Consumer Protection / Conduct in United States

Key dates

2025-01-01

Beginning of the general period identified by the SEC during which the charged entities allegedly filed Forms ADV containing material misrepresentations; the publication does not specify an exact start date.

2026-08-27

The SEC announced the charges, disclosed the requested remedies, stated that the 38 ERA filings had been removed from its website, and referenced its related investor alert.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to perform a documented, line-by-line validation of Form ADV Part 1 and applicable Form ADV Part 2 disclosures, including business addresses, telephone numbers, websites, ownership, control persons, regulatory status, assets, private funds, clients, and service providers.
• Firms should consider retaining contemporaneous evidence supporting material Form ADV representations, such as lease or office records, corporate and ownership documents, fund records, audited financial statements, auditor engagement evidence, and records supporting reported assets and advisory activities.
• ERA and registered adviser compliance programs may wish to establish independent verification of counterparties' SEC registration or ERA status through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system and should avoid treating an SEC filing, certificate, or website badge as conclusive proof of legitimacy.
• Firms that market investment advice to individuals should consider reviewing whether their regulatory status, Form ADV disclosures, and marketing materials accurately describe whether they are registered, exempt reporting, or otherwise authorized to provide services to retail investors.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate repeated or highly similar ownership structures, numerical disclosures, addresses, telephone numbers, websites, auditor names, or filing patterns across related advisers as potential indicators of coordinated fraudulent filings.
• Firms should consider escalating unanswered SEC requests for records and preserving relevant books, records, communications, websites, and filing-support materials, because the SEC expressly relied on alleged failures to substantiate Form ADV information.
• Private fund sponsors and allocators may wish to verify that purported fund audits were performed by identifiable independent public accounting firms with appropriate federal or state registration or licensing, rather than relying solely on statements in Form ADV.
• Financial-crime and onboarding teams may wish to incorporate the SEC's PAUSE list, investor alerts, foreign-jurisdiction indicators, website authentication checks, and independent corporate-registration checks into risk-based due diligence for purported U.S. advisers.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement complaints rather than a new rule or generally applicable filing requirement. The SEC alleges violations of Section 204(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, which governs adviser records and reports including Form ADV, and Section 207, which prohibits untrue statements or omissions in applications and reports filed under the Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, conduct-based injunctions preventing the defendants from filing Forms ADV as exempt reporting advisers, and civil penalties.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11, issued Bulletin 2026-41, and published the proposed rulemaking notice concerning substantive and technical violations. The proposed rule's 30-day comment period begins only upon Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open and recently closed MRAs and enforcement actions against the revised material-financial-risk threshold and the stated tailoring factors of capital structure, complexity, activities, and asset size.
• Banks should consider documenting objective facts, legal violations, financial-risk consequences, customer impact, duration, frequency, severity, and remediation status supporting the classification and closure of examination findings.
• Large and complex banks may wish to reassess escalation risk because the OCC expressly permits enforcement action for practices that might not produce the same response at a community bank.
• Banks should consider reviewing corrective-action plans to confirm that each action is directly tied to a specific deficiency and is proportionate to the risk, while preserving evidence of substantial compliance with existing orders.
• Compliance teams may wish to distinguish substantive violations from potential technical violations in issue-management inventories, including systemic or repeated conduct, customer restitution, books-and-records impacts, financial-condition effects, and insider misconduct.
• Banks should consider monitoring the Federal Register for publication of the proposed rule and calculating the 30-day comment period from that publication date; affected institutions may wish to submit comments on the proposed substantive-versus-technical framework.
• Examiners may identify lower-level weaknesses as supervisory observations rather than MRAs; banks should consider maintaining internal governance and risk records for such observations without assuming that the OCC may require a board action plan or track remediation in the same manner as an MRA.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3, Bank Enforcement Action and Related Matters, replaces the May 25, 2023 version and emphasizes escalation, tailoring, and focused corrective action. The OCC generally expects to provide a bank an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before taking an enforcement action under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable.

Key dates

2026-04-22

The CFPB published a final rule amending Regulation B provisions concerning special purpose credit programs, including new restrictions applicable to programs offered or participated in by for-profit organizations.

2026-07-21

The CFPB's Regulation B amendments became effective. For-profit special purpose credit programs offered or participated in on or after this date must comply with the amended requirements, including the prohibition on using race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion.

2026-08-25

The seven agencies rescinded the 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3, effective immediately. Creditors should no longer rely on those issuances or related guidance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory special purpose credit programs, marketing, eligibility criteria, underwriting policies, written plans, and monitoring practices that were developed or supported by the 2022 interagency statement, OCC Bulletin 2022-3, or related guidance.
• Firms should consider reassessing any program that uses race, color, national origin, or sex as a common eligibility criterion, particularly for credit extended on or after July 21, 2026, against 12 CFR 1002.8 as amended.
• For-profit creditors may wish to confirm that each written special purpose credit program plan contains evidence of need, explains why the relevant class would not receive credit under the organization's ordinary creditworthiness standards, and supports any eligibility characteristic used by the program.
• Compliance teams may wish to remove rescinded guidance from policies, procedures, training materials, legal inventories, product governance documents, and examiner-facing materials, while retaining records needed to explain prior program design and implementation.
• Firms should consider reviewing program communications and applicant data practices for potential discrimination or misleading reliance on the rescinded statement, including communications suggesting that protected-class distinctions are broadly authorized.
• Banks and credit unions may wish to brief fair-lending, legal, product, underwriting, marketing, and model-risk stakeholders and document the governance decision regarding whether each program should be amended, suspended, or continued under current law.

What changed

The 2022 interagency statement and OCC Bulletin 2022-3 are rescinded, effective immediately, and creditors are instructed not to rely on those issuances or related guidance. The rescission does not eliminate the statutory or regulatory framework for special purpose credit programs under ECOA and Regulation B, including 12 CFR 1002.8; rather, it clarifies that those programs remain subject to applicable fair-lending prohibitions. The agencies specifically identify the prior version of Regulation B referenced by the 2022 statement as having been amended.

Key dates

2026-08-20

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the Innovation Advisory Committee speech and announced the prospective roadmap for crypto assets, compute markets, and prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should treat the speech as a forward-looking supervisory and rulemaking signal, not as an effective legal change, and continue applying currently effective CEA, CFTC regulations, registration, listing, reporting, customer-protection, and market-surveillance requirements.
• Crypto platforms should assess whether their products could constitute futures, swaps, or retail commodity transactions offered on a margined, leveraged, or financed basis, and should document the current jurisdictional and registration analysis for each product and customer segment.
• Crypto exchanges and protocol developers may wish to monitor CFTC releases, Federal Register notices, and any proposed rules concerning crypto asset markets, onchain finance protocols, and possible DCM designation; they should be prepared to submit comments within the applicable future comment periods rather than relying on the speech as a safe harbor.
• Designated contract markets and prediction-market operators should review event-contract listing governance, product surveillance, manipulation controls, customer disclosures, incentive programs, and state-law litigation exposure in light of the CFTC's stated intention to defend exclusive federal jurisdiction.
• Prediction-market firms should monitor developments concerning prohibited gaming-related contracts, public-interest standards, fully collateralized event-contract reporting, and enhanced consumer-protection requirements identified in independent industry coverage of the committee meeting.
• Firms developing compute-related contracts or financing products should map the underlying compute service, delivery and settlement terms, participants, and potential commodity or derivatives characterization so that they can respond meaningfully to the CFTC and Department of Commerce request for comment.
• Compliance teams may wish to update regulatory-change inventories and senior-management briefings to distinguish the Chairman's policy direction from binding Commission action, particularly because any future rules would require formal rulemaking, publication, and applicable transition periods.

What changed

The Chairman directed CFTC staff to explore rules establishing a CFTC framework for crypto asset markets using existing authorities. The proposed approach could allow current registrants and non-registrant crypto exchanges to be designated as a type of designated contract market called a crypto asset market, with authority to offer crypto asset trading on a leveraged or margined basis under purpose-specific rules; no rule text, eligibility criteria, effective date, or compliance threshold was issued in the speech.

Key dates

2026-08-19

CFTC issued Release 9286-26 and announced the request for comment on listing compute derivatives contracts.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify whether the firm has direct or indirect exposure to compute cash markets, proposed compute futures, perpetual futures, benchmark administration, clearing, brokerage, or related trading activity.
• Firms considering submitting comments should assess the CFTC questions concerning cash-market size and liquidity, contract specifications, price formation, benchmark representativeness, settlement and rollover mechanics, manipulation scenarios, customer protection, and the risks of perpetual contracts.
• Potential contract venues and intermediaries should consider documenting how existing CFTC requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act and 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38 could apply to product submission, exchange oversight, market surveillance, position management, reporting, risk management, and customer funds.
• Trading and surveillance functions may wish to evaluate potential abusive strategies involving GPU capacity reservations, cloud allocation, data-centre outages, energy constraints, benchmark inputs, wash trading, spoofing, corners, squeezes, and manipulation of physical or reference markets.
• Firms should monitor the Federal Register and Regulations.gov for the publication date, final comment deadline, any technical corrections, and subsequent CFTC guidance or contract-approval filings.
• Market participants may wish to avoid treating the press release or request for comment as evidence that compute derivatives are already approved or that a reported exchange launch date is assured.
• Governance teams may wish to assign ownership across legal, commodities compliance, market surveillance, model risk, technology risk, procurement, and business teams because compute derivatives would connect financial-market controls with operational characteristics of cloud and data-centre markets.

What changed

The CFTC opened a public consultation under RIN 3038-AF77 concerning compute cash markets and potential compute derivatives contracts. The request seeks information on market size, liquidity, contract design, market oversight, manipulation risks, customer protection, and perpetual compute futures, and is associated with potential amendments or application of the CFTC framework in 17 CFR Parts 1 and 38. It does not itself approve a compute futures contract, authorize an exchange to list one, impose new compliance obligations, or establish a final regulatory position.

Key dates

2026-08-18

The SEC published the Chairman’s statement and proposed Regulation Crypto Assets, including the proposed startup exemption, fundraising exemption, and investment-contract safe harbor.

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its interpretation concerning the application of the federal securities laws to certain crypto assets and transactions, which the Chairman identifies as a basis for the proposed framework.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to treat the package as a proposal rather than a currently usable exemption and continue applying the existing Securities Act, Exchange Act, and applicable state-law analysis until final rules become effective.
• Potential issuers should consider mapping planned token offerings against the proposed $5 million/four-year and $75 million/12-month limits, including aggregation, timing, resale, and interaction with other registration exemptions once the proposing release is reviewed in full.
• Issuers considering the fundraising exemption should consider preparing systems for principles-based crypto disclosures, financial-condition information, audited financial statements at the applicable thresholds, and ongoing reporting.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to assess whether existing investment-contract documentation contains essential managerial promises and whether operational evidence could support the proposed certification required for the safe harbor.
• Crypto trading venues and intermediaries should consider inventorying assets currently treated as securities or investment contracts and evaluating how a future safe-harbor determination could affect onboarding, trading permissions, disclosures, custody, surveillance, and state-law analysis.
• Firms may wish to monitor the Federal Register publication, the SEC comment period, any revisions to the proposal, and the status of the CLARITY Act, which the Chairman described as necessary for durable market-structure rules.
• Compliance teams may wish to review independent commentary emphasizing that the proposal is a major policy shift toward tailored token fundraising but that the practical scope remains uncertain until the detailed conditions, audit thresholds, eligibility criteria, and final text are settled.

What changed

The proposed rules would establish two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration for qualifying crypto-asset investment contracts. The startup exemption would permit offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period. The fundraising exemption would permit offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period, subject to principles-based crypto-asset disclosures, financial-condition disclosures, financial statements, ongoing reporting, and audited financial statements at specified capital-raising thresholds; the publication does not state those audit thresholds.

Key dates

2026-03-17

The SEC issued its earlier interpretation clarifying how federal securities laws apply to certain crypto assets and transactions involving crypto assets.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets framework and opened the process for public comment, subject to publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map planned and existing token offerings against the proposed $5 million four-year and $75 million 12-month thresholds, including aggregation across related issuers, affiliates, projects and offering periods once the proposing release is reviewed.
• Issuers should consider documenting which exemption they would use, the relevant measurement period, investor eligibility and transfer restrictions, and controls intended to prevent exceeding the applicable offering cap.
• Firms should consider preparing draft principles-based narrative disclosures and, for the $75 million exemption, assessing financial-statement readiness and the systems needed for ongoing SEC reporting.
• Project sponsors may wish to inventory all essential managerial efforts represented or promised to investors and establish evidence, governance approvals and public communications supporting any future safe-harbor position based on completion or permanent cessation of those efforts.
• Exchanges, broker-dealers and trading platforms should consider assessing how the proposed safe harbor and state-law preemption could affect asset classification, listing reviews, customer disclosures, surveillance, custody and secondary-market controls.
• Industry participants may wish to review the full proposing release and consider submitting comments within 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register; the specific deadline should not be assumed until the Federal Register publication date is confirmed.
• Firms should continue treating the proposal as non-final and should not represent that an exemption, safe harbor or state-law preemption is currently available.

What changed

The proposed framework would add two exemptions from Securities Act of 1933 registration requirements for qualifying investment contracts involving crypto assets. The first would allow aggregate offerings of up to $5 million during a four-year period on a one-time basis; the second would allow offerings of up to $75 million during each 12-month period. Issuers relying on either exemption would need to make specified principles-based narrative disclosures available to investors.

Key dates

2026-08-14

The SEC announced the enforcement action and filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

2020-12-01

Approximate beginning of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

2025-06-30

Approximate end of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reconciling every investor-facing statement about upfront fees, markups, commissions, carried interest, advisory fees, transaction spreads, and total acquisition cost against actual fund and affiliate-level economics.
• Compliance teams may wish to map all principal transactions and related-party transfers between advisers, sponsors, general partners, feeder funds, and portfolio-acquisition vehicles, with documented conflict reviews and valuation support.
• Firms should consider testing whether each person soliciting private-fund interests is properly registered or otherwise operating within an applicable broker-dealer exemption, and whether compensation arrangements create broker-dealer registration or supervision concerns.
• Compliance teams may wish to review cold-calling scripts, call recordings, lead-generation practices, sales-agent training, and escalation controls for high-pressure claims, guaranteed or implied returns, scarcity statements, and misleading descriptions of pre-IPO access.
• Firms should consider verifying offering exemptions, investor eligibility, registration status, subscription documentation, and disclosure delivery for each private fund and distribution channel.
• Compliance teams may wish to perform targeted surveillance of retail and retiree sales, including cancellation or cooling-off requests, unusual concentration, complaints about undisclosed fees, and differences between quoted and realized investor charges.
• Firms should consider preserving communications, transaction records, fee calculations, investor files, sales-agent compensation data, and valuation materials in anticipation of regulatory inquiries or investor claims.

What changed

This is a civil enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable safe harbor. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud, securities-registration, and broker-dealer-registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, together with control-person liability and aiding-and-abetting violations by Spaventa.

Key dates

2019-11-01

Approximate start of the alleged fraudulent conduct described by the SEC

2023-06-30

Approximate end of the alleged fraudulent conduct described by the SEC

2026-08-13

SEC announced the enforcement action

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any compensated solicitors or referral sources are engaging in broker-like activity without registration.
• Firms should consider testing whether solicitation, negotiation, and fund-collection roles could create broker-registration exposure under Exchange Act Section 15.
• Firms may wish to reassess use-of-proceeds controls and verify that investor funds are not being diverted outside disclosed purposes.
• Firms should consider enhancing monitoring for Ponzi-like payout patterns, especially where distributions appear funded by new investor money rather than operating cash flow.
• Compliance functions may wish to review marketing and fundraising materials for consistency with the firm’s actual registration status and authority.
• Firms operating in relationship-driven communities may wish to evaluate affinity-based fraud risk and strengthen independent verification of investors, counterparties, and cash flows.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking or guidance release. The SEC complaint alleges that Leor Moshe solicited investments through Capital Funding ASAP LLC by claiming investor money would fund short-term business loans, while allegedly diverting more than $11 million for personal use and more than $850,000 for Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC announcement of the administrative proceeding

2026-08-22 Deadline

Payment deadline for the $28 million penalty by Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC and the $7 million penalty by Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, within 10 days of entry of the order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether written supervisory procedures specifically address the risks of cash sweep and bank deposit sweep arrangements.
• Firms may wish to assess whether product selection, monitoring, escalation, and exception-handling controls are documented and operating as intended.
• Broker-dealers and advisers may wish to test whether disclosures, advisor training, and supervisory review processes match the actual operation of sweep programs.
• Firms may wish to examine whether affiliated deposit-product conflicts, yield incentives, and client-cash allocation defaults are identified and mitigated in practice.
• Operational risk and compliance functions may wish to evaluate whether periodic reviews capture changes in interest-rate conditions and client behavior that can affect sweep-program risk.

What changed

The order reflects SEC action under Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act and Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, with cease-and-desist relief for violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-7. The SEC’s settled resolution imposed a censure and civil penalties of $28 million on Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC and $7 million on Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC, payable within 10 days of entry of the order.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC administrative proceeding and release for Santander Securities LLC

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review mutual fund share-class selection controls to confirm lower-cost alternatives are identified and used when available.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether 12b-1 fee compensation is clearly disclosed in client-facing materials and account documentation.
• Supervisory teams may wish to test whether review procedures flag cases where a cheaper share class was available but not selected.
• Firms may wish to examine whether representative compensation or revenue-sharing arrangements could bias share-class recommendations.
• Compliance functions may wish to verify that remediation processes can identify and reimburse affected clients where share-class selection increased costs.

What changed

The SEC charged Santander Securities LLC with willful violations of Advisers Act Sections 206(2) and 207 in connection with recommending mutual fund share classes that paid 12b-1 fees while lower-cost share classes were available for the same funds. The order alleges inadequate disclosure of the conflict created by the firm’s and associated persons’ receipt of 12b-1 compensation, and it describes the conduct as a breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure obligations.

Key dates

2014-01-01

Start of the relevant conduct period during which Trustcore selected and held mutual fund share classes paying 12b-1 fees where lower-cost alternatives were available

2018-03-28

End of the relevant conduct period examined in the SEC’s administrative proceeding

2019-03-11

Date of the SEC’s administrative order against Trustcore Financial Services, LLC under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

2020-12-31

Closure date of Trustcore’s affiliated broker-dealer, TrustCore Investments, LLC, referenced as subsequent context

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing mutual fund share class selection methodologies to confirm that, where multiple classes of the same fund are available, the process appropriately prioritizes lower-cost share classes for clients unless a documented, client-specific rationale justifies a different choice.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether existing Form ADV, advisory agreements, and other client-facing disclosure documents clearly describe 12b-1 fees, revenue-sharing, and other distribution or affiliate compensation, including how these payments arise from share class selection and the resulting conflicts of interest.
• Advisory firms should consider mapping and documenting all compensation flows between the adviser, affiliated broker-dealers, and associated persons that are tied to mutual fund holdings, including 12b-1 fees and other distribution-related payments, to support clear conflict identification and disclosure.
• Firms may wish to evaluate supervisory controls and surveillance around mutual fund share class usage, including periodic reviews or exception reports designed to detect legacy, higher-cost, or revenue-generating share classes that remain in client accounts where lower-cost alternatives exist.
• Compliance teams should consider testing whether advisory personnel understand the firm’s fiduciary obligations under the Advisers Act in the context of fee-driven product selection, and whether training materials adequately cover share class conflicts and disclosure expectations.
• Advisory firms may wish to implement or enhance procedures requiring documentation of the rationale for any recommendation or retention of mutual fund share classes that pay 12b-1 fees or other distribution fees, especially where cheaper classes of the same fund are available to the client.
• Firms should consider reviewing and, where needed, updating policies governing interactions between advisory and brokerage affiliates, to ensure that incentives tied to fund distribution or 12b-1 fees do not undermine client best interest or the adviser’s fiduciary duty.
• Compliance teams may wish to benchmark their practices against prior SEC share class selection initiatives and enforcement matters, using this order as an example of the types of conflicts, disclosure gaps, and remedial undertakings the SEC is prepared to pursue.

What changed

This publication does not introduce new rules but memorializes a final SEC enforcement action and related undertakings under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC imposed a formal cease-and-desist order against Trustcore Financial Services, LLC for violations of Section 206(2) (fraudulent conduct by an investment adviser) and Section 207 (untrue statements or omissions of material fact in filings with the SEC), in connection with the adviser’s selection and retention of mutual fund share classes that paid 12b-1 fees where lower-cost share classes were available.

Key dates

2017-06-01

Beginning of the conduct period identified by the SEC for the undisclosed or inadequately disclosed rollover and referral incentive-compensation practices.

2022-02-01

End of the conduct period identified by the SEC for the disclosure and policies-and-procedures failures.

2025-01-17

The SEC issued the settled administrative order against Transamerica Financial Advisors, LLC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to compare conflict disclosures against actual compensation practices to confirm that conditional language does not understate incentives that are being paid in practice.
• Firms may wish to review rollover-related compensation arrangements for specificity in Form ADV brochures, client agreements, training materials, and sales communications.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether policies and procedures under Rule 206(4)-7 are designed to identify, monitor, and remediate gaps between business practices and client disclosures.
• Firms should consider whether representative-level incentive compensation tied to referrals or rollovers warrants heightened supervision, approval workflows, or additional conflict controls.
• Firms may wish to assess whether retirement rollover supervision includes review of disclosure consistency, repapering, and cross-functional sign-off when compensation structures change.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or interpretive release, so it does not amend the underlying regulatory text. The SEC found violations of Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 because the firm allegedly paid incentive compensation to investment adviser representatives for referrals and retirement rollovers from at least 2017-06-01 through 2022-02-01, while earlier disclosures used language suggesting the firm merely 'may' provide incentives.

Key dates

2021-07-09

SEC announced settled administrative proceedings against Kestra Advisory Services, LLC and Kestra Private Wealth Services, LLC

2026-08-12

SEC administrative proceedings index and SEC newsroom list the Kestra Private Wealth Services matter under Release No. 34-106110

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether disclosures about affiliated compensation, markups, and related conflicts are specific and prominent enough for advisory clients.
• Firms should consider testing mutual fund trade processing and fee assessment workflows for undisclosed economic benefits to affiliates.
• Dual registrants may wish to assess whether advisory and broker-dealer compliance functions are coordinated so disclosures, operations, and compensation schedules are aligned.
• Firms may wish to examine whether written policies and procedures are detailed enough to detect and prevent conflicts tied to transaction fees and non-transaction service fees.
• Wealth management firms may wish to compare client-facing disclosures against internal agreements and operational fee flows to identify inconsistencies.
• Compliance teams may wish to consider periodic testing of conflict disclosures and fee practices to determine whether similar issues would be identified before an exam or enforcement review.

What changed

This is an enforcement order, not a rulemaking, so it does not create new requirements. It nonetheless reinforces that investment advisers must provide full and fair disclosure of conflicts created when an affiliated broker-dealer receives compensation from mutual fund trades and related services, including situations described by the SEC as fee markups. The order also underscores the need for written compliance policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations, which the SEC tied to Rule 206(4)-7.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether advertising approval workflows are designed to identify statements that could be materially false or misleading under Advisers Act standards.
• Firms may wish to verify that marketing claims are supported by current documentation before use, especially where claims relate to qualifications, capabilities, or other material attributes.
• Teams may wish to confirm that all promotional channels, including websites, PDFs, presentations, email campaigns, and social media, are included in supervisory review.
• Firms may wish to assess whether recordkeeping processes preserve final and pre-approved versions of advertisements and the support for material claims.
• Compliance teams may wish to consider whether training for marketing and advisory personnel clearly addresses the prohibition on untrue statements of material fact in advertisements.

What changed

This publication is an enforcement order, not a new rulemaking, so it does not create new generally applicable obligations. It applies existing Investment Advisers Act advertising standards by finding that the firm violated Section 206(4) and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5) through advertisements containing untrue statements of material fact. The order also requires a cease-and-desist remedy and imposes a $200,000 civil money penalty, payable within 10 days of the order’s entry.

Key dates

2019-08-01

SEC civil action filed in the District of Massachusetts

2024-03-29

District court entered final judgment against Commonwealth

2024-04-01

Whistleblower notice lists the qualifying judgment/order date

2024-07-05

Whistleblower notice last reviewed or updated

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether Form ADV and client-facing disclosures describe revenue-sharing arrangements with enough specificity to explain the actual conflict and the related economic incentive.
• Firms may wish to assess whether disclosures address not only the existence of revenue sharing, but also whether it may steer recommendations toward higher-cost mutual fund share classes over cheaper alternatives.
• Firms may wish to test whether policies and procedures under Rule 206(4)-7 expressly cover identification, escalation, review, and disclosure of revenue-sharing conflicts.
• CCOs may wish to confirm that they are being kept fully informed of revenue-sharing arrangements and related conflicts, especially where those arrangements can affect product recommendations or supervision.
• Compliance functions may wish to evaluate whether representatives understand the structure of revenue-sharing payments and how those economics may influence client recommendations.
• Dual registrants may wish to align broker-dealer and advisory disclosures so that the conflict is not described in one channel while omitted or softened in another.

What changed

This was an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so it did not create new industry-wide requirements. The SEC alleged violations of Section 206(2), Section 206(4), and Rule 206(4)-7 of the Investment Advisers Act based on inadequate disclosure of material conflicts of interest and failure to adopt and implement adequate compliance policies and procedures.

Key dates

2021-07-09

SEC announced and settled the Kestra Advisory Services administrative proceeding

2021-07-09 Deadline

Order required payment of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalty within ten days of entry of the order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether client disclosures describe all forms of affiliated compensation, revenue sharing, and other economic benefits that could influence recommendations.
• Firms should consider whether Form ADV narratives, client agreements, and supervisory documentation are consistent on affiliate compensation and conflict disclosure.
• Dual registrants may wish to map advisory and brokerage compensation streams in their conflict inventories to confirm that material conflicts are captured and escalated.
• Firms should consider whether written compliance policies and procedures are tailored to actual business practices, rather than existing only in generic form.
• Compliance functions may wish to test whether supervisory reviews can detect compensation arrangements that create disclosure obligations under the Advisers Act.
• Wealth management organizations may wish to assess training for advisers and supervisors on when affiliate compensation and shared revenue arrangements must be disclosed to clients.

What changed

This was not a new rulemaking; it was an SEC enforcement order applying existing requirements under Sections 206(2) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7. The Commission found that Kestra AS failed to disclose two types of compensation received by its affiliated broker-dealer and predecessor firm, including compensation tied to conflicts of interest, and that clients therefore lacked material information needed to assess those conflicts.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC release date for the administrative proceeding listing

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review municipal underwriting due diligence files to confirm that offering materials, issuer representations, and internal review steps are documented and consistent.
• Firms may wish to assess supervisory controls over municipal securities underwriting to ensure responsibilities, escalation paths, and sign-off procedures are clearly assigned.
• Broker-dealers may wish to re-check training for public finance personnel on disclosure accuracy, antifraud standards, and recordkeeping expectations.
• Firms with both brokerage and advisory businesses may wish to keep advisory fiduciary controls distinct from municipal underwriting controls so that governance frameworks do not blur separate regulatory obligations.
• Compliance functions may wish to compare this matter with prior SEC actions involving the firm to identify recurring control themes in disclosures, supervision, and product/distribution practices.

What changed

This publication does not introduce a new regulatory requirement or rulemaking obligation. It reflects an SEC administrative cease-and-desist proceeding under the federal securities laws, with the public descriptions indicating an antifraud theory connected to municipal securities underwriting and inadequate due diligence. The available materials also indicate this is separate from the firm’s earlier 2019 SEC matter involving share class selection and 12b-1 fee disclosure issues, so it should not be conflated with that prior advisory-fiduciary case.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review mutual fund share class selection logic to confirm whether lower-cost eligible share classes were available and used where appropriate.
• Firms should consider whether 12b-1 fee revenue is fully identified in conflict inventories and disclosed clearly in Form ADV and related client materials.
• Advisory supervision may wish to test whether recommendations are consistent with a client-first or best-interest framework when fund share class options differ in cost.
• Firms may wish to evaluate whether exception handling for higher-cost share class usage is documented, approved, and supported by a client-specific rationale.
• Compliance functions may wish to assess whether remediation and restitution calculations are available if historical share class selection issues are identified.

What changed

This was not a new rulemaking or interpretive release; it was an SEC administrative enforcement action based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and inadequate disclosure tied to mutual fund share class selection and 12b-1 fee revenue. The SEC’s order indicates the firm recommended, purchased, or held higher-cost share classes for clients despite lower-cost alternatives being available, and the firm received compensation through 12b-1 fees that created a conflict.

Key dates

2014-01-01

Start of relevant conduct period during which Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc. recommended or retained mutual fund share classes with 12b-1 fees despite lower-cost alternatives being available

2018-03-30

End of relevant conduct period covered by the SEC administrative order against Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc.

2026-08-12

SEC issues administrative order in Release No. 34-106089, File No. 3-19037, imposing cease-and-desist relief, censure, disgorgement, and prejudgment interest on Investacorp Advisory Services, Inc.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing mutual fund share-class selection policies and procedures to confirm that, where clients are eligible, the lowest-cost available share class of a given fund is systematically considered and documented, particularly in accounts where the firm or an affiliate receives 12b-1 fees.
• Compliance teams may wish to evaluate Form ADV Part 2A, advisory brochures, and other client disclosures to determine whether receipt of 12b-1 fees and similar distribution or servicing compensation is clearly described as a material conflict of interest, including the incentives it creates for advisers and affiliated broker-dealers.
• Advisory firms with affiliated broker-dealers should consider mapping compensation flows, including 12b-1 fees and revenue sharing, between entities to identify where those arrangements could reasonably influence share-class recommendations, and whether enhanced disclosure or conflict-mitigation controls are warranted.
• Firms may wish to implement or refine surveillance and testing to identify accounts invested in higher-cost mutual fund share classes when a lower-cost share class of the same fund appears available to that client, and to assess whether any such positions reflect policy exceptions or potential remediation candidates.
• Investment committees and disclosure governance bodies should consider comparing actual fund-share-class usage patterns against stated policies and disclosures in advisory brochures, wrap-fee program documents, and client agreements to confirm alignment and identify gaps in describing conflicts tied to 12b-1 fee receipt.
• Firms that historically received 12b-1 fees or similar fund distribution compensation during periods comparable to 2014–2018 may wish to consider whether a retroactive review of share-class selection and client eligibility is appropriate and whether any client reimbursement, remediation, or supplemental disclosure exercises are advisable in light of the SEC’s enforcement posture.
• Compliance and supervisory functions should consider updating training for investment adviser representatives and registered representatives to ensure they understand how mutual fund share-class selection, 12b-1 fee arrangements, and affiliated broker-dealer compensation can create fiduciary and disclosure risk under the Advisers Act.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to revisit enterprise-level conflicts of interest inventories to ensure that mutual fund share-class selection practices, 12b-1 fee arrangements, and related revenue-sharing structures are explicitly captured, assessed, and tied to appropriate controls and disclosures.

What changed

The publication does not introduce new rules or amend existing regulations; it is an enforcement settlement applying existing fiduciary and disclosure obligations under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, including Sections 203(e) and 203(k). The order confirms that the SEC considers the practice of placing advisory clients into mutual fund share classes that charge 12b-1 fees when lower-cost, non-12b-1 share classes of the same fund are available to be a material conflict of interest when the adviser or an affiliated broker-dealer receives those fees.

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC administrative-proceedings listing date for the AXA Advisors matter

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether mutual fund share class selection processes systematically identify the lowest-cost eligible class for each account type and client segment.
• Firms may wish to assess whether disclosures in Form ADV, client agreements, and supervisory materials clearly describe 12b-1 compensation and other share-class conflicts.
• Supervisory teams may wish to confirm that representatives’ incentives tied to 12b-1 revenue are identified, reviewed, and mitigated or disclosed where necessary.
• Firms may wish to document a defensible comparison process for share classes and retain evidence supporting the selected class for each recommendation.
• Compliance functions may wish to evaluate whether prior-client remediation procedures are calibrated for situations where clients were placed in more expensive share classes than necessary.

What changed

This publication is an enforcement order, not a rulemaking or policy statement. The order requires AXA Advisors to cease and desist from future violations of Sections 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act, is accompanied by a censure, and imposes monetary relief totaling $1,134,152, consisting of $972,007.36 in disgorgement and $162,144.64 in prejudgment interest. The order also directs payment to affected investors, reflecting the SEC’s view that inadequate share-class selection and conflict disclosure can require remediation.

Key dates

2026-08-12

Federal Register publication of the proposed rule at 91 FR 52114

2026-10-13 Deadline

Comments due on the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposed changes against current CRA policies, exam procedures, public file practices, and community development grant approval workflows.
• Institutions may wish to assess how the proposed asset-size thresholds would change their CRA category and associated data collection, reporting, and evaluation obligations.
• Banks making grants or donations may wish to review documentation standards for recipient use of funds, overhead limits, and evidentiary support needed for CRA consideration.
• Community development and CRA governance teams may wish to identify which activities would still qualify under the revised CD definitions and performance tests.
• Legal and regulatory affairs functions may wish to prepare comments on the proposed lending focus, grant criteria, sunshine requirements, and technical changes to OCC public welfare and corporate activity rules.
• Banks subject to CRA-related agreements may wish to verify whether the proposed technical amendments would affect disclosure timing, content, or filing processes.

What changed

['The proposal would amend the OCC and FDIC Community Reinvestment Act rules to make substantive, technical, and process-oriented changes aimed at refocusing the statutory objective on meeting community credit needs and reducing burden, particularly for community banks.', 'The agencies propose to better ensure that community development grants reach intended communities and to provide greater clarity on how to obtain CRA consideration for activities.', 'The OCC and FDIC also propose technical changes to their CRA sunshine rules under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which govern disclosure...

Key dates

2026-08-06

Federal Register publication of the final rule at 91 FR 50661

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update policies, procedures, and product templates that still reference the former segregated deposit and collateral formulas in 12 CFR 701.20.
• Institutions may wish to review surety and guaranty programs to ensure the obligation remains fixed in amount and duration and is structured as an otherwise permissible loan under the applicable lending regulations.
• FCUs may wish to confirm that any related lending analysis still addresses member lending limits and other applicable provisions, including where commercial lending rules apply.
• FISCUs may wish to confirm continued state-law authority to act as surety or guarantor and verify any state-specific constraints or approvals before offering these arrangements.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to reassess collateral practices for these products in light of the new flexibility while preserving safety-and-soundness controls.

What changed

The final rule deletes the specific segregated deposit requirement in 12 CFR 701.20(c)(3) for suretyship and guaranty agreements. It also removes the detailed collateral standards in 12 CFR 701.20(d), including the prior 100 percent and 110 percent collateral categories and the requirement for a perfected security interest tied to those prescribed values.

Key dates

2026-07-31

FDIC Board approved the two notices of proposed rulemaking by notational vote

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the forthcoming NPRM text and accompanying Financial Institution Letter for specific amendments to CRA and insider-lending requirements.
• Banks may wish to map current CRA policies, monitoring, and documentation against the existing regulation to identify where process changes could be needed if the proposal is adopted.
• Institutions may wish to review insider-credit approval, reporting, and conflict-management controls so they can assess whether the proposal would require policy or system updates.
• Stakeholders may wish to monitor the comment period and prepare submissions if the proposals raise operational, prudential, or conduct concerns.

What changed

The Board approved a proposed update to the FDIC’s **Community Reinvestment Act regulations**, which may affect how covered institutions are evaluated for community reinvestment performance and related compliance expectations. The Board also approved a proposed rule on **extensions of credit to insiders**, indicating possible changes to the FDIC’s insider lending restrictions, governance controls, and related reporting or approval requirements.

Key dates

2026-07-31

OCC and FDIC issued the joint proposal amending CRA rules

2026-10-01 Deadline

Approximate comment deadline, calculated as 60 days after the July 31, 2026 publication date if the proposal was published in the Federal Register on the same day as the release

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether current CRA strategies rely materially on deposit services, since the proposal would exclude deposit services from the retail banking services analysis.
• Firms may wish to map all community development grants and donations to identify whether documentation would support that funds are used for the primary purpose of community development and reach the intended assessment areas.
• Banks with assets at or below $10 billion may wish to assess the operational impact of being relieved from data collection, maintenance, and reporting requirements under the proposal.
• Institutions may wish to compare their current CRA performance-test approach against the proposed lending-focused framework and identify activities that could lose or gain CRA consideration.
• Compliance functions may wish to track the Federal Register publication date closely, because the comment window runs for 60 days after publication.

What changed

['The agencies said the proposal would keep the core CRA framework that has generally been in place since 1995, while making substantive, technical, and process-oriented revisions. The proposal follows the agencies’ October 24, 2023 CRA final rules, which were enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before they became effective.', 'The proposal would place greater emphasis on lending performance and would narrow the retail banking services considered under CRA to credit services, expressly excluding deposit services from that part of the analysis.', 'The...

Key dates

2026-07-21

SEC proposed Regulation E-Delivery and published the proposal in the Federal Register

2026-09-21 Deadline

Comment period closes

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all information currently delivered under an opt-in electronic delivery framework and map it to the proposed covered information categories.
• Firms may wish to assess whether their current customer or client communications systems can support a direct-delivery model and a statement-of-availability model, including website hosting and link accuracy controls.
• Operational teams may wish to review whether they can generate and track the proposed transition notices for recipients currently receiving paper delivery.
• Firms may wish to evaluate how they will handle paper-copy requests, opt-outs, and updates to electronic address records if the proposal is adopted.
• Proxy and fund operations teams may wish to identify rule-specific processes that would need revision if Rule 30e-3 is rescinded and the proxy/tender offer amendments are finalized.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare comment letters focused on definitions, PFI handling, remediation obligations, and the transition process before the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposal would create a new Part 303 in the SEC rules for “Regulation E-Delivery: Delivering Covered Information Through Electronic Delivery.” It would define key concepts such as electronic delivery, electronic address, covered entity, covered information, and covered recipient, and would set conditions for when information may be delivered directly electronically versus when a statement of availability must be used.

Key dates

2026-07-16

Federal Reserve Board announced the enforcement action and published the prohibition order against James Burns

2016-01-01

Approximate period referenced in the order when Burns caused the bank to approve loans supported by altered appraisals

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review appraisal-validation procedures for real property loans, including documented verification of appraiser licensing and credentials.
• Banks may wish to test controls that detect altered or inconsistent appraisals before loan approval.
• Firms may wish to reinforce escalation protocols when appraisal values change after submission or when appraisal irregularities appear.
• Institutions may wish to assess whether lending officers have clear responsibility for appraisal due diligence and whether those responsibilities are reflected in policies, training, and monitoring.
• Boards and senior management may wish to review how prior enforcement actions against individuals could inform conduct-risk and credit-risk oversight.

What changed

The publication announces a final enforcement action, not a new rule or general policy change. The Board executed a prohibition order upon consent against Burns under section 8(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which prohibits him from participating in any manner in the affairs of insured depository institutions and related institutions unless the Board grants prior written approval.

Key dates

2026-07-16

SEC proposed Regulation E-Delivery

2026-09-21 Deadline

Public comments due on the proposal

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map all current delivery obligations to determine which documents would qualify as 'covered information' under the proposal.
• Firms may wish to review whether their records reliably capture valid electronic addresses for intended recipients.
• Firms may wish to assess how they would evidence the required prominent disclosure and opt-out status before relying on electronic delivery.
• Firms may wish to identify communications containing personal financial information and evaluate whether those items would need a statement-of-availability approach rather than direct electronic delivery.
• Firms may wish to plan for paper-notice and transition workflows for recipients currently receiving paper delivery.
• Firms may wish to review affected proxy, tender offer, fund reporting, Form CRS, and Form ADV processes for operational and disclosure changes if the proposal is finalized.

What changed

The proposal would create a new, cross-cutting framework under the federal securities laws for electronic delivery of 'covered information' by 'covered entities.' Under the proposal, electronic delivery could satisfy delivery obligations without prior affirmative consent if the recipient has provided an electronic address, has received prominent disclosure that information will be sent electronically, and has not opted out.

Key dates

2026-07-16

SEC issued the proposal for Regulation E-Delivery

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date for the proposing release

2026-09-21 Deadline

Deadline for public comments on the proposal

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map which current disclosures could move to electronic delivery under the proposed framework.
• Firms may wish to assess whether their client and investor records reliably capture valid electronic addresses and opt-out status.
• Operations teams may wish to review how to generate the two required paper transition notices for recipients currently in paper delivery.
• Firms may wish to evaluate whether existing website, authentication, and delivery controls could support the proposed delivery methods, especially for materials containing personal financial information.
• Regulatory teams may wish to prepare comment letters before the SEC’s comment deadline.
• Firms may wish to inventory downstream rule changes needed if the SEC finalizes conforming amendments to proxy and tender-offer delivery rules.

What changed

The proposal would create a new Regulation E-Delivery framework under which covered entities could deliver covered information electronically without first obtaining affirmative consent, provided specified conditions are met. The SEC says the rule would apply broadly across federal securities laws and cover issuers, broker-dealers, investment advisers, and others, including materials such as prospectuses, fund annual and semi-annual shareholder reports, proxy statements, trade confirmations, Form CRS disclosures, and Form ADV Part 2 brochures.

Key dates

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Start of the 60‑day public comment period on the Regulation E‑Delivery proposal

TBD Deadline

– End of the 60‑day comment period; market participants must have submitted feedback on scope, conditions, investor protections and operational impacts by this date

TBD (post‑adoption) Deadline

– Effective date of final Regulation E‑Delivery, after which firms may begin relying on the rule for default e‑delivery, subject to any specified compliance or phase‑in dates in the adopting release

TBD (post‑effective date) Deadline

– Commencement of required transition processes, including the mailing of two paper notices and implementation of opt‑out mechanisms, for investors currently receiving paper communications

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.

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,...

Key dates

2026-06-08

CFPB issued the Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status referenced by the agencies

2026-07-13

FDIC, OCC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance on lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that capacity-to-repay analysis captures employment-authorization-related income instability.
• Firms should consider whether credit policy, risk grading, and portfolio monitoring procedures explicitly address elevated repayment uncertainty for non-work-authorized borrowers.
• Institutions may wish to reassess documentation and verification controls for income, employment, and supporting records in light of the agencies' stated focus on safe-and-sound lending.
• Teams should consider whether fair-lending, TILA, and ECOA controls are aligned with the CFPB's June 8, 2026 statement and the interagency guidance.
• Risk and finance functions may wish to evaluate whether allowance, concentration risk, and credit-loss assumptions need updating where exposure to this borrower segment is material.

What changed

The publication does not create a new lending ban or a new standalone rule. Instead, it restates that institutions should identify, measure, monitor, and control the credit risks associated with borrowers who are not legally authorized to work in the United States through underwriting practices that assess willingness and capacity to repay according to the credit terms. The guidance specifically links this issue to the CFPB's June 8, 2026 Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status and reminds creditors of obligations under the Truth in Lending Act as implemented by Regulation Z,...

Key dates

2026-07-13

OCC, FDIC, and NCUA issued the interagency guidance

2026-06-08

CFPB issued its Statement on Ability To Repay and Immigration Status, referenced by the guidance

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review underwriting standards to confirm that repayment capacity, source of repayment, and overall financial condition are assessed consistently for borrowers whose work authorization is uncertain.
• Firms may wish to test whether account management, credit classification, and allowance methodologies adequately capture elevated credit risk linked to employment authorization uncertainty.
• Institutions may wish to review consumer compliance controls for alignment with TILA, Regulation Z, ECOA, and Regulation B when evaluating applicants affected by immigration or work-authorized status.
• Risk and compliance teams may wish to update portfolio monitoring, concentration analysis, and documentation standards so that the identified credit risk factors are reflected in governance and reporting.
• Community banks may wish to verify that loan policy language and examiner-facing documentation clearly show how these risks are being identified, measured, monitored, and controlled.

What changed

The publication is guidance, not a new rule or statute, and it reinforces existing expectations rather than imposing a new legal prohibition. It states that lending to individuals not legally authorized to work in the United States may present elevated credit risk because their ability to generate income, maintain employment, and remain financially stable may be more uncertain.

Key dates

2026 (TBD)

- The Retail Fraud Working Group begins operating as an internal enforcement priority; the announcement does not specify a formal launch date or implementation timetable

13 May 2026

- SEC Enforcement Director David Woodcock publicly stated that the Retail Fraud Working Group would be reinstituted and that it would focus on protecting retail investors and strengthening coordination with state and federal partners

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.

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.

Key dates

23 June 2026

- CFTC files its lawsuit against Kentucky to block enforcement actions and special transaction fees against CFTC‑registered DCMs

TBD (2026–2027)

- Key procedural milestones in *CFTC v. Kentucky* (motion practice, preliminary injunction hearings, and potential appellate review), which will shape how quickly and broadly federal preemption over prediction markets is clarified

TBD (aligned with ongoing cases in Minnesota, Illinois, Rhode Island)

- Progression of related CFTC suits and amicus‑briefed appeals in the Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will collectively define the jurisdictional perimeter for event contracts

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.

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...

Key dates

11 June 2026

- The CFTC published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking public comment on amendments to its whistleblower rules

TBD (30 days after Federal Register publication)

- The public comment period closes 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register

TBD (after comment review)

- The CFTC may finalize, modify, or withdraw the proposal after reviewing public comments

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.

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.

Key dates

10 June 2024

– Earlier CFTC NPRM on event contracts was published in the Federal Register as “Event Contracts; Proposed Rule, 89 FR 48968,” later withdrawn on 06 February 2026; the new NPRM effectively replaces that initiative with a more targeted framework

06 February 2026

– CFTC formally withdrew the 2024 Event Contracts proposed regulatory action (91 FR 5386), clearing the path for the current, more targeted NPRM on enumerated activities

12 March 2026

– CFTC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on prediction markets and a staff advisory to DCMs, launching a broader process to develop a tailored regulatory framework for prediction markets

30 April 2026 Deadline

– Comment deadline for the March 2026 prediction‑markets ANPRM, which this NPRM is described as addressing in part and which may lead to additional rulemaking

10 June 2026

– CFTC announces the new NPRM on amendments to Regulation 40.11 and addition of Appendix F to Part 40 regarding event contracts involving enumerated activities

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.

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...

Key dates

1998

– CFTC adopts Appendix A to Part 10, establishing the policy of not accepting settlements where the respondent or defendant continues to deny the allegations

21 May 2026

– Federal Register publication date referenced in the CFTC’s final rule rescinding Appendix A to Part 10 (Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions, 91 FR 29892)

03 June 2026

– CFTC issues Press Release 9247‑26 publicly announcing that it has rescinded the policy and will not enforce existing no‑deny provisions

[Effective date of Federal Register publication – 21 May 2026]

– The rescission of Appendix A to Part 10 becomes effective as a final rule upon publication in the Federal Register; from this date, the CFTC will not apply the no‑deny policy in new settlements and will not enforce existing no‑deny clauses

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.

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...

Key dates

2026-06-02

FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve jointly announced updates to certain interagency documents removing references to reputation risk

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory supervisory manuals, internal policies, and model examination references that still mention reputation risk and assess whether any language should be updated for consistency with the agencies’ approach.
• Firms should consider whether account-closure, onboarding, or risk-acceptance frameworks rely on reputation-risk concepts that may now be less aligned with supervisory expectations.
• Banks may wish to review escalation criteria and decision records to ensure they are grounded in material financial, operational, or legal risk factors rather than vague reputational concerns.
• Supervisory response teams may wish to brief relevant business lines on the agencies’ stated focus on financial risk and the agencies’ concern that reputation risk can be used to pressure restrictions on lawful customer activity.
• Compliance functions may wish to monitor whether additional interagency documents are revised in subsequent FDIC, OCC, or Federal Reserve publications.

What changed

The publication says the agencies updated certain interagency documents and removed references to reputation risk. The stated scope of the change is narrow: the agencies said the updates are limited to removing references to reputation risk, not to imposing new obligations on banks. The agencies also reiterated that reputation risk can be misused to pressure banks to restrict access to financial services based on constitutionally protected political or religious beliefs, speech, conduct, or lawful business activities.

Key dates

Late May 2026

– A CFTC‑registered designated contract market files a federal complaint after being threatened with impending state enforcement under Rhode Island gambling laws

Friday, Late May 2026

– Rhode Island files a parallel state‑court complaint seeking significant civil penalties and demanding that prediction markets “stand down” and “disgorge their profits.”

28 May 2026

– The CFTC files a motion to intervene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island to block state enforcement and reiterate its claim of exclusive jurisdiction over CFTC‑registered prediction markets

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.

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...

Key dates

18 May 2026

- The SEC issues the press release announcing rescission of its “no‑deny” policy codified in Rule 202.5(e), signalling immediate policy change for new enforcement settlements

TBD

- Any subsequent SEC guidance, FAQs, or amendments to the Rules of Practice or Enforcement Manual that clarify how post‑settlement denials will be treated in future cases may be issued at a later date

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.

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...

Key dates

September 4, 2024

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Matos and Aureus

April 13, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida enters consent order resolving claims against Matos (action against Aureus remains pending).[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.

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]

Key dates

October 1, 2024

December 31, 2024; - FY 2025 Q1; record 200 enforcement actions filed

January 20, 2025

- Inauguration Day; marker for post-transition enforcement slowdown (only 4 public company actions afterward)

April 21, 2025

- Paul Atkins sworn in as SEC Chair

September 30, 2025

- End of FY 2025; period covered by the announcement

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.

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)...

Key dates

TBD (post

Federal Register publication) - Proposed comment period closes; SEC seeks input on amendments.; (Inferred from "consultation" type; exact date not in summary.) https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-28-sec-proposes-amendments-exchange-act-rule-15c2-11

Suggested considerations

• Review processes: Broker-dealers must verify current issuer info (financials for last 2 years, filings) is publicly available (EDGAR/website) before quoting; annual checks for Phase 3 fixed income.
• Exception compliance: Limit piggyback to priced quotes, avoid 60-day post-suspension, cap shell quoting at 18 months.
• Systems updates: Implement OTC quote surveillance for fixed income/private securities; document reviews.
• Issuer coordination: OTC issuers ensure info on EDGAR/website; monitor no-action phases.
• Comment submission: Firms respond to proposal via SEC portal during consultation.