entitle. Zoning, platting, rezonings, use permits, and the specialized approvals a manufacturing or life-sciences facility may need all remain with the local jurisdiction and proceed on their own track. The financing and entitlement timelines should be coordinated with formation of the SAID, but they are separate processes. Two substantive limits are worth flagging at the planning stage. First, electric power is largely outside the tool: the statutory definition of public infrastructure does not reach power generation or transmission, and broader energy infrastructure was removed from the bill during the Senate amendments. A power-intensive user should not assume a SAID will carry its electrical load. Second, where water, sewer, or wastewater facilities fall within a regulated utility's certificated service territory, the district cannot build or own them without the utility's written consent and must convey them to the utility upon completion. Our Take For most master-planned residential work, and for a wide range of commercial and industrial development, a SAID will be the most efficient infrastructure-financing structure Arizona has offered. The right time to evaluate it is early in the acquisition and pre-development process, while the capital stack, the development agreement, and the entitlement strategy are still being set. Once the district's boundaries, general plan, and financing parameters are set, it is cumbersome at best to bring those into conformance later. Our Dorsey team has begun advising our developer clients on SAID formation on residential, commercial, and industrial projects statewide. If you would like us to assess whether a SAID fits a project you are working on, please reach out.