Banking & Credit in United States

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 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 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

• The resignation itself does not constitute a regulatory change, but it creates operational uncertainty regarding the enforcement priorities and procedural reforms that Director Ryan had recently...
• Reduced enforcement for technical violations: Director Ryan had signaled that routine violations concerning reporting requirements, recordkeeping, and internal accounting controls should not...
• "Middle ground" approach: For non-fraud violations posing investor or market integrity risks, the Division was to pursue resolutions emphasizing remediation over punishment.
• Continued fraud focus: The Division was to maintain rigorous enforcement on fraud, insider trading, market manipulation, and scams targeting retail investors. Enforcement Manual Updates (Effective...
• Four-week timeline for post-Wells meetings with senior leadership (Associate Director level or above)

Suggested Considerations

• *Immediate (Next 30 Days):
• *Monitor Acting Director's statements: Compliance teams should closely track any public remarks or guidance from Acting Director Sam Waldon regarding enforcement priorities and procedural expectations.
• *Assess Wells submissions in progress: For entities with pending Wells submissions, evaluate whether the change in leadership creates opportunities to supplement submissions or request expedited meetings under the four-week timeline.
• *Review investigation status: Entities in early-stage investigations should assess whether the leadership transition may affect investigation trajectory or resolution opportunities.
• *Update compliance calendars: Ensure all enforcement-related deadlines and procedural requirements under the updated Enforcement Manual remain tracked and current.

Key Dates

References

• [1] dlapiper.com/en-us/insights/publications/2026/02/sec-enfo...
• [2] alston.com/en/insights/publications/2026/02/sec-leadershi...
• [3] goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/03/alerts-pr...
• [4] davispolk.com/insights/client-update/sec-updates-its-enfo...
• [5] jdsupra.com/legalnews/sec-s-division-of-enforcement-annou...
• [6] regulationtomorrow.com/2026/03/us-secs-updated-enforcemen...
• [7] governance-intelligence.com/regulatory-compliance/back-ba...
• [8] secretariat-intl.com/insights/the-evolving-sec-enforcemen...

What Changed

• The updates target investigative and enforcement procedures for greater consistency:
• Uniform Wells process: Recipients of a Wells notice receive four weeks to submit responses; Wells meetings are scheduled within four weeks of submission and include senior Division leadership.
• Simultaneous settlement and waiver consideration: Restores practice allowing settling parties to request Commission waivers from collateral consequences (e.g., disqualifications) alongside settlement...
• Additional enhancements: Details framework for evaluating cooperation (including civil penalty impacts); promotes internal collaboration; updates formal order processes, criminal referrals, and...

Suggested Considerations

• Review the updated Enforcement Manual (https://www.sec.gov/files/enforcementmanual.pdf) and train compliance/in-house legal teams on new Wells timelines and submission guidance.
• Update internal policies for responding to Wells notices: Prepare submissions within four weeks, focusing on elements staff find "most helpful" (e.g., detailed facts, legal analysis).
• For settlements, incorporate simultaneous waiver requests in offers to leverage restored process and mitigate collateral impacts.
• Enhance cooperation strategies per new evaluation framework to potentially reduce civil penalties; document internal collaboration for enforcement interactions.
• Monitor annual Manual reviews via SEC Division of Enforcement page (https://www.sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-enforcement).

Key Dates

References

• [1] sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-20-secs-division-enf...
• [2] sec.gov/about/divisions-offices/division-enforcement
• [3] sec.gov/files/enforcementmanual.pdf

What Changed

The final rule introduces the following substantive amendments: Exceptions for Swaps Intended to be Cleared (ITBC Swaps) Swap dealers and major swap participants are exempted from certain External Business Conduct Standards and swap trading relationship documentation requirements when executing swaps that are intended by the parties to be cleared contemporaneously with execution.

Suggested Considerations

• *Immediate Actions (Pre-Implementation)
• *Implementation Actions (Upon Effective Date)
• trade disclosure systems to remove PTMMM generation and delivery requirements
• based operations, review implications of superseded Staff Letter No. 23-01
• *Ongoing Compliance

Key Dates

References

• [1] cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9157-25
• [2] cftc.gov/media/12866/federalregister121825/download
• [3] isda.org/2025/11/18/isda-and-sifma-comment-on-cftc-propos...
• [4] gibsondunn.com/derivatives-legislative-and-regulatory-wee...
• [5] sifma.org/advocacy/letters/revisions-to-business-conduct-...
• [6] skadden.com/insights/publications/2025/09/cftc-proposes-e...