Dakota's State Regulatory Intelligence Briefing for November 2025

Dakota's State Regulatory Intelligence Briefing

Dakota's State Regulatory Intelligence Briefing
10:42

Where the States Are Leading: The New Map of Private Capital Oversight

Why state regulation, not Washington, is now shaping how GPs deploy and LPs diligence capital.

The Power Shift to the States

While Congress debates and the FTC fights injunctions, statehouses have become the real laboratories of financial oversight. Across healthcare, housing, employment, and real assets, states are filling the policy vacuum left by federal gridlock.

For general partners (GPs), this means compliance, transaction timing, and even fund domicile choices are now dictated by local law and not always Washington. In many respects and facets, the next bottleneck for a mid-market deal isn’t in D.C., it’s in Sacramento, Salem, or Boston. The rise of state-specific oversight is redefining deal execution and portfolio governance.

Below is a sector-by-sector look at where regulation is changing most quickly and how investors can stay ahead.

Healthcare & Provider Ownership

Healthcare is the front line of state activism. Legislatures and attorneys general are now regulating private equity ownership and control of medical practices, hospitals, and managed service organizations (MSOs).

Key Developments

  • California (AB 1415, SB 351): Expands pre-transaction filings with the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) and tightens “corporate practice of medicine” restrictions on PE-backed entities.

  • Oregon (SB 951): Nation’s most stringent limits on dual ownership of MSOs and professional corporations, effectively banning overlapping control.

  • Massachusetts (H.5159): Extends disclosure and review to PE, REIT, and MSO transactions.

  • Pennsylvania (Health System Protection Act – proposed): Would empower the Attorney General to block hospital roll-ups deemed harmful to care access.

Why It Matters

These actions directly alter deal pacing, structure, and post-close compliance. Transactions once considered “administrative” now require state-level approval windows and public disclosure.

GP Insights

  • Add state-specific closing conditions and regulatory long-stop dates.

  • Conduct control-rights audits on existing MSO and PC structures.

  • Prepare community-impact narratives and job-access disclosures for AG review.

MP In-Text CTA 9/8/25

Housing, Real Assets & Corporate Ownership

The scrutiny over ownership isn’t limited to healthcare. States are targeting corporate, fund, and foreign control of homes, farmland, and critical land assets.

Key Developments

  • Florida (SB 264 + Rule 73C-60): Restricts property ownership by certain “countries of concern” near military or infrastructure sites.

  • Arkansas (Act 636): Enforced divestiture of Chinese state-owned farmland, setting a precedent for forced sales.

  • Nebraska (proposed): Would ban hedge funds and corporate entities from buying single-family homes.

  • California / New York: Local ordinances restricting bulk institutional purchases of single-family rentals.

Why It Matters

These laws reshape access to real assets, especially for SFR (single-family rental) and agri-fund strategies. Institutional ownership limits and foreign-ownership reviews add headline and compliance risk.

GP Insights

  • Integrate geo-screening and beneficial ownership checks into due diligence.

  • Model local-entity JV structures and scattered-site acquisitions.

  • Build a divestiture contingency plan for politically sensitive holdings.

Antitrust & Merger Oversight

States are no longer deferring to the DOJ or FTC, they’re asserting independent authority to review or block deals.

Key Developments

  • Washington (SB 5122): Enacted Uniform Antitrust Premerger Notification law, requiring simultaneous filings with the state AG.

  • Illinois (PA 103-0526): Mandates 30-day AG notice for healthcare mergers and affiliations, even below HSR thresholds.

  • California / Texas: Active enforcement in tech and healthcare sectors, with California expanding data demands through new rulemaking.

Why It Matters

Mid-market deals that once flew under the radar now face parallel filings and longer timelines. AGs can issue second requests, impose conditions, or sue independently.

GP Insights

  • Build state pre-merger notice trackers into deal calendars.

  • Pre-clear transaction rationale with AG offices when feasible.

  • Budget extra review cycles for roll-ups and consolidation plays.

Employment & Non-Competes

Non-compete law is diverging sharply across states, creating real fragmentation risk for GPs managing multi-jurisdictional teams.

Key Developments

  • California (SB 699 & AB 1076): Voids all non-competes, regardless of where or when they were signed; employers must notify affected employees.

  • Minnesota (§181.988): Bans most post-employment non-competes statewide.

  • Illinois (SB 672): Enforces salary thresholds and notice requirements for enforceability.

  • Florida: Continues to uphold non-competes, reaffirming pro-employer enforcement.

Why It Matters

Post-FTC litigation, state law determines retention strategy. GPs with national platforms must reconcile conflicting rules when integrating acquisitions.

GP Insights

  • Transition from non-competes to nonsolicits, NDAs, and equity incentives.

  • Update portfolio HR templates by jurisdiction.

  • Track employee notice obligations under new statutes.

Agriculture, Food & Land Use

Corporate and foreign ownership restrictions are intensifying across the Midwest and Plains, driven by national security and populist narratives.

Key Developments

  • Iowa: Enforces long-standing corporate farming limits.

  • North Dakota (SB 2371): Tightens foreign ownership reporting and land-transfer restrictions.

  • Missouri / Oklahoma: Expanding definitions of “corporate farm” and increasing disclosure obligations.

Why It Matters

Institutional agri-funds face barriers to acquisition and ongoing reporting risk. Copycat legislation is spreading westward, raising compliance costs.

GP Insights

  • Use local operating partners or co-ops to maintain access.

  • Track AFIDA (USDA) and state filings to avoid ownership violations.

  • Build foreign LP due diligence into fund subscription processes.

MP In-Text CTA 9/8/25

Litigation Funding & Legal Finance

As funds expand into litigation claims and structured settlements, states are stepping in to regulate transparency and control.

Key Developments

  • Louisiana (SB 355): Requires disclosure of litigation funding agreements; limits funder control.

  • Wisconsin (Stat. §804.01): Mandates early disclosure of third-party funding in civil cases.

  • Indiana (SB 373): Restricts funder influence on case strategy.

  • Florida (proposed): Would require registration of litigation funders.

Why It Matters

Disclosure reduces confidentiality and may shift settlement leverage. Litigation-finance investments face valuation compression and longer discovery timelines.

GP Insights

  • Include TPLF representation clauses in SPA and credit documents.

  • Enhance reserve modeling for funded disputes.

  • Coordinate with counsel to manage discoverability risk.

Financial & Corporate Deregulation

A small but powerful bloc of states is moving in the opposite direction, modernizing corporate codes to attract capital.

Key Developments

  • Delaware (SB 114): Streamlines sponsor-led restructuring and simplifies statutory conversions.

  • Utah: SPDI charter regime allows digital-asset custodial banking.

  • Wyoming: Recognizes DAOs as LLCs with legal personhood.

  • Texas: Pro-growth regulatory posture for fund formation and alternative credit.

Why It Matters

For fund managers, these states are the launchpads for innovative structures and tokenized vehicles.

GP Insights

  • Match domicile to strategy: Delaware for governance, Wyoming for digital assets.

  • Use SPDI partnerships for crypto and fintech exposure.

  • Maintain federal overlays (SEC, OCC, CFPB) to ensure durability.

Fundraising in the Age of State Oversight

For GPs raising capital, fluency in state regulation is becoming a differentiator, not a footnote. LPs now ask where your compliance lives, not just what your returns are.

Know Your Map.
LP diligence increasingly probes geographic exposure: which states govern your fund domicile, portfolio operations, and key compliance regimes. Be ready with jurisdictional summaries and local counsel attestations.

Turn Compliance into a Narrative.
State-level sophistication can be a fundraising edge. Frame your regulatory preparedness, filings, disclosures, and relationships with AG offices, as proof of institutional discipline and operational foresight.

Align by Geography.
Tailor your pitch to LP home states: public pensions in California or Massachusetts may prize disclosure and impact, while Texas or Florida institutions may value pro-growth, deregulatory agility.

Show Intelligence, Not Burden.
Integrate a “state risk dashboard” or brief policy tracker into decks and LP updates. Treat compliance as a form of market intelligence and an early-warning system that protects capital and signals execution strength.

Mind the Blue Sky.
Work closely with placement agents and counsel to manage state-level fundraising filings and exemptions. The next capital bottleneck may be a registration requirement, not an investor objection.

The Macro Message

State-level regulation is now the front edge of U.S. financial policy.
Restrictive states (CA, MA, OR) are defining the rules of conduct; deregulatory states (TX, FL, WY) are defining the rules of competition.

The firms that flourish will be those that treat state law as a strategic variable, not a post-close afterthought. This isn’t a patchwork, it’s a pattern

Closing Thoughts

As federal agencies wrestle in court and Congress stalls, the momentum is local. GPs and LPs may be wondering: Where is my capital regulated and by whom?

For GPs, state-by-state fluency is no longer optional, it’s the new compliance moat. For LPs, due diligence must now probe deeper, asking not just about returns and risk, but about regulatory geography and political foresight.

This is no longer a patchwork, it’s a competitive map. The advantage belongs to those who treat compliance as intelligence, not burden; who read policy trends like market signals; and who can execute with local precision and national vision.

In this fragmented map, foresight is alpha.

The firms that adapt fastest won’t just navigate the new oversight cycle, they’ll own it.

MP CTA 9/8/25

Written By: Peter Harris, Investment Research Associate