Reporting & Disclosure 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

The FDIC Board unanimously approved the final rule on unsafe or unsound practices and MRAs and the interim final rule on Road to Housing Act reciprocal deposits by notational vote.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, and section 8 enforcement matters and assess whether each matter satisfies the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, prudent-operation, or legal-violation criteria.
• Banks should consider mapping existing policies, procedures, reporting controls, documentation findings, and governance issues to the new distinction between MRAs, supervisory observations, and other violations, while retaining controls for matters that could affect capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, market-risk sensitivity, consumer outcomes, or receivership risk.
• Management and board committees may wish to prepare for examiner requests for the objective facts, risk analysis, and reasoning supporting any MRA or unsafe-or-unsound-practice conclusion, including evidence of how the bank assessed reasonably foreseeable conditions.
• Banks using reciprocal deposits should consider recalculating their permissible nonbrokered reciprocal-deposit capacity under the tiered liability formula and updating brokered-deposit classification, liquidity, deposit reporting, internal limits, and regulatory reporting controls.
• Potential agent institutions should verify their eligibility under the revised definition, including the applicable capital and examination-rating requirements and the broadened CAMELS-based criteria.
• Treasury, balance-sheet management, and deposit operations teams may wish to model the effect of the expanded reciprocal-deposit exclusion on funding concentration, liquidity stress assumptions, deposit pricing, and brokered-deposit monitoring.
• Legal and regulatory-affairs teams should monitor the Federal Register publication of both rules, confirm the effective dates, review any interim-final-rule comment opportunity, and determine whether implementation or comments are appropriate.
• Banks should consider reviewing examiner lookback requests and suspicious-activity review scopes against the related OCC examination guidance, which generally limits lookbacks involving failures to detect or report suspicious activity to one year or less unless heightened approval is obtained.

What changed

The final supervisory rule defines an unsafe or unsound practice as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and that, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank's financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or that has materially harmed the bank's financial condition.

Key dates

2026-08-26

The CFTC proposed the amendment in 91 FR 55030, RIN 3038-AF79, and opened the public-comment period.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• SEF compliance teams should distinguish Required Transactions from Permitted Transactions under 17 CFR 37.9 and confirm that any planned platform changes preserve Order Book and RFQ functionality for Required Transactions.
• SEFs may wish to inventory Permitted Transaction products, execution protocols, customer usage, liquidity, pre-trade transparency, surveillance dependencies, and annual Order Book operating costs before deciding whether to retain, modify, or discontinue optional Order Book functionality.
• SEFs relying on CFTC No-Action Letter No. 25-24 should assess whether their current implementation remains consistent with the proposal and should monitor the eventual final rule rather than treating the NPRM as binding law.
• SEF applicants may wish to reassess platform design and launch costs because the proposal could remove the need to build an Order Book solely for Permitted Transactions.
• Swap dealers, major swap participants, and other active SEF users should assess whether removal of an optional Order Book could affect execution practices, liquidity access, pre-trade transparency, best-execution analysis, or internal trading procedures for Permitted Transactions.
• Interested firms should consider submitting comments to CFTC docket CFTC-2026-1882, including quantified technology, staffing, infrastructure, surveillance-integration, and market-impact data, by September 25, 2026.
• Compliance teams should continue applying CEA section 2(h)(8), 17 CFR 37.9, and applicable Part 43 reporting obligations unless and until a final rule changes them.

What changed

The proposed amendment would revise 17 CFR 37.3(a)(2) so that a SEF must, at a minimum, offer an Order Book as defined in 17 CFR 37.3(a)(3) for Required Transactions as defined in 17 CFR 37.9(a)(1). It would remove the obligation to offer an Order Book for Permitted Transactions, defined in 17 CFR 37.9(c)(1) as transactions that do not involve a swap subject to the CEA section 2(h)(8) trade-execution requirement. SEFs could continue offering Order Books for Permitted Transactions voluntarily and could use any execution method permitted under 17 CFR 37.9(c)(2).

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

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

Comments are due, calculated as 60 days after Federal Register publication.

2026-10-05

Reported target date for CME Group and Silicon Data to list two compute or GPU-rental futures contracts, subject to regulatory review; this date is not established by the CFTC Request for Comment.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether the firm has relevant empirical data on compute prices, volumes, counterparties, supplier concentration, utilization, capacity commitments, or bilateral contract terms that could support a CFTC submission.
• Potential DCM and SEF applicants should consider mapping proposed contract specifications and settlement methodologies against CEA section 5(d), Core Principles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 11, 17 CFR 38.150-38.160, 38.200-38.201, 38.250-38.258, 38.500, and 38.603, and the guidance in 17 CFR part 38 appendices B and C.
• Firms developing or contributing data to a compute index should consider documenting data provenance, publication practices, governance, auditability, contributor concentration, observation-window controls, fallback mechanisms, and safeguards against manipulation by capacity providers.
• FCMs, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries may wish to assess whether existing BSA/AML, KYC, onboarding, suitability, disclosure, and market-conduct controls address the risks identified for compute derivatives, including opaque bilateral markets and geopolitically sensitive supply.
• Market participants may wish to submit comments by the applicable deadline, clearly referencing RIN 3038-AF77 and the Request for Comment on the Listing of Compute Derivatives Contracts, while avoiding unnecessary personal or confidential business information because submissions will be publicly posted.
• Firms tracking product development should consider monitoring any subsequent DCM self-certification or Commission-approval filing, as the consultation itself does not authorize trading or postpone a proposed listing.

What changed

No final rule, approval, prohibition, or new compliance obligation was introduced. The CFTC is requesting comment on compute cash-market size, liquidity, transparency, supplier concentration, fungibility, benchmark methodology, deliverable supply, manipulation risks, surveillance feasibility, customer protection, heightened BSA/AML and KYC issues, retail protections, and the design and risks of perpetual compute futures.

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess each pool’s investor eligibility against the natural-person and non-natural-person requirements in proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4), including the distinctions between qualified eligible persons and accredited investors.
• RIAs should review offering documents, subscription procedures, investor representations, and transfer controls to support the required reasonable belief at investment or conversion that all participants satisfy the applicable eligibility criteria.
• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that each relevant pool’s interests qualify for a Securities Act exemption and that U.S. marketing practices comply with the proposed restriction, including the Rule 506(c) exception.
• Eligible advisers should map Form PF obligations and determine whether existing SEC filings would satisfy the proposed condition that Form PF be filed where required.
• Firms should prepare to file or update electronic exemption notices with the NFA and maintain the proposed Regulation 4.13 annual affirmation, recordkeeping, disclosure, and statutory-disqualification representations.
• Managers operating both registered and exempt pools should assess the proposed Regulation 4.13(e)(2) communications and redemption-right requirements and identify whether any existing participants would require notice before a pool is operated as exempt.
• Small-pool operators should model eligibility using the proposed $800,000 aggregate threshold while continuing to monitor the 15-participant-per-pool limit and unchanged contribution exclusions.
• Managers relying on Staff Letter 25-50 should preserve evidence of current compliance and evaluate transition implications because the CFTC preliminarily proposes to supersede that relief if the rule is finalized.

What changed

Proposed Regulation 4.13(a)(4) would exempt an SEC-registered investment adviser from CPO registration for qualifying pools if the pool interests are exempt from Securities Act registration and are not publicly marketed in the United States, except that the marketing restriction would not apply to pools offered under SEC Rule 506(c) of Regulation D.

Key dates

2025-09-10

Tricolor and affiliates filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and moved toward liquidation.

2025-12-17

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced criminal charges against Tricolor executives in connection with the alleged fraud.

2026-08-18

The SEC announced the civil enforcement action against Daniel Chu, Jerome Kollar, and Ameryn Seibold in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider performing a targeted review of whether the same receivable, loan, vehicle, inventory item, or other asset can be pledged across multiple warehouse facilities, securitizations, lenders, or managed accounts, including through affiliates and special-purpose vehicles.
• Compliance teams may wish to test collateral eligibility and borrowing-base reporting back to source-level records, payment histories, lien and ownership data, servicing systems, and independent third-party evidence rather than relying solely on management certifications.
• Securitization sponsors, underwriters, and investors should consider reviewing controls for detecting loans that are delinquent, charged off, non-paying, fictitious, materially impaired, or otherwise ineligible but reported as current or eligible.
• Firms should consider reconciling loan-level collateral tapes across all funding channels and establishing exception escalation, independent sign-off, segregation of duties, and documented remediation for duplicate identifiers or inconsistent pledging data.
• Finance and compliance functions may wish to assess whether offering documents, investor presentations, lender certificates, and management meetings accurately describe liquidity constraints, funding needs, collateral encumbrances, and portfolio performance.
• Boards and senior-management committees should consider reviewing governance over collateral operations, securitization disclosures, liquidity reporting, related-party or affiliate financing, and controls over executive certifications.
• Investment managers and lenders may wish to incorporate independent collateral verification, borrowing-base audit rights, data-access rights, concentration and duplication analytics, and covenant triggers into new and renewed transactions.
• Firms with relevant exposure should consider preserving records, communications, collateral tapes, system audit trails, certifications, underwriting files, and exception reports in light of parallel SEC and criminal proceedings.

What changed

The publication does not introduce a new rule, threshold, filing requirement, or compliance deadline. It announces an enforcement complaint under the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including alleged control-person liability against Chu and aiding-and-abetting liability against all three defendants. The SEC seeks injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties, and officer-and-director bars against Chu and Kollar.

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

2026-08-18

CFTC announced publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning amendments to Part 4 CPO and CTA registration requirements.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to obtain and review the full Federal Register proposal, including the precise sophisticated-investor criteria, pool-level conditions, adviser eligibility requirements, proposed small-pool capital threshold, effective date, and transition provisions.
• Firms should consider mapping each existing and prospective pool against the proposed CPO exemption conditions and each advisory mandate against the proposed CTA exemption conditions, without treating the proposal as currently available relief.
• SEC-registered advisers may wish to compare the proposed exemption with their current CFTC registration status, CFTC Regulation 4.13 or 4.14 filings, Rule 4.7 reliance, and any applicable CFTC staff no-action relief.
• Small-pool operators should consider recalculating eligibility using the proposed inflation-adjusted capital-contribution threshold once the precise amount is published and assessing whether existing offering, subscription, and compliance controls would continue to demonstrate compliance.
• Affected firms may wish to assess whether to submit comments within 45 days after Federal Register publication, particularly on investor definitions, treatment of derivatives and swaps, aggregation rules, recordkeeping, reporting, and coordination with SEC adviser requirements.
• Firms relying on existing exemptions or no-action letters should continue meeting their current conditions and filing obligations unless and until a final rule or separate relief changes them.
• Legal and regulatory inventories may be updated to cross-reference CFTC Regulations 4.5, 4.7, 4.13, and 4.14, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What changed

The CFTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing amendments to Part 4. The proposal would add a CPO registration exemption for certain investment advisers registered with the SEC in connection with commodity pools whose participants are limited to specified sophisticated investors and that satisfy additional conditions set out in the proposal. It would add a related CTA registration exemption. It would also increase the capital-contribution threshold applicable to the existing small commodity pool exemption under CFTC Regulation 4.13 to account for inflation.

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

2026-08-14

Effective date of FinCEN final rule "Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Requirement Revision" (91 FR 52508; RIN 1506-AB67), permanently narrowing CTA BOI reporting to foreign reporting companies and codifying exemptions for U.S. persons and domestic reporting companies.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at foreign reporting companies should review the revised 31 CFR 1010.380 definition of "reporting company" and confirm that their entity meets the narrowed criteria (foreign formation plus registration to do business in a U.S. State or Tribal jurisdiction), updating BOI reporting inventories and scoping accordingly.
• Foreign reporting companies should update BOI reporting procedures to ensure that reports capture beneficial owners who are non-U.S. persons while excluding U.S. person beneficial owners, including revising data collection forms, internal instructions, and system logic to avoid collecting or transmitting U.S. person BOI under the CTA framework.
• Firms involved in foreign pooled investment vehicles registered in the United States may wish to revise governance and reporting processes so that BOI reports for such vehicles identify only the individual exercising substantial control (or greatest authority over strategic management) who is not a U.S. person, and cease including U.S. controllers where they qualify as U.S. persons.
• Corporate secretarial and entity management functions should update CTA/BOI scoping matrices to remove domestic corporations, LLCs, and similar entities from BOI reporting obligations and to reflect that only qualifying foreign entities remain in scope, while maintaining awareness of other AML and KYC obligations that may still apply independently of the CTA.
• Onboarding and registration workflows for foreign entities should be reviewed so that BOI reporting triggers, timelines, and responsibilities are aligned with the final rule’s foreign-only scope, including any remaining deadlines tied to registration dates, and that staff understand that U.S. person company applicant information is no longer required for CTA reporting.
• Firms maintaining records of U.S. person beneficial owners and company applicants for CTA purposes may wish to reassess retention policies, ensuring that any continued collection or storage of such data is for other legal or risk-management purposes rather than CTA compliance, and that privacy notices and data minimization practices reflect the updated regulatory position.
• Compliance teams should revise CTA-related policies, procedures, and training materials to incorporate the exemptions for U.S. persons holding FinCEN IDs, clarifying that these individuals are no longer required to update or correct BOI previously provided to obtain the identifier, and documenting any residual obligations under other BSA or AML rules.
• Banks, broker-dealers, and other AML-regulated firms should consider the impact of reduced BOI availability for U.S. persons on their own customer due diligence, beneficial ownership, and risk assessment frameworks, and evaluate whether internal KYC standards or other regulatory requirements (such as customer due diligence rules) necessitate separate collection of U.S. person ownership information irrespective of FinCEN’s CTA exemptions.

What changed

The definition and scope of "reporting company" under 31 CFR 1010.380, as implemented under 31 U.S.C. 5336, are now permanently narrowed so that entities previously defined as domestic reporting companies are exempt from BOI reporting requirements, including initial, updated, and corrected BOI reports. Foreign reporting companies remain subject to BOI reporting, but the rule confirms that they are exempt from reporting beneficial ownership information for any U.S. person beneficial owners; those U.S.

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

2019-04-01

Start of the period covered by the SEC’s findings on untimely SAR investigations and filings

2024-03-31

End of the period covered by the SEC’s findings on untimely SAR investigations and filings

2024-08-12

SEC press release and administrative order were posted

2024-09-11 Deadline

Civil penalty payment due within 30 days of the order’s entry, assuming the posted order date reflects the entry date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review SAR investigation aging standards against current internal procedures, especially for matters involving subpoenas, law-enforcement requests, or regulatory inquiries.
• Firms should consider whether escalation triggers, ownership, and sign-off responsibilities for SAR determinations are clearly documented across surveillance, legal, and compliance functions.
• Broker-dealers may wish to test whether case-management tools can identify stalled investigations and flag items approaching internal filing deadlines or reasonable-period expectations.
• Dual registrants may wish to assess whether broker-dealer and advisory compliance workflows are coordinated for suspicious-activity matters that cut across business lines.
• Training for relevant personnel may wish to be reviewed to ensure that SAR timeliness expectations and escalation protocols are understood by front office, surveillance, legal, and operations staff.

What changed

The publication does not create new rules or thresholds. It documents an enforcement action under Exchange Act Section 17(a) and Rule 17a-8, which require broker-dealers to file SARs for suspicious transactions and related activity. The SEC’s order emphasizes that firms must conduct and complete SAR investigations within a reasonable period of time, especially when the activity is connected to law-enforcement or regulatory inquiries. The outcome also shows that the SEC may treat delayed investigation and filing as a standalone compliance failure even without a substantive fraud finding.

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

2026-08-11

Effective date of the Geographic Targeting Order

2027-02-06 Deadline

Order period ends after 180 days unless renewed

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify all branches, subsidiaries, and offices in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties and map which payment flows meet the Order’s definition of a Covered Transaction.
• Firms may wish to update transaction-monitoring and customer due diligence workflows to capture the additional data elements required for bank or money transmitter reports, including beneficiary or recipient contact details and government-benefits-related funding questions.
• Operational teams may wish to confirm readiness to submit reports through the FI Portal and to generate the required CSV files using the Minnesota Fraud GTO template and naming convention.
• Records-management teams may wish to set a retention control ensuring all reports and related compliance records are preserved for five years from the last day the Order is effective.
• Banks and money transmitters may wish to review whether any existing BSA or sanctions screening processes can be leveraged to identify covered international transfers meeting the $3,000 threshold.
• Compliance teams may wish to test month-end reporting processes so filings occur by the end of the month following the month in which each Covered Transaction took place.

What changed

The Order creates a temporary, geographically targeted recordkeeping and reporting regime under 31 CFR Part 1010 for covered institutions in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. A “Covered Business” is any bank under 31 CFR 1010.100(d) or money transmitter under 31 CFR 1010.100(ff)(5) with a branch, subsidiary, or office in the covered area.

Key dates

2026-02-25

NCUA published the proposed rule for public comment.

2026-04-27

Public comment period closed after NCUA received 15 comments.

2026-08-06

NCUA published the final rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50680.

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review and update FCU written policies for purchases, sales, and pledges of eligible obligations so they no longer mirror the removed prescriptive checklist and instead reflect the board’s own risk-based framework.
• Credit unions may wish to confirm that internal governance documents still address conflicts of interest and compensation consistently with bylaws and fiduciary-duty expectations, even though the detailed regulatory text has been removed.
• Firms should consider updating any procedures, training materials, and control inventories that reference the old paragraph structure or the former 12 CFR 701.23(h) cross-reference.
• Compliance teams may wish to validate that transaction approval, due diligence, documentation, and agreement-review processes continue to be embedded in policy at a level appropriate to the institution’s risk profile, even though the rule is less prescriptive.
• Federal credit unions may wish to brief boards and relevant committees on the shift from a checklist-based rule to a principles-based framework so governance oversight remains aligned with supervisory expectations.

What changed

['The rule removes the mandated lists of items that FCU written policies must address for purchases, sales, and pledges of eligible obligations under 12 CFR 701.23(b)(6), (c), and (d). FCUs still must maintain written policies for these activities, but the regulation no longer prescribes a detailed checklist of required policy contents.', 'The rule removes the detailed conflicts-of-interest and compensation provision formerly in 12 CFR 701.23(g).

Key dates

2026-08-06

FDIC published the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal must be received by the FDIC

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current insider-lending policies against the proposed $400,000 and $2,000,000 thresholds to assess operational impact if finalized.
• Firms may wish to review board-approval workflows and escalation triggers so systems can be updated quickly if the proposal is adopted.
• Institutions may wish to evaluate whether existing exception reporting, insider tracking, and credit administration procedures will need revision to reflect periodic indexing rather than fixed thresholds.
• Commenters may wish to submit feedback by the October 5, 2026 comment deadline if the proposed thresholds or indexing methodology would create implementation issues.

What changed

The proposal amends 12 CFR 337.3 for extensions of credit to insiders of FDIC-supervised institutions. It would increase the threshold for certain extensions of credit to executive officers not otherwise specifically authorized by statute from $100,000 to $400,000, and it would increase the threshold for extensions of credit to insiders requiring prior approval by the board of directors from $500,000 to $2,000,000. The FDIC also proposes to establish an indexing methodology to periodically update those dollar thresholds over time.

Key dates

2026-08-06

CFTC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50926.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposal must be received by this date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current affiliate structures involving FCMs, SEFs, DCMs, DCOs, and trading affiliates to identify where the proposal would create new disclosure, surveillance, or conflict-management obligations.
• Firms may wish to map any shared personnel, technology, office space, or information flows between affiliated entities and assess whether additional controls would be needed to protect regulatory impartiality.
• Market-regulation and legal teams may wish to assess whether existing board, committee, and disciplinary-panel processes would satisfy the proposed independence and conflict-management expectations.
• FCMs may wish to inventory current disclosures to customers and counterparties and determine whether additional affiliate-relationship disclosures would be needed if the rule is finalized.
• Affected entities may wish to prepare comment letters before the 2026-10-05 deadline if they want to influence the final scope of the proposal.

What changed

The proposal would amend CFTC regulations in Parts 1, 37, 38, and 39, including regulations 1.52 and 1.55, to strengthen oversight of affiliated entities. For FCMs, it would add requirements around disclosure of affiliate relationships with SEFs, DCMs, or DCOs, and it would adjust SRO and DSRO financial-surveillance requirements for affiliate FCMs.

Key dates

May 2026

– Timothy Zimmerman joins the SEC’s Division of Enforcement as a senior advisor to the Director, establishing the leadership base for the new unit

05 August 2026

– The SEC publicly announces the establishment of the Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit in the Division of Enforcement

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a targeted risk assessment of financial reporting and accounting controls, focusing on areas historically associated with SEC enforcement (e.g., revenue recognition, reserves, impairments, valuations, related-party transactions, and non-GAAP measures).
• Review and, where necessary, enhance internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material accounting judgments are robustly documented, reviewed, and escalated.
• Strengthen audit committee oversight of financial reporting and external audit, including regular discussions of SEC enforcement trends, known accounting risk areas, and the adequacy of management’s remediation of control deficiencies.
• Ensure that documentation of significant accounting judgments and estimates (including communications with external auditors) is complete, contemporaneous, and capable of withstanding regulatory scrutiny.
• Review external auditor engagement terms and governance, including partner rotation, independence safeguards, and responses to audit findings, to mitigate enforcement risk relating to audit quality and auditor misconduct.

What changed

• - The SEC has created a new Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit within the Division of Enforcement focused on accounting and financial reporting fraud and broader accounting and auditing...
• The new unit reflects an expanded enforcement capacity and prioritization for matters involving issuer financial statements, accounting judgments, internal controls, audit quality, and related...
• The unit will use a specialized staffing model, combining attorneys and accountants with technical skills in financial reporting, accounting, and auditing in the securities regulation context.
• The unit is expected to operate with enhanced cross-division coordination, working closely with staff across relevant SEC divisions and offices to ensure enforcement outcomes align with broader...
• The publication is an organizational/enforcement announcement, not a rulemaking, and does not introduce new disclosure requirements, filing obligations, or changes to accounting standards.

Key dates

2026-08-05

OCC published the proposed rule in the Federal Register (91 FR 50610)

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes for the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map which internal records fall into the proposed CSI category and compare current disclosure controls against the new exceptions and safeguard requirements.
• Supervised entities may wish to review any confidentiality agreements and onward-sharing practices to determine whether they would satisfy the proposed conditions for permitted CSI disclosures.
• Legal and FOIA teams may wish to update request-handling workflows for expedited processing requests, fee-waiver appeals, and request tracking once the rule is finalized.
• Banks and other recipients of OCC information may wish to reassess litigation, government-reporting, and interaffiliate sharing procedures to ensure they align with the revised disclosure framework.
• Firms may wish to submit comments by the close of the comment period if the proposed CSI scope, disclosure exceptions, or FOIA procedures would affect their supervisory, legal, or records-management processes.

What changed

The proposal would restructure the OCC’s information-disclosure rules in 12 CFR part 4 and make conforming changes in parts 5, 7, 21, and 163. It would create a new subcategory of non-public OCC information called confidential supervisory information (CSI), clarify when supervised entities and other recipients may disclose CSI without prior OCC approval, and require applicable safeguards and, in some cases, qualifying confidentiality agreements. The OCC also proposes to permit certain disclosures of CSI in limited circumstances to support business efficiency, government accountability, and...

Key dates

2026-08-04

Federal Reserve published the proposed rule in the Federal Register at 91 FR 49526.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule are due.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the proposal’s threshold changes against existing Regulation O controls, including board-approval triggers, disclosure triggers, and internal lending limit checks.
• Firms may wish to identify any lending relationships that rely on current presumptions of control, especially where portfolio companies of investment fund complexes could be affected.
• Banks may wish to review insider-lending policies, forms, recordkeeping, and disclosure workflows for provisions that the proposal would codify, clarify, or remove.
• Stakeholders may wish to submit comments by 2026-10-05 if they want to influence the final treatment of thresholds, fund-complex ownership, valuation rules, or correspondent-lending provisions.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to compare the proposed text against existing Regulation O, Regulation Y, and internal interpretive guidance to spot implementation impacts if the rule is finalized largely as proposed.

What changed

The proposal would amend 12 CFR part 215 (Regulation O) and conform related provisions in Regulation Y and other Board regulations. It would make a one-time adjustment to several dollar-based thresholds, then index those thresholds going forward based on nominal GDP. It would clarify how certain limits apply on an aggregate basis and streamline limits on loans to executive officers, including prior board-approval requirements for certain large loans.

Key dates

2026-08-03

OCC issued Bulletin 2026-37 announcing the proposed rulemaking on availability of OCC information

2026-10-02 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after publication, based on the OCC’s stated deadline formula in the related rulemaking notice

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current controls for handling nonpublic OCC information and identify where internal policies reference the existing 12 CFR part 4 subparts B and C.
• Firms may wish to assess whether any current or planned disclosures of supervisory materials could fall within the proposed expanded exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, or supervisory coordination.
• Banks may wish to inventory records that could qualify as aged CSI once the final rule is issued, so they can update retention and disclosure procedures accordingly.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to monitor the final rule and any comment-driven changes to the proposed FOIA expedited-processing and fee-waiver appeal procedures.
• Institutions may wish to align employee training with the OCC’s clarified position on unauthorized disclosure and potential criminal referral exposure.

What changed

The proposal would amend the OCC’s disclosure framework in 12 CFR 4 by creating a new subcategory of nonpublic OCC information called confidential supervisory information (CSI). It would modify the prior-approval regime for supervised entities that want to disclose CSI by expanding exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, and supervisory coordination, while adding safeguards around those exceptions. The OCC also proposes to provide for the release of certain aged CSI, which would create a time-based disclosure concept not described in the current rule.

Key dates

2026-08-03

OCC issued the notice of proposed rulemaking

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register

2026-08-05

Federal Register publication date of the proposed rule

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current internal controls for handling OCC nonpublic information and map where the proposed CSI category could affect disclosure workflows.
• Firms may wish to assess whether existing information-sharing arrangements with government agencies or service providers would fit within the proposed exceptions and safeguards.
• Teams responsible for FOIA or public records requests may wish to update procedures for expedited processing requests and any related appeal handling.
• Banks and supervised entities may wish to submit comments on operational burden, safeguards, and the practical impact of the proposed disclosure exceptions before the comment deadline.

What changed

The proposal would make structural and substantive changes to the OCC’s disclosure framework in 12 CFR part 4. According to the OCC, it would create a new nonpublic information category called confidential supervisory information (CSI), modify the prior-approval framework for supervised entities that want to disclose CSI, and add tailored exceptions for business efficiency, government accountability, and supervisory coordination, subject to safeguards.

Key dates

2026-07-31

OCC Bulletin 2026-35 issued; interagency proposed CRA rule released

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current CRA inventories against the proposed lending-focused retail services framework to identify deposit-service items that could lose CRA consideration.
• Firms may wish to review community development grant and donation controls to determine whether documentation exists to show direct use for a qualifying primary-purpose community development activity.
• Large banks may wish to assess whether recipient overhead data, written commitments, attestations, tax filings, and budget records would be available to support the proposed 15% overhead limitation.
• Banks near the $1 billion and $10 billion thresholds may wish to model whether the proposed size reclassification would change their CRA evaluation approach, reporting obligations, or supervisory expectations.
• Institutions using or considering strategic plans may wish to reassess whether the proposal would make that option more operationally feasible under the revised framework.
• CRA and public-disclosure teams may wish to inventory public file and notice processes to determine whether technology-enabled publication changes would require procedural updates.

What changed

['The proposal would narrow the retail banking services analyzed under CRA to focus on credit services and would exclude deposit services from that component of the evaluation, while giving greater weight to activities with a lending nexus.', 'Community development grants would count only if they are directly used for a plan, project, or initiative with community development as a primary purpose; for large banks, defined as banks with assets over $10 billion, the recipient would also need documented overhead costs not exceeding 15% of the grant amount.', 'The bank-size framework would be...

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

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board requested comment on the proposed Regulation O modernization

2026-10-05 Deadline

Expected comment deadline stated in the Federal Register notice

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map current insider-credit controls, approval thresholds, and disclosure workflows against the proposed higher dollar limits.
• Banks may wish to identify products and systems affected by Regulation O exceptions, including credit cards, overdraft lines, and other-purpose loans.
• Institutions may wish to review whether any existing insider or related-interest procedures depend on legacy interpretations that the proposal would codify or reorganize.
• Firms with investment fund ownership structures may wish to assess whether the proposed relief for passive interests would change current principal-shareholder or control analyses.
• Interested parties may wish to prepare comments for the Federal Register comment period once publication occurs, as the proposal states comments are due 60 days after publication.

What changed

The proposal would increase several outdated dollar-based thresholds in Regulation O, including the amounts tied to certain credit card exceptions, overdraft exceptions, executive officer loans for other purposes, and the level at which prior board approval is required. It would also establish an indexing methodology so the thresholds are automatically adjusted over time based on cumulative nominal GDP growth, reducing the need for repeated rulemaking. The Federal Reserve also says the proposal would address unnecessary applications of the rule to passive interests in companies held by...