United States Regulatory Updates

What Changed

• - Introduces principles‑based requirements for vertically integrated market structures involving affiliations between derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, swap execution...
• Amends Part 37 to set additional governance, conflict‑management, and structural requirements for swap execution facilities where the SEF is affiliated with an intermediary or trading entity.
• Amends Part 38 to impose enhanced conflict‑of‑interest and self‑regulatory safeguards for designated contract markets that are affiliated with futures commission merchants or proprietary trading...
• Amends Part 39 to clarify and strengthen requirements on derivatives clearing organizations in group structures where the DCO is affiliated with intermediaries or other market participants, including...
• Amends regulation 1.52 (accounts and records; FCM supervisory requirements) to reflect the heightened expectations placed on futures commission merchants that are part of vertically integrated...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and map all affiliate relationships involving CFTC‑regulated entities within your group (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, SD/MSP, trading entities, market makers) and document how roles and control relationships could create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing governance, conflicts‑of‑interest, information‑barrier, and supervision frameworks against the anticipated principles‑based expectations for vertically integrated structures under Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance board‑level and committee‑level oversight arrangements for affiliated entities to ensure independent decision‑making on listing, clearing, rule enforcement, membership, and client treatment where affiliates are involved.
• Assess current customer risk disclosures, including those required under regulation 1.55 for FCMs, to determine whether affiliate relationships and related conflicts are adequately described, and prepare draft revisions that could be implemented if the new requirements are finalized.
• Engage legal, compliance, and business stakeholders for each affected entity (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, trading entity) to prepare a coordinated comment letter to the CFTC explaining operational impacts, potential unintended consequences, and recommendations on specific rule language.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9274-26
• [2] reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202404&RIN=30...
• [3] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Dodd-FrankProposedRul...
• [4] comments.cftc.gov/FederalRegister/Proposed.aspx?Type=List...
• [5] public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-28745.pdf
• [6] content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/If6afd4b4...
• [7] public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-00935.pdf?1329...
• [8] cftclaw.com

What Changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9271-26
• [2] dentonscrypto.com/cftc-issues-staff-advisory-setting-expe...
• [3] bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-21/cftc-seeks-input-o...
• [4] bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-23/cftc-seeks-input-o...
• [5] wilmerhale.com/-/media/files/shared_content/editorial/pub...
• [6] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/04/the-us-cftc-lo...
• [7] complianceconcourse.willkie.com/articles/cftc-releases-pr...
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/cftc-advances-framework-for-perpetu...

What Changed

• - The SEC has formally announced that Principal Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement Sam Waldon will leave the agency effective 31 July 2026, ending more than 14 years of service at the SEC.
• The Enforcement Division will have a new Principal Deputy Director (named in the release), who will assume responsibility for overseeing day‑to‑day enforcement operations, supervision of regional and...
• Waldon’s departure follows his recent tenure as Acting Director and Principal Deputy Director during a period of strategic restructuring of the Enforcement Division, including creation of multiple...
• The transition occurs against the backdrop of earlier Commission decisions to rescind delegation of formal order authority to the Enforcement Director, returning formal order approvals to the...
• Under Waldon’s leadership, the Division emphasized “quality over quantity” cases, focusing on traditional “core” areas (insider trading, accounting and disclosure fraud, market manipulation,...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update enforcement‑risk assessments to reflect the forthcoming change in SEC Enforcement Division Principal Deputy Director, with particular focus on core fraud, insider trading, and accounting‑related risks.
• Re‑evaluate internal investigation, Wells process, and SEC engagement protocols to ensure they align with current Enforcement Manual practices and anticipate any refinements under the new Principal Deputy Director.
• Brief senior management, boards, and audit committees on the SEC enforcement leadership transition and its implications for prioritization of accounting, disclosure, and gatekeeper cases, particularly in light of the SOX‑focused enforcement unit.
• Reassess crypto and digital asset exposure, including ongoing or threatened SEC matters, to account for potential shifts in enforcement posture under new leadership while maintaining preparedness for fraud‑focused actions involving retail investors.
• Reinforce insider trading surveillance, market‑abuse monitoring, and controls around material non‑public information, reflecting the Enforcement Division’s continued emphasis on traditional trading‑related misconduct.

Key Dates

References

• [1] bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-20/sec-lays-out-polic...
• [2] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-162
• [3] angelinvestorsnetwork.com/regulatory-compliance/sec-enfor...
• [4] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-27-sec-announces-enf...
• [5] reuters.com/world/us/sec-focus-traditional-cases-under-ne...
• [6] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/04/sec-speaks-are...
• [7] morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/04/securities-enforcement-round...
• [8] ainvest.com/news/sec-enforcement-inflection-point-directo...

What Changed

• - Regulation E‑Delivery would formally replace the SEC’s decades‑old, purely guidance‑based approach to electronic delivery and establish a rule‑based framework that expressly permits e‑delivery to...
• Electronic delivery would become the default method of delivery, meaning firms could deliver required regulatory information electronically without first obtaining the investor’s affirmative consent,...
• The rule would preserve investor choice by requiring that investors and other recipients be able to request paper delivery at any time and continue receiving paper format upon request.
• The proposal would set out requirements and conditions for when e‑delivery is deemed compliant, including use of electronic addresses or other electronic methods reasonably designed to ensure receipt...
• The range of deliverable documents under Regulation E‑Delivery would be broad, covering prospectuses for funds and other issuers, fund annual and semi‑annual shareholder reports, proxy statements,...

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all documents currently delivered under federal securities law requirements (prospectuses, shareholder reports, proxy materials, trade confirmations, Form CRS, Form ADV brochures) and determine how each will be delivered under Regulation E‑Delivery.
• Review and update disclosure, investor communication and delivery policies to incorporate e‑delivery as the default method while clearly documenting investor rights to request and receive paper delivery at any time.
• Design and implement procedures for maintaining accurate electronic contact information for investors and clients, including periodic verification processes and remediation steps for undeliverable emails or failed electronic transmissions.
• Develop and operationalize the transition process for paper‑based recipients, including generation and mailing of the two required paper notices that explain the move to e‑delivery and the opt‑out option.
• Update client and investor onboarding materials, account agreements and preference‑capture workflows to reflect the new default e‑delivery model and how investors can elect paper delivery or change their preferences.

Key Dates

References

• [1] reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=32...
• [2] morganlewis.com/blogs/finreg/2023/04/an-end-to-the-paper-...
• [3] sec.gov/rules-regulations/2000/04/use-electronic-media
• [4] sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2023/33-11176.pdf
• [5] sec.gov/comments/s7-09-20/s70920-8210190-227541.pdf
• [6] finra.org/media-center/blog/facilitating-e-delivery-while...
• [7] planadviser.com/white-house-to-review-sec-electronic-deli...
• [8] klgates.com/Click-Here-for-Your-Fund-Report-SEC-Endorses-...

What Changed

• - The FAQs now provide targeted guidance for public‑private partnership (P3) market participants on when their activities in structuring or advising on P3 financings constitute municipal advisory...
• The FAQs clarify for Form MA and Form MA‑I filers which remote work locations where municipal advisor‑related business is conducted must be disclosed as an “office,” affecting how firms classify and...
• The FAQs add staff views on the scope of recordkeeping requirements when a municipal advisor provides advice on the pricing of a new issue of municipal securities, reinforcing obligations under...
• A new FAQ explains how to register as a municipal advisor, directing prospective advisors (including sole proprietors) to an existing SEC staff Informational Bulletin and MSRB compliance resource...
• The SEC reiterates that the final municipal advisor registration rules adopted in 2013 remain in force and emphasizes that firms and individuals conducting municipal advisory activity should “come...

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive assessment of public‑private partnership activities to determine whether any structuring, advisory, or financing work for state or local governments involves “municipal advisory activities” that trigger SEC municipal advisor registration requirements.
• Review all current and planned municipal advisory activities (including indirect advice through third‑party professionals) against the SEC’s municipal advisor definition, exclusions, and exemptions, and document registration determinations in a formal internal memo.
• Identify all locations, including employees’ remote and home offices, where municipal advisor‑related business is conducted, and update Form MA and Form MA‑I filings to ensure accurate disclosure of “offices” according to the new FAQ guidance.
• Review and, where necessary, update books‑and‑records policies and procedures to ensure that advice on pricing of new issues of municipal securities is fully captured, including communications, analyses, models, and recommendations, in line with SEC and MSRB recordkeeping standards.
• Establish or update onboarding and change‑management controls to ensure that new municipal advisory lines of business, new P3 mandates, or expansions into remote work arrangements are reviewed by compliance for municipal advisor registration and office‑reporting implications before launch.

Key Dates

References

• [1] newsfilecorp.com/release/304771/SEC-Office-of-Municipal-S...
• [2] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-56
• [3] sec.gov/newsroom/whats-new/registration-municipal-advisor...
• [4] katten.com/SEC-Issues-Proposed-Rules-Requiring-Registrati...
• [5] sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/office-municipal-securiti...
• [6] msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/MSRB-Rules
• [7] regcompliancewatch.com/sec-releases-faqs-on-municipal-adv...
• [8] msrb.org/Registering-MSRB

What Changed

• - The SEC is reinstating the Retail Fraud Working Group within the Division of Enforcement to concentrate resources on identifying and pursuing misconduct that disproportionately harms retail...
• The Working Group will support stronger coordination with state and federal enforcement partners, including improved information-sharing and joint efforts.
• The SEC’s enforcement priorities now explicitly include offering fraud, accounting and disclosure fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, fraud by foreign actors, and fiduciary breaches...
• The SEC is signaling that it will distinguish between honest mistakes and actual fraud, but will still assess whether errors caused investor harm and calibrate remedies accordingly.
• The initiative reinforces the SEC’s broader retail-investor focus, building on the earlier Retail Strategy Task Force and related retail-protection efforts.

Suggested Considerations

• Review retail-facing sales, disclosure, and supervision controls for gaps that could create exposure under SEC fraud theories.
• Reassess product approval, marketing review, and suitability procedures for offerings sold to individual investors.
• Test whether financial reporting, performance, and valuation disclosures could be challenged as misleading or incomplete.
• Strengthen surveillance for insider trading, market manipulation, and suspicious transaction patterns involving retail accounts.
• Reevaluate client-asset safeguarding, custody, and trade-allocation controls to prevent misuse or misappropriation.

Key Dates

References

• [1] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/05/sec-enforcemen...
• [2] thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/2026/05/sec-enforcement-new-...
• [3] stblaw.com/about-us/publications/view/2026/05/14/sec-watc...
• [4] morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/06/securities-enforcement-round...
• [5] sec.gov/fact-sheets/sec-protects-retail-investors-markets
• [6] sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/woodcock-remarks-mfa...
• [7] linkedin.com/posts/timothynewman_yesterday-newly-appointe...
• [8] investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/role...

What Changed

• - The CFTC proposes an alternate reporting framework for certain fully collateralized event contracts, replacing reliance on certain reporting provisions in Parts 38, 39, 43, and 45 with reporting...
• The proposal would amend Part 15, Part 16, and Part 17 of the CFTC’s regulations.
• The proposal would add a new §16.03 titled “Covered Event Contracts” to Part 16.
• The proposal would require reporting pursuant to §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 for covered event contracts.
• The proposal would apply to reporting by certain reporting markets, futures commission merchants, clearing members, and foreign brokers.

Suggested Considerations

• Firms that list, clear, intermediate, or report covered event contracts should inventory all event-contract products and map each product to the current reporting regime and the proposed Parts 15 through 18 framework.
• Compliance teams should identify all reporting fields, systems, and workflows currently relying on Parts 38, 39, 43, or 45 for event-contract reporting and assess whether those processes would need redesign.
• FCMs, clearing members, and foreign brokers should review their data governance and source-of-truth controls to ensure they can produce the reporting elements required under §16.00, §16.01, Part 17, and Part 18 if the proposal is adopted.
• Firms should track the public-comment process and prepare comments if the proposed framework creates operational gaps, duplicated reporting, or ambiguities in product scope.
• Market participants should review reliance on existing no-action letters and prepare contingency plans for a transition from interim relief to a codified rule.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9261-25
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9131-26
• [3] gtlaw.com/en/insights/2026/6/cftc-proposes-new-rules-for-...
• [4] cftc.gov/taxonomy/term/4196
• [5] track360.io/blog/event-contracts-explained-cftc-operator-...
• [6] cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/ContractsProducts/index.htm
• [7] cftc.gov/LearnandProtect/PredictionMarkets

What Changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cnbc.com/2026/06/23/cftc-sues-kentucky-over-actions-again...
• [2] thehill.com/policy/technology/5937031-cftc-lawsuit-kentuc...
• [3] mlex.com/articles/2493033/us-cftc-sues-kentucky-over-enfo...
• [4] techechelon.com/post/cftc-sues-kentucky-over-prediction-m...
• [5] thedefiant.io/news/regulation/cftc-sues-kentucky-exclusiv...
• [6] x.com/RVanGrack/status/2067418512776171785
• [7] binance.com/en/square/post/337324929676706
• [8] cms.stateaffairs.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/CFTC-v-KY...

What Changed

• - The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (17 CFR 242.611), which currently requires trading centers to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably...
• The rescission would eliminate the current requirement on trading centers to prevent executions at prices inferior to protected quotations displayed on other trading centers, subject to the present...
• The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 610(e) of Regulation NMS, which currently imposes caps on access fees that trading centers may charge for the execution of quotations in NMS stocks, intended to...
• The proposal would remove the regulatory framework that links protection of top‑of‑book quotations with capped access fees, allowing market forces and competition to shape routing behavior, fee...
• The proposal would likely be accompanied by conforming amendments to related definitions and cross‑references in Regulation NMS that currently rely on or reference Rules 611 and 610(e).

Suggested Considerations

• Map all current policies, procedures, and controls that explicitly reference or rely on Rule 611 (Order Protection Rule) and Rule 610(e) (access fee caps), including best‑execution frameworks, routing policies, fee schedules, and surveillance rules.
• Conduct a system inventory of smart order routing, execution algorithms, and venue connectivity logic that prevents trade‑throughs of protected quotations and enforces access‑fee caps, and identify components that would need redesign if Rules 611 and 610(e) are rescinded.
• Review and, if necessary, update best‑execution policies and client disclosures to decouple best‑execution rationales from mechanical Rule 611 compliance, preparing a framework that can operate in an environment without trade‑through prohibitions or fee caps.
• Enhance governance processes to monitor the SEC rulemaking, assign ownership (e.g., to a market structure working group), and prepare internal impact assessments and board‑level briefings on potential business, conduct, and conflict‑of‑interest implications of rescission.
• Develop scenario analyses and playbooks describing how routing strategies, venue selection, and payment‑for‑order‑flow or other economic arrangements would be adjusted in the absence of Rule 611 and Rule 610(e).

Key Dates

References

• [1] skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2025/11/how_the_se...
• [2] sec.gov/comments/4-862/4862-662547-1977554.pdf
• [3] law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/242.611
• [4] x.com/SECGov/status/2065093130404163701/photo/1
• [5] x.com/SECGov/status/2065093133583487076
• [6] sifma.org/advocacy/letters/supplemental-request-for-immed...
• [7] sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule611faq.pdf
• [8] federalregister.gov/documents/2004/12/27/04-27934/regulat...

What Changed

• - The CFTC proposes a 30% presumption for whistleblower awards of $5 million or less.
• The presumption remains subject to Commission discretion and application of relevant regulatory factors.
• The proposal is modeled on SEC Rule 21F-6(c) to further harmonize CFTC and SEC whistleblower frameworks.
• The CFTC says the change is intended to improve the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of award processing.
• The proposal would affect how the CFTC’s Whistleblower Office evaluates award claims under Part 165.

Suggested Considerations

• Review whistleblower intake, escalation, and investigation procedures to ensure the firm can identify potential CEA violations before they become external whistleblower submissions.
• Update training for front office, operations, compliance, and management personnel on CFTC whistleblower protections and the increased incentive structure.
• Assess whether confidentiality, reporting, and non-retaliation controls are sufficiently documented to withstand scrutiny if a whistleblower complaint arises.
• Reconfirm that internal policies do not discourage employees from communicating with the CFTC or otherwise create retaliation risk.
• Monitor the Federal Register publication date and decide whether the firm, trade association, or counsel should submit a comment during the open comment period.

Key Dates

References

• [1] fincen.gov/news/news-releases/fincen-proposes-rule-pay-wh...
• [2] whistleblower.gov/overview
• [3] federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/01/2026-06271/whist...
• [4] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/DoddFrankAct/Dodd-FrankProposedRul...
• [5] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9249-26
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9194-26
• [7] comments.cftc.gov/FederalRegister/Proposed.aspx
• [8] kkc.com/frequently-asked-questions/cftc-whistleblower-awa...

What Changed

• - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
• The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
• The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
• The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
• The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...

Suggested Considerations

• Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
• Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
• Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
• Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
• For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8907-24
• [2] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/FederalRegister/proposedrules/2024...
• [3] mofo.com/resources/insights/240520-cftc-issues-proposed-r...
• [4] willkie.com/publications/2026/03/prediction-markets-cftc-...
• [5] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2026/03/us-cftc-issues...
• [6] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/FederalRegister/proposedrules/2026...
• [7] federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/10/2024-12125/event...
• [8] steptoe.com/en/news-publications/Proposed-CFTC-Event-Cont...

What Changed

• - The SEC, jointly with seven other U.S. financial regulators, has established mandatory technical data standards for information submitted to those agencies pursuant to the Financial Data...
• The joint standards apply to regulatory data collections within each participating agency’s remit (e.g., SEC filings and reports, certain prudential and market data submissions), and are intended to...
• The rule requires use of structured, non‑proprietary, machine‑readable formats (such as XML, JSON, XBRL, or similar open standards) where data is collected electronically, moving away from...
• The standards require use of public, non‑exclusive data dictionaries and taxonomies, so that data elements (e.g., fields, metrics, identifiers) are consistently defined and tagged across different...
• The rule embeds interoperability requirements, so that the same data element (for example, a LEI, CUSIP, counterparty ID, asset class, or exposure type) is reported using harmonized definitions and...

Suggested Considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive mapping of all current and upcoming regulatory data submissions to the SEC and other FDTA‑covered agencies to identify which reports are likely to be brought under the joint data standards.
• Review and update data governance frameworks so that key data elements (counterparty identifiers, instrument identifiers, balances, exposures, classifications) are uniquely defined, consistently sourced, and traceable across internal systems in alignment with anticipated joint taxonomies.
• Assess existing regulatory reporting systems and vendor solutions (including XBRL tools, data warehouses, and filing platforms) and develop an upgrade plan to support the new machine‑readable, standardized formats and schemas.
• Establish an internal FDTA/joint data standards implementation program, with clear ownership (e.g., finance, regulatory reporting, data management, IT) and a cross‑functional steering committee to oversee design, testing, and rollout.
• Engage with technology, regtech, and data vendors to confirm their timelines for supporting the new SEC and cross‑agency standards and to obtain updated taxonomies, schemas, and validation rules as soon as they are published.

Key Dates

References

• [1] fisglobal.com
• [2] ecb.europa.eu/stats/financial_corporations/list_of_financ...
• [3] bankingcircle.com
• [4] bis.org/fsi/publ/insights33.pdf
• [5] nuvei.com
• [6] goldmansachs.com
• [7] ripple.com
• [8] adyen.com

What Changed

• - The CFTC has rescinded the policy in Appendix A to Part 10 that prevented the Commission from accepting settlement offers where a respondent or defendant continued to deny the allegations in a...
• The CFTC will now accept settlements even where the settling party publicly denies or continues to deny the CFTC’s allegations, provided other settlement terms are satisfied.
• The CFTC has stated that it will not enforce existing no-deny (neither‑admit‑nor‑deny) provisions in settlements that have already been entered.
• If a settling party breaches an existing no-deny provision, the CFTC will not allege breach of contract, seek to reopen the matter, ask a district court to vacate the settlement, or reopen an...
• The rescission does not alter the CFTC’s discretion to: - settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability; or - negotiate and require admissions of facts or liability in...

Suggested Considerations

• Review all existing CFTC settlement orders, consent orders, and related agreements to identify any no‑deny or neither‑admit‑nor‑deny clauses and update internal records to reflect that the CFTC has stated it will not enforce those provisions.
• Update internal enforcement and litigation playbooks to incorporate the new settlement flexibility, including explicit guidance that public denials post‑settlement may be possible but should be subject to legal and reputational risk review.
• Revise board- and senior‑management reporting on CFTC enforcement risks and settlement strategy to reflect the rescission of the no‑deny policy and the availability of settlements without waiving the ability to contest allegations in public communications.
• Implement or update communications and investor‑relations protocols governing post‑settlement statements, ensuring any public denials or clarifications are coordinated with legal, compliance, and, where relevant, parallel regulators or criminal authorities.
• For ongoing CFTC investigations or settlement negotiations, instruct external and internal counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek terms that preserve the firm’s ability to deny or contest aspects of the CFTC’s allegations after settlement.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9247-26
• [2] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-45-sec-rescinds-poli...
• [3] gibsondunn.com/undeniably-deniable-sec-rescinds-policy-on...
• [4] cftc.gov/media/14106/NeitherDenyNorAdmitRescission060326/...
• [5] federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/21/2026-10132/resci...
• [6] binance.com/en/square/post/330358517783154
• [7] cftc.gov

What Changed

• - The SEC is proposing a strategic reorientation toward core statutory objectives: investor protection, fair and orderly markets, and capital formation.
• The plan emphasizes clearer, fit-for-purpose rules intended to support innovation while deterring misconduct.
• The SEC says it will prioritize modernizing and simplifying disclosure practices, which may affect reporting frameworks and issuer-facing compliance processes.
• The draft plan highlights expanded access to private markets and new capital-raising pathways, signaling possible future changes in offering, exemptive, and disclosure regimes.
• The SEC identifies digital assets and distributed ledger technologies as an area needing a “firm regulatory foundation,” indicating continued policy development for crypto-related activities.

Suggested Considerations

• Submit written comments by 02 July 2026 if your firm wants to influence the SEC’s strategic priorities, especially on disclosure modernization, private markets, digital assets, or enforcement posture.
• Include File Number DSP-3 on all comments and use only one submission method, because the SEC requires the file number on email subject lines and asks commenters to choose a single channel.
• Review internal compliance roadmaps for likely impacts from disclosure simplification, rule retrospectives, and enforcement refocusing, and identify where current controls may become redundant or need redesign.
• Assess whether your firm’s digital asset, tokenization, or distributed ledger activities may benefit from future SEC guidance or may face new framework requirements.
• Monitor developments on EDGAR modernization and filing technology changes, and test whether internal reporting, tagging, or submission processes would need upgrades.

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-51-sec-publishes-dra...
• [2] sec.gov/ix?doc=%2FArchives%2Fedgar%2Fdata%2F0000070858%2F...
• [3] prnewswire.com/news-releases/fs-kkr-capital-corp-announce...
• [4] pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c12667
• [5] sec.gov/ix?doc=%2FArchives%2Fedgar%2Fdata%2F1498067%2F000...
• [6] blackstone.com/insights/article/office-of-the-cio-2026-in...
• [7] sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1357615/000110465926036847/tm...
• [8] federalregister.gov/documents/2025/11/28/2025-21379/termi...

What Changed

• - The CFTC Portal now supports consolidated product self‑certification submissions, enabling exchanges to file a single set of certification documents that apply to multiple closely related contracts...
• Exchanges are no longer required to upload multiple identical copies of supporting product certification documents when listing several closely related contracts; one shared documentation set can be...
• The enhancement is framed as an administrative/technical change to the filing process; it does not alter substantive legal standards for product self‑certification under the Commodity Exchange Act or...
• The CFTC has issued updated submission instructions on the Portal site specifying how to use the new consolidated filing functionality, including formatting and process guidance.
• Dedicated technical and non‑technical CFTC contacts have been identified (Howard Rosen for system use; Chris Goodman for product submission process questions), signaling that the Commission expects...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and obtain the updated submission instructions on the CFTC Portal and ensure legal, compliance, and operations staff understand the consolidated filing functionality and any new formatting or data‑entry requirements.
• Update internal product approval and submission procedures (including Part 40 playbooks and checklists) to reflect the ability to file a single set of documents for multiple closely related contracts, and to define when consolidation is appropriate.
• Revise internal documentation templates (e.g., product term sheets, legal analyses, core principle compliance memos, risk assessments) so that they can explicitly support multiple closely related contracts in a single package where relevant.
• Adjust governance workflows (approvals, sign‑offs, and quality checks) so that:
• Each contract included in a consolidated submission is clearly identified and traceable, and

Key Dates

References

• [1] quickreads.ext.katten.com/post/102jlxr/the-cftc-amends-pa...
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/romerostatement072623c
• [3] cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/ContractsProducts/ListingProce...
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/mersingerstatement09...
• [5] law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/40.6
• [6] federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/07/2024-24388/provi...
• [7] fia.org/fia/articles/cftc-examines-self-certification-pro...
• [8] cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/ContractsProducts/index.htm

What Changed

• - The SEC proposes to rescind the 2024–2025 climate‑related disclosure rules that mandated detailed climate information in Securities Act registration statements and Exchange Act annual reports,...
• The proposal would remove line‑item requirements for climate‑related governance and oversight by the board and management that had been added to Regulation S‑K and related forms.
• The proposal would eliminate prescriptive disclosure of climate‑related risks over specified time horizons (short, medium, long term) and their impacts on strategy, business model, and outlook that...
• The proposal would rescind obligations to provide certain climate‑related financial metrics in audited financial statements, including disaggregation of climate‑related impacts in footnotes, thereby...
• The proposal would eliminate any mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosures that were part of the climate rules, including Scopes that were required for large filers, returning GHG...

Suggested Considerations

• Maintain full compliance with the existing SEC climate‑related disclosure rules in registration statements and annual reports until a final rescission (if any) becomes effective, and do not scale back disclosures based solely on the proposal.
• Prepare internal briefing materials for the board, audit committee, and senior management explaining the proposed rescission, its potential implications, and the need to maintain current disclosures in the interim.
• Coordinate with legal, finance, sustainability, and investor relations teams to develop a contingency disclosure strategy that anticipates both outcomes: (i) rescission is finalized and prescriptive line items disappear, or (ii) the rule is modified or retained following comments or litigation.
• Review and update risk factor, MD&A, and business section drafting guidance to ensure that material climate‑related risks and opportunities continue to be addressed under general disclosure standards even if specialized climate items are removed.
• Engage external counsel and proxy‑advisory or ESG stakeholders to assess how reduced prescriptive SEC climate requirements will interact with EU, UK and state‑level climate disclosure regimes, and align internal reporting processes to meet the most stringent applicable framework.

Key Dates

References

• [1] democrats-financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/01.14...
• [2] sec.gov/newsroom/whats-new
• [3] jdsupra.com/legalnews/sec-releases-2026-examination-8535066/
• [4] morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/04/securities-enforcement-round...
• [5] skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2025/07/2026-sec-f...
• [6] jonesday.com/en/insights/2026/02/sec-outlines-2026-disclo...
• [7] mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publicat...
• [8] goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/12/alerts-fi...

What Changed

• - The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
• The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
• For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
• The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
• The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...

Suggested Considerations

• DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
• DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
• FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
• Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cadwalader.com/resources/clients-friends-memos/cftcs-incr...
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases
• [3] cftc.gov/PressRoom/index.htm
• [4] cftc.gov
• [5] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases?page=4
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/giancarlostatement07...
• [7] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8188-20
• [8] cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opabehnam35

What Changed

• - The CFTC has formally sought to intervene in a U.S. District Court case in Rhode Island to halt the state’s attempt to apply state gambling laws and seek civil penalties against a CFTC‑registered...
• The Commission has publicly reaffirmed that event contracts traded on CFTC‑registered exchanges are “commodity derivatives” squarely within the CFTC’s regulatory remit under the Commodity Exchange...
• The CFTC is explicitly characterizing its authority over CFTC‑registered prediction markets as “exclusive jurisdiction,” signaling that state gambling regulators and attorneys general should not...
• The Rhode Island dispute is identified as part of a broader pattern of state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, following similar or related litigation in Arizona, Connecticut,...
• The enforcement posture indicates that CFTC‑registered contract markets facing state actions can expect active CFTC litigation support when states attempt to apply gambling or gaming statutes to...

Suggested Considerations

• Review current and planned event or prediction‑market contracts to confirm that they are structured, documented, and marketed as commodity derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act rather than as gaming or wagering products.
• Update internal legal and compliance memoranda on federal preemption and CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” to reflect the CFTC’s latest public position and the ongoing Rhode Island and related state cases.
• Map state‑law exposure for event contracts by conducting a jurisdictional sweep of gambling, gaming, bucket‑shop, and “games of chance” statutes for key states where customers or operations are located, with particular focus on Rhode Island, Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota.
• Enhance product‑approval and new‑business committees’ procedures so that, before launching event contracts, they explicitly document CEA coverage, CFTC oversight, and a preemption analysis versus relevant state gambling laws.
• For CFTC‑registered contract markets, establish and maintain a litigation and regulatory‑strategy playbook for responding to state attorney‑general investigations or enforcement demands, including criteria for when to seek CFTC support or intervention.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9238-26
• [2] sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-23796
• [3] newsfromthestates.com/article/feds-jump-after-battle-over...
• [4] law360.com/articles/2483093/cftc-seeks-to-join-kalshi-fig...

What Changed

• - The CFTC Division of Enforcement has adopted a new, unified cooperation policy that expressly supersedes all prior Division cooperation and self‑reporting advisories (including the 2017 corporate...
• The new advisory establishes a clear “declination pathway” under which, absent aggravating circumstances, a respondent that voluntarily self‑reports, fully cooperates, timely and appropriately...
• The advisory formalizes that voluntary self‑reporting is a central prerequisite for the highest level of credit, distinguishing between cases with self‑reports (potential declination or high...
• The policy confirms that “full cooperation” will be a necessary condition for a declination, which in practice will require proactive, resource‑intensive engagement with Enforcement beyond mere...
• The advisory codifies that timely and appropriate remediation is a separate and indispensable requirement for top‑tier outcomes, emphasizing that firms must implement corrective measures before...

Suggested Considerations

• Identify and catalogue all existing internal policies, playbooks, and checklists relating to CFTC investigations, dawn raids, inquiries, self‑reporting, and cooperation, and amend them to reflect the new advisory’s superseding status.
• Update the firm’s enforcement‑response framework to explicitly incorporate the new declination pathway, including clear decision criteria for when and how to voluntarily self‑report potential CFTC violations.
• Establish or refine escalation triggers for potential insider trading, fraud, manipulation, and market abuse in CFTC‑regulated markets to ensure that issues can be investigated and elevated quickly enough to support “prompt” and “voluntary” self‑reporting.
• Design and document a structured internal investigation protocol that can generate the level of factual development, analysis, and documentation needed to demonstrate “full cooperation,” including protocols for sharing findings, data, and analytics with the CFTC where appropriate.
• Implement procedures to rapidly secure, preserve, and collect relevant trading records, communications (including messaging apps), surveillance alerts, and algorithmic trading data so that the firm can cooperate effectively and avoid any appearance of obstruction or delay.

Key Dates

References

• [1] jdsupra.com/legalnews/cftc-s-division-of-enforcement-issu...
• [2] cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2...
• [3] skadden.com/-/media/files/publications/2020/11/cftc-issue...
• [4] sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2025/03/us-cftc-enforc...
• [5] cftc.gov/media/11821/EnfAdv_Resolutions022525/download
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases
• [7] morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/03/cftc-enforcement-replaces-pr...
• [8] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/@lrenforce...

What Changed

• *(Based on the SEC’s description and consistent with prior offering‑reform initiatives; specific rule and form cites will need to be confirmed against the proposing release once reviewed in full.)*
• The SEC proposes to modernize the shelf registration process for Form S‑3 and F‑3 issuers, including expanded use of automatic or “universal” shelves and greater flexibility to add classes of...
• The proposal would streamline incorporation by reference, allowing more categories of Exchange Act reports and exhibits to be incorporated into Securities Act registration statements and prospectuses...
• The SEC proposes to expand the use of “access equals delivery” for final prospectuses, permitting issuers in additional circumstances to satisfy Securities Act Section 5(b)(2) delivery requirements...
• The reforms would broaden the range of permissible communications in connection with registered offerings, including issuer and underwriter use of certain factual and forward‑looking information,...

Suggested Considerations

• Monitor the Federal Register and SEC website for the full proposing release text and the precise comment deadline for this rulemaking.
• Coordinate among legal, finance, and investor relations teams to prepare and submit a comment letter to the SEC addressing practical implications of the proposed offering and reporting reforms for your issuer, including any concerns about liability, operational feasibility, and investor impact.
• Inventory all existing shelf registration statements (including automatic shelves), universal shelves, and continuous‑offering programs and identify where proposed changes to shelf mechanics, incorporation by reference, or prospectus updating could affect structure, timing, or disclosure.
• Review current offering communication practices, including use of free writing prospectuses, roadshow materials, and research reports, and map them against the proposed expanded communications safe harbors to determine what additional flexibilities could be used in future offerings.
• Assess your firm’s use of Exchange Act reports incorporated by reference into Securities Act registration statements and plan to revise drafting and review procedures to take advantage of streamlined incorporation while managing Securities Act liability for incorporated information.

Key Dates

References

• [1] akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/sec-proposes-changes-to-r...
• [2] proskauer.com/alert/sec-proposes-reforms-for-business-dev...
• [3] sec.gov/files/rules/final/33-8591.pdf
• [4] skadden.com/insights/publications/2026/2026-insights/regu...
• [5] sec.gov/resources-small-businesses/small-business-complia...
• [6] sec.gov/rules-regulations/rulemaking-activity
• [7] scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182...
• [8] sullcrom.com/SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/SC-Publi...

What Changed

• - The SEC has rescinded the policy in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal Rules of Practice that conditioned settlements involving sanctions on the respondent’s agreement not to publicly deny the...
• Settling parties in SEC enforcement actions may now have greater scope to make public statements that deny or contest aspects of the SEC’s allegations, subject to the specific language of each...
• The traditional “neither admit nor deny” construct will no longer automatically include a built‑in prohibition on denials, which means the SEC staff will need to negotiate any desired limitations on...
• Communications and disclosure provisions in SEC settlement papers (including “undertakings” and clauses governing press releases and investor communications) are likely to become more tailored and...
• The rescission increases the importance of alignment between legal, compliance, and communications teams when crafting public statements following an SEC settlement, because statements that deny...

Suggested Considerations

• Review existing internal playbooks for handling SEC investigations and settlements and update them to reflect the rescission of Rule 202.5(e), including how settlement language on admissions, denials, and public statements is negotiated.
• For matters currently under SEC investigation or in active settlement negotiations, direct outside and in‑house counsel to reassess settlement strategy, including whether to seek greater flexibility for post‑settlement denials or clarifications in the consent language and undertakings.
• Conduct an inventory of significant historical SEC settlements that included “no‑deny” provisions and identify where ongoing communications plans, disclosure narratives, or litigation strategies may be constrained by legacy language.
• For high‑impact historical orders with restrictive “no‑deny” clauses, obtain legal advice on whether and how to approach the SEC about potential modification or clarification of those provisions in light of the Commission’s changed policy.
• Train senior management, board members, and spokespersons on the revised SEC posture, emphasising that while denials may now be more permissible, inaccurate or overly aggressive denials could adversely affect ongoing private litigation, insurance recoveries, or relationships with other regulators.

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov
• [2] usgovernmentmanual.gov/Agency?EntityId=JZfpg7xXgFk%3D&Par...
• [3] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-174
• [4] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-148
• [5] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-98
• [6] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-6
• [7] sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases
• [8] sec.gov/reports

What Changed

• - Streamlined Reporting Items: Amendments propose removing or simplifying certain Form PF fields, such as reducing detailed breakdowns of investment exposures, counterparty data, and performance...
• Adjusted Filing Thresholds: Raise thresholds for "large hedge fund advisers" and "large private equity advisers" (e.g., from $1.5B to potentially higher AUM levels for certain funds), limiting who...
• Simplified Calculations: Eliminate complex aggregation rules for master-feeder/parallel structures, revert to prior methods for inflows/outflows and AUM (e.g., no double-counting exclusions for...
• Event Reporting Relief: Propose delaying or narrowing 72-hour current event reporting (e.g., for large hedge funds under new Section 6), responding to burden complaints from 2024 amendments. These...

Suggested Considerations

• Review Proposal: Download full proposing release post-Federal Register publication; assess current Form PF processes against proposed simplifications (e.g., audit AUM calculations, exposure schedules).
• Submit Comments: File detailed feedback by comment deadline, focusing on burden estimates, implementation feasibility, and alternatives (e.g., via SEC's online portal); prioritize if your firm files quarterly/detailed sections.
• Update Systems: Map current reporting workflows to proposed changes; pilot simplified data pulls for inflows, performance, and structures; prepare for potential transition rules if adopted.
• Monitor Extensions: Track related no-action relief (e.g., CFTC Letter 25-50 for interim burden reduction) and Form N-PORT extensions.
• Internal Training: Educate compliance teams on threshold changes and event reporting tweaks to avoid over-reporting during transition.

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-19-sec-proposes-amen...
• [2] corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2024/05/01/the-sec-and-cftc-overh...
• [3] kirkland.com/publications/kirkland-aim/2024/03/sec-increa...
• [4] willkie.com/publications/2024/03/sec-and-cftc-adopt-subst...
• [5] sec.gov/files/rules/final/2024/ia-6546.pdf
• [6] cftc.gov/csl/25-50/download
• [7] sec.gov/files/rules/final/2025/ia-6919.pdf
• [8] ici.org/news-release/sec-moves-to-reduce-burdensome-fund-...

What Changed

• - Exemptive Order: Provides relief from the SEC's broker-dealer customer protection rule (Rule 15c3-3), permitting dually registered broker-dealer/FCMs that are joint clearing members of FICC and CME...
• Rule Change Approval: Approves FICC's filing to incorporate a Third Amended and Restated Cross-Margining Agreement with CME into its Government Securities Division rules, enabling cross-margining at...
• Scope Expansion: Shifts from prior restrictions where only clearing members could cross-margin, now extending to eligible customers of qualifying firms, with safeguards for customer fund segregation...

Suggested Considerations

• Qualifying Firms: Review and ensure compliance with exemptive order conditions (e.g., customer eligibility, account segregation, risk controls) before offering cross-margining; update internal policies, systems, and customer agreements to support combined margin calculations in futures accounts.
• Operational Updates: Implement changes to clearing and margining processes aligned with the Third Amended Cross-Margining Agreement; conduct testing with FICC and CME for customer-level arrangements.
• Documentation and Reporting: Maintain records demonstrating adherence to Rule 15c3-3 exemptions and notify customers of new margining options; monitor for CFTC parallel requirements on commingled funds.
• Legal/Compliance Review: Assess dual SEC/CFTC registration status and joint membership; consult with counsel on condition-specific interpretations.

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-36-sec-approves-exem...
• [2] investing.com/news/economy-news/sec-approves-rule-change-...
• [3] en.bloomingbit.io/feed/news/110060
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9214-26
• [5] financemagnates.com/institutional-forex/sec-grants-condit...
• [6] tradingview.com/news/financemagnates:5ea56691a094b:0-sec-...

What Changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested Considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9124-25
• [2] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9148-25
• [3] forkeylaw.com/blog/categories/cftc-enforcement-actions/
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases?c=1180800&page=105

What Changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Suggested Considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9208-26
• [2] tradeinformer.com/regulations/cftc-arizona-prediction-mar...
• [3] gamingintelligence.com/legal/228985-cftc-intervenes-in-ar...
• [4] news.bitcoin.com/cftc-seeks-injunction-restraining-order-...
• [5] complianceweek.com/regulatory-enforcement/cftc-sues-state...
• [6] grcreport.com/post/cftc-asks-court-to-step-in-as-arizona-...
• [7] mlex.com/articles/2463704/us-cftc-seeks-injunction-to-sto...

What Changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Suggested Considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9208-26
• [2] espn.com/espn/betting/story/_/id/48379446/cftc-sues-arizo...
• [3] lowenstein.com/news-insights/newsletters/fintech-five-apr...

What Changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements in this announcement; it is a personnel appointment rather than a rulemaking or policy shift. However, SEC Chairman Atkins highlighted the Division's ongoing "course correction" to prioritize cases aligned with congressional intent for meaningful investor protection and market integrity, moving away from prior Gensler-era emphases. Woodcock's background in securities enforcement, financial reporting, and audit task forces suggests potential heightened scrutiny in those areas, though no specific mandates are outlined.

Suggested Considerations

• Review current exposure to SEC enforcement matters, particularly in financial reporting, accounting, and disclosures, in light of Woodcock's expertise.
• Monitor SEC announcements post-May 4, 2026, for signals on evolving priorities, such as reduced crypto focus or enhanced fraud detection.
• Enhance internal compliance training on investor protection and market integrity cases, aligning with the stated "course correction."
• Engage external counsel familiar with Woodcock's tenure (e.g., Gibson Dunn alumni or Fort Worth Regional Office veterans) for strategic advice.

Key Dates

References

• [1] wealthmanagement.com/regulation-compliance/sec_names_gibs...
• [2] news.bitcoin.com/david-woodcock-named-sec-enforcement-chi...
• [3] tradersmagazine.com/xtra/sec-appoints-david-woodcock-as-d...
• [4] blockonomi.com/sec-names-david-woodcock-as-enforcement-ch...
• [5] citybiz.co/article/829974/sec-appoints-david-woodcock-as-...
• [6] newsfilecorp.com/release/291656/SEC-Appoints-David-Woodco...
• [7] hklaw.com/en/news/intheheadlines/2026/04/us-sec-taps-gibs...
• [8] wmbdradio.com/2026/04/08/us-sec-taps-gibson-dunn-attorney...

What Changed

• This is not a rulemaking publication introducing new regulations but an annual enforcement summary reflecting operational shifts rather than formal regulatory changes. Key developments include:
• Enforcement volume decline: 313 standalone actions (down 27% from 431 in FY 2024), with only 4 new actions against public companies post-January 20, 2025 (93% of 56 public company cases initiated...
• Monetary penalties reduced: $808 million in settlements (lowest since 2012) and record-low $108 million in disgorgement.
• Policy shifts: Dismissals of high-profile crypto cases (e.g., Coinbase, Binance); new task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud; emphasis on "bread-and-butter" cases like offering fraud, insider...
• Leadership and staffing impact: Post-Gensler transition (Uyeda as Acting Chair, Atkins sworn in April 2025); ~15% Enforcement staff reduction; record Q1 actions (200 total, October-December 2024)...

Suggested Considerations

• Review and strengthen controls around core risks: insider trading, offering fraud, fiduciary duties, and retail investor disclosures.
• Self-assess exposure to legacy Gensler-era cases, especially crypto-related, anticipating potential dismissals or settlements.
• Enhance self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation protocols, as SEC continues to credit these in resolutions.
• Monitor SEC task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud for emerging priorities.
• Update firm-wide risk assessments to deprioritize novel theories (e.g., shadow trading) in favor of traditional misconduct.

Key Dates

References

• [1] corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2026/01/21/sec-enforcement-2025-y...
• [2] whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-fy-2025-review-transforma...
• [3] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025-26
• [4] brattle.com/insights-events/publications/sec-enforcement-...
• [5] hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/12/sec-enforcemen...
• [6] gibsondunn.com/securities-enforcement-2025-year-end-update/
• [7] clearyenforcementwatch.com/2026/01/the-shifting-sec-enfor...
• [8] sec.gov/files/fy25-oiad-sar-activities.pdf

What Changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...

Suggested Considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

Key Dates

References

• [1] steel-eye.com/news/north-american-regulatory-priorities-f...
• [2] cftc.gov/sites/default/files/CFTC_FY2026_Presidents_Budge...
• [3] cohenmilstein.com/cftc-priorities-modernization-harmoniza...
• [4] beneschlaw.com/insight/ftc-enforcement-trends-in-2026-wha...
• [5] foley.com/insights/publications/2026/01/shifting-enforcem...
• [6] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [7] ftc.gov/news-events/news/speeches/enforcement-priorities-...

What Changed

• - Permanent Injunction: Peken Global is barred from future violations, specifically prohibiting U.S. participants from direct trading on its electronic trading and order-matching system without FBOT...
• Civil Penalty: $500,000 payment required; no disgorgement sought due to cooperation in CFTC investigation and related criminal proceedings (United States v. Flashdot Limited, et al., No.
• Dismissals: Voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited; dismissal of CFTC complaint counts II-V against Peken Global,...
• No new broad regulatory rules, but underscores CEA violations for off-exchange commodity futures, leveraged retail transactions, and unregistered FCM/SEF/DCM operations.

Suggested Considerations

• Verify Registration Status: Foreign platforms must confirm CFTC registration as FBOT if offering direct access to U.S. participants for futures/swaps/derivatives; implement geo-blocks or KYC to exclude U.S. users.[1 from provided content]
• Restrict U.S. Access: Proactively block U.S. IP addresses, require attestations of non-U.S. residency, and monitor for circumvention.
• Pay Penalties: Peken Global must remit $500,000 civil penalty per court order.
• Enhance Supervision/CIP: Implement effective customer identification programs (CIP) and supervision of activities, avoiding off-exchange leveraged retail commodity transactions.
• Monitor Affiliates: Dissolved entities (e.g., Mek Global, PhoenixFin) or non-operational parents (Flashdot) should ensure no residual U.S. exposure.

Key Dates

References

• [1] fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/new-neuf/nr/2025-09-25-eng
• [2] cftc.gov/LawRegulation/EnforcementActions/index.htm
• [3] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8884-24
• [4] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26
• [5] fxnewsgroup.com/forex-news/regulatory/cftc-reengages-in-d...
• [6] usaherald.com/cftc-mek-global-settlement-nears-in-kucoin-...
• [7] opensanctions.org/entities/us-cftc-2ab1ed098a80f19db560f5...
• [8] jdsupra.com/legalnews/doj-and-cftc-bring-charges-against-...

What Changed

• The CFTC FAQs address implementation questions arising from two prior staff positions:
• Tokenized Collateral Guidance (CFTC Staff Letter 25-39): Established the framework allowing futures commission merchants (FCMs) and designated contract markets (DCMs) to accept digital assets as...
• No-Action Position (CFTC Staff Letter 26-05): Provided temporary relief permitting FCMs to accept payment stablecoins, Bitcoin, and Ether as customer margin collateral, subject to specific...
• How registered entities should operationalize tokenized collateral acceptance
• Compliance with notification and operational risk management requirements

Suggested Considerations

• *Immediate (0–30 days):
• *Asset Classification Audit: Map every crypto asset in your portfolios, products, or platforms against the five-category framework (digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, digital securities) established in the March 17 joint interpretation.
• *Investment Contract Review: Identify any assets subject to active issuer promises of essential managerial effort—those remain securities regardless of category and cannot be treated as digital commodities.
• *FAQ Implementation Review: Obtain and review the full CFTC FAQs (available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9200-26) to identify specific operational questions relevant to your entity type.
• *Notification Protocol Establishment: If relying on the no-action relief for tokenized collateral, establish procedures to notify the CFTC of significant operational, system, or cybersecurity issues affecting digital asset collateral use (required for first three months of relief).

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-30-sec-clarifies-app...
• [2] consumerfinancialserviceslawmonitor.com/2026/02/cftc-and-...
• [3] klgates.com/Crypto-in-2026-The-Democratization-of-Digital...
• [4] genfinity.io/2026/03/17/sec-cftc-final-rule-digital-commo...
• [5] compliance-risk.com/sec-cftc-joint-crypto-asset-interpret...
• [6] cftc.gov/csl/26-09/download
• [7] sec.gov/files/rules/interp/2026/33-11412.pdf
• [8] fintechweekly.com/news/sec-bitcoin-ether-solana-digital-c...