Consumer Protection / Conduct in United States

Key dates

2026-11-05

CFTC issued the interpretation of the impartial access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b).

2026-12-05 Deadline

Thirty-day period expires for DCMs to cease domestic geographic restrictions that violate the impartial-access requirements or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight why compliance is not feasible; the same period applies to addressing intermediary impediments or explaining why compliance is not feasible.

Suggested considerations

• DCMs should inventory all domestic geographic eligibility, onboarding, trading, product-access, and account-management restrictions and assess them against 17 CFR 38.151(b)'s requirements for impartial, transparent, and non-discriminatory access.
• DCMs should review whether state-based restrictions affect members, persons with trading privileges, independent software vendors, or access to particular products, including event contracts.
• DCMs should identify and review contractual, technical, and operational controls used by futures commission merchants, introducing brokers, and other intermediaries to determine whether they impose geographic restrictions inconsistent with the DCM's impartial-access requirements.
• DCMs should document the legal and operational basis for removing each restriction or, where removal is not feasible, prepare a fact-specific explanation for the Division of Market Oversight before the 30-day period expires.
• Compliance teams at intermediaries should map state-based geofencing, customer-location verification, product blocking, and position-management restrictions affecting access to DCM markets and assess whether those controls are required by applicable law, regulation, or court order.
• Affected firms should assess conflicts between the CFTC's interpretation and any state requirements or judicial orders, obtain legal analysis, and avoid treating the interpretation as automatically vacating an injunction or other binding court order.
• DCMs should retain evidence of governance review, intermediary oversight, customer communications, access testing, and remediation decisions in anticipation of possible fact-specific CFTC inquiry or enforcement.

What changed

The CFTC has applied the existing impartial-access requirements in 17 CFR 38.151(b) expressly to domestic geographic restrictions, including restrictions based on a market participant's state or location. DCMs must cease geographic restrictions that violate the rule within 30 days of the November 5, 2026 publication, or submit an explanation to the Division of Market Oversight stating why compliance is not feasible.

Key dates

2026-10-29

The SEC announced charges against BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd and filed the related enforcement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review third-party crypto platforms, advisers, issuers, introducers, and promoters for unsupported claims that an SEC filing represents licensing, approval, endorsement, or authorization.
• Firms should consider independently verifying Form ADV, Form D, and other regulatory filings through official regulator databases and documenting the precise legal effect of each filing before relying on it in due diligence or investor communications.
• Marketing and financial-promotion controls may wish to test for claims of risk-free or guaranteed returns, extraordinary monthly performance, government approval, SEC registration, fake certificates, and statements that a Rule 506(c) filing authorizes operation of a crypto exchange.
• Firms with exposure to BG Wealth Sharing, DSJ Exchange, or associated promoters should consider escalating the relationship for legal, fraud, sanctions, counterparty, and suspicious-activity review and preserving relevant communications, transaction records, and onboarding materials.
• Investment advisers and other regulated firms may wish to assess whether referral, custody, payment, or platform relationships involving similar schemes create customer-protection, books-and-records, disclosure, or reputational risks.
• Compliance teams may wish to incorporate the related state and foreign warnings into typology monitoring, particularly indicators such as recruitment-based compensation, blocked withdrawals, advance exit or compliance fees, fake account balances, and periodic payments used to sustain investor confidence.

What changed

This is an enforcement action, not a new rule or generally applicable compliance requirement. The SEC alleges violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by both entities, and violations of Sections 204(a) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 by BG Wealth. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties against both entities, and conduct-based injunctions against BG Wealth.

Key dates

2026-10-20

Utah filed a state-court action against Kalshi entities and two Susquehanna trading firms, alleging violations of Utah gambling laws and seeking injunctive relief and recovery of profits.

2026-10-27

The CFTC announced its federal lawsuit against Utah and its commitment to block state enforcement affecting CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Suggested considerations

• Firms operating or supporting CFTC-registered event-contract markets should consider mapping their products, legal entities, affiliates, liquidity providers and customer-access arrangements against the Utah enforcement action and the CFTC’s requested injunction.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the federal case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, the related Kalshi appeal, and the other state proceedings because the litigation may determine whether state gambling laws can be applied to federally regulated event contracts.
• Firms should consider preserving records supporting CFTC registration, designated-contract-market compliance, product listings, trade surveillance, customer eligibility, geolocation controls and communications concerning Utah residents.
• Market operators and intermediaries may wish to assess whether their current Utah access controls and disclosures remain appropriate in light of the conflicting federal and state positions, without assuming that the CFTC’s lawsuit presently provides a final safe harbor.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to distinguish CFTC-regulated transactions from unregulated or differently structured products, since the Commission’s position is directed at covered transactions on CFTC-regulated markets rather than all prediction, gaming or wagering activity.

What changed

The publication announces litigation rather than a new rule, supervisory requirement, or compliance deadline. The CFTC is asking a federal court to block Utah from investigating or enforcing state laws against transactions conducted on CFTC-regulated designated contract markets, including actions involving regulated entities’ affiliates and partners. The Commission’s stated legal position is that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive federal jurisdiction over these event contracts and preempts conflicting state restrictions.

Key dates

2024-04-01

Bank of America self-identified the inaccurate wire-transmittor information issue, according to the OCC enforcement order; the date is included as an approximate month-level historical reference represented by the first day of the month.

2024-10-01

Bank of America stopped the inaccurate transmittor-information practice in 2024; the OCC order does not provide an exact day, so this is an approximate month-level historical reference represented by the first day of the month.

2026-10-08

The OCC announced the American Express National Bank cease-and-desist order and $350 million civil money penalty.

2026-10-13

The OCC announced the Bank of America $750 million civil money penalty, described as the largest penalty in OCC history, in coordination with Treasury and FinCEN actions.

2026-10-22

The OCC published the October 2026 consolidated enforcement-actions release.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reassessing whether their BSA/AML risk assessments cover the risks of all material products and services, rather than concentrating on narrower deposit activity while underweighting credit-card, charge-card, correspondent, or payment activity.
• Compliance teams may wish to test end-to-end transaction-monitoring workflows for alert generation, escalation, investigation, disposition, and SAR filing, including backlog governance, aging thresholds, management information, and evidence that suspected trade-based money laundering is escalated promptly.
• Firms should consider validating that customer identification, customer due diligence, beneficial-ownership information, and ongoing-risk-rating processes are complete, accurate, risk-based, and aligned to the institution's actual customer and product populations.
• Banks may wish to perform a targeted review of outgoing wire data to confirm that originator or transmittor names and other required fields are accurate, consistently populated, retained, and not overwritten by deficient interfaces or manual processes.
• Boards and senior management should consider documenting sufficient staffing, subject-matter expertise, training, independent testing, audit coverage, and issue-remediation ownership for BSA/AML programs.
• Institutions operating under prior supervisory findings should consider independent validation that corrective actions are complete, effective, sustainable, and supported by evidence, rather than merely implemented procedurally.
• Compliance teams should consider reviewing whether third-party, correspondent, and payment-processing arrangements create data-quality or monitoring dependencies that could delay SAR filing or impair law-enforcement traceability.

What changed

This publication announces enforcement outcomes rather than a new rule or generally applicable deadline. American Express National Bank is subject to a cease-and-desist order and a $350 million penalty for an inadequately designed and monitored BSA/AML program, inadequate resources and expertise, internal-control weaknesses, weak independent testing and training, systemic failures involving approximately $13 billion of suspected trade-based money-laundering activity, and customer identification and customer due diligence deficiencies.

Key dates

2026-09-30

The SEC issued the proposed rule, Release Nos. 33-11444, 34-106534, and IC-36351; this is the underlying proposal date, not an effective date for new obligations.

2026-10-05

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63388.

2026-10-20

The SEC published a correction replacing the DATES section and confirming the comment deadline.

2026-12-04 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to calendar December 4, 2026 as the deadline for submitting comments to File No. S7-2026-34 and coordinate comments across legal, fund governance, distribution, operations, and investor-relations functions.
• Affected fund sponsors should consider assessing whether monthly or otherwise revised repurchase intervals, delayed initial repurchase offers, or more frequent discretionary repurchases would better align with portfolio liquidity and investor-liquidity expectations if the proposal is adopted.
• Registered closed-end funds and BDCs considering multiple share classes should consider mapping proposed Rule 18f-3 and Rule 17d-3 conditions against existing exemptive orders, board procedures, fee arrangements, allocation methodologies, distribution agreements, and conflict controls.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate the anticipated written multiple-share-class plan, board approval requirements, class-level expense allocation, asset-based distribution and service-fee arrangements, and related disclosure controls.
• Operations and disclosure teams should consider a gap analysis for proposed changes to Form N-2, Form N-CEN, Form N-23c-3, shareholder reports, prospectus legends, expense examples, NAV and repurchase processing, and investor communications.
• Firms should continue treating the current Investment Company Act rules and existing exemptive orders as controlling until any final rule becomes effective and applicable transition or rescission provisions are issued.

What changed

The October 20, 2026 Federal Register correction replaces the prior DATES text in the October 5 proposal and expressly states that the release was published on October 5, 2026 and that comments must be received by December 4, 2026. The underlying proposal would amend Investment Company Act Rules 23c-3, 18f-3, and 17d-3 and related forms and rules to modernize interval-fund repurchase programs, including potentially allowing a first repurchase offer to be deferred for up to two years, monthly repurchase intervals, annual discretionary repurchases, and deduction of deferred sales loads from...

Key dates

2022-05-12

The CFTC filed its complaint against Alexandre and EminiFX, alleging fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation, and operation of an unregistered commodity pool.

2026-07-01

As of July 2026, the court-appointed receiver had returned more than $98 million to over 28,000 investors.

2026-10-19

The CFTC announced that the Southern District of New York had entered orders granting summary judgment, injunctive relief, and a civil monetary penalty against Alexandre and EminiFX.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory products, investment clubs, managed accounts, and digital-asset offerings that pool customer contributions and obtain exposure to forex, futures, options, or other commodity interests.
• Firms should consider assessing whether their activities constitute operating a commodity pool or acting as a commodity pool operator or associated person under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations, including whether registration or an available exemption is required.
• Firms should consider validating marketing claims about returns, automated trading, proprietary technology, trading results, and risk, with particular scrutiny of unusually high or consistent returns such as weekly performance representations.
• Compliance teams may wish to test segregation, custody, reconciliation, withdrawal, and use-of-funds controls to detect commingling, personal use of customer assets, payments to earlier investors, and unexplained transfers.
• Firms should consider maintaining evidence supporting reported performance, trading activity, investor statements, and asset ownership so that customer communications can be reconciled to underlying records.
• Digital-asset businesses may wish to review whether crypto terminology or a technology-focused structure obscures activities that remain subject to commodities, anti-fraud, registration, or customer-protection requirements.
• Firms should consider escalating suspected misappropriation, fabricated performance, or unregistered commodity-pool activity through applicable internal investigation, suspicious-activity, and regulatory-reporting processes.

What changed

This is a final enforcement outcome rather than a new rule or generally applicable regulatory amendment. The Southern District of New York entered summary judgment and injunctive relief against Alexandre and EminiFX, finding that the defendants made fraudulent representations, misappropriated investor funds, and operated as an unregistered commodity pool operator, with Alexandre acting in an unregistered associated-person capacity. The judgment imposes $228,576,962 of restitution, $15,049,500 of disgorgement subject to offset by restitution payments, and a $45,148,500 civil monetary penalty.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 66022 and the public comment period begins.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking must be received by the CFTC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory sports-, political-, cultural-, and weather-related event contracts offered, intermediated, traded, or supported by the organization and document the current legal classification of each product.
• Firms may wish to assess whether affected activities could require CFTC registration, designated contract market or swap execution facility arrangements, swap data reporting, recordkeeping, customer-protection controls, business-conduct procedures, clearing or margin analysis, and applicable anti-manipulation and surveillance controls if the proposal is finalized.
• Platforms and intermediaries may wish to map product design, settlement terms, pricing, transferability, trading venue, customer type, and liquidity arrangements against the proposed swap definition and identify products whose classification is uncertain.
• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the separate CFTC treatment of casino-style gambling products and distinguish state- or tribally licensed sportsbook and casino wagers from market-traded event contracts; the companion treatment should not be assumed to apply to prediction-market products.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of “event contract,” treatment of secondary-market trading, jurisdictional overlap with state gambling authorities, implementation timing, and any operational or cost impacts before the November 18, 2026 deadline.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to track litigation and appeals concerning CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, because court developments could affect the interpretation or implementation of any final rule.

What changed

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RIN 3038-AF82, would further define “swap” to explicitly include specified event contracts, including contracts tied to sports, politics, cultural events, and weather. The CFTC describes these instruments as financial products commonly understood in the trade to be swaps and seeks to resolve perceived ambiguity over their classification and regulatory jurisdiction.

Key dates

2026-10-19

The interim final rule becomes effective and 17 CFR 1.3 is amended to exclude qualifying casino-style gambling products from the CEA swap definition.

2026-11-18 Deadline

Comments on the interim final rule must be received by the CFTC through the specified submission channels.

Suggested considerations

• Firms offering sportsbook, casino, lottery, raffle, bingo, or other gaming products should consider documenting how each product satisfies both the Provider Test and Product Test, including the relevant state or tribal authorization and applicable gaming-law classification.
• Gaming operators should consider verifying that the provider is acting within the scope of its license or authorization and retaining evidence that the transaction is offered on house or other standardized terms rather than traded through a multilateral or individually negotiated market.
• Prediction-market operators, designated contract markets, swap execution facilities, swap dealers, and banks should consider reviewing event-linked products separately from traditional sportsbook wagers, with particular attention to venue, price formation, trading structure, and whether participants interact through competing bids and offers.
• Firms should consider reassessing products that combine sportsbook or casino-style features with exchange trading, bilateral dealer negotiation, or other market mechanisms, because the rule’s exclusion may not apply even where the underlying event resembles a conventional wager.
• Compliance teams may wish to update product inventories, legal opinions, customer disclosures, jurisdictional analyses, and surveillance or onboarding controls to reflect the distinction between authorized house wagers and exchange-traded event contracts.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments to the CFTC on the Provider Test, the definition of transactions regulated as gaming or gambling, and alternative ways to distinguish swaps from traditional gambling products by November 18, 2026.
• Firms should consider separately assessing state gaming, tribal gaming, consumer-protection, tax, anti-money-laundering, and licensing requirements because exclusion from the CEA swap definition does not remove those obligations.

What changed

New 17 CFR 1.3(7) creates a two-part exclusion from the swap definition. Under the Provider Test, the product must be offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under state law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the provider must act within the scope of that authorization, and the transaction must be regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable state or tribal law.

Key dates

2026-10-09

SEC issued the proposed amendments to Investment Company Act Rule 17a-7, Release No. IC-36358, File No. S7-2026-36.

2026-10-15

Proposed rule published in the Federal Register; the 60-day public-comment period begins.

2026-12-14 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory current and potential cross trades by asset class and valuation level, distinguishing Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 positions and identifying fixed-income portfolios that could become eligible.
• Advisers may wish to design a documented pre-trade best-interest process for each participating registered fund, including consideration of open-market alternatives, alternative securities, and the option not to trade.
• Funds and advisers may wish to assess pricing-source governance, including unaffiliated-source due diligence, periodic reasonableness reviews, NAV-pricing consistency, and controls preventing use of amortized-cost values.
• CCOs may wish to map quarterly review, annual back-testing, subsequent-sale analysis, escalation, and reporting responsibilities across fund and adviser compliance functions.
• Boards and counsel may wish to assess amendments to Rule 38a-1 policies, board reporting, and governance materials in light of the proposed shift away from board-adopted Rule 17a-7 procedures.
• Operations and regulatory-reporting teams may wish to map internal asset classifications to Form N-PORT Item B.12 and Form N-MFP Item A.23, including controls for the preceding-12-month activity test and reconciliation of cross-trade and total purchases and sales.
• Records-management teams may wish to evaluate systems capable of retaining trade records, CCO review materials, and board reports for six years.
• Interested parties may wish to submit comments by the Federal Register deadline, addressing the 79 specific requests for comment, including Level 3 eligibility, bid-side NAV pricing, review frequency, scaling, and public-reporting impacts.

What changed

Eligible securities would expand from generally Level 1 securities with readily available market quotations to securities valued using inputs that are observable directly or indirectly, provided Level 2 inputs are the lowest level of inputs significant to measurement; Level 3 securities would remain excluded. The proposed independent current market price would be either the value used in the fund’s next NAV calculation on the trade date or a price the adviser reasonably determines represents current market value using one or more unaffiliated pricing sources, subject to periodic review.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Approximate beginning of the alleged delayed-allocation and cherry-picking conduct.

2023-10-31

Approximate end of the alleged conduct period.

2024-11-25

The SEC filed its civil complaint against Leech concerning the alleged allocation scheme.

2025-01-21

The district court reportedly stayed the SEC civil action pending resolution of the parallel criminal prosecution.

2026-06-05

The SEC instituted settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty and establishing a Fair Fund for affected investors.

2026-10-06

The SEC reported the consent resolution and final-judgment process against Leech, including a $3 million penalty, permanent injunctions and an officer-and-director bar.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should consider reviewing whether each block or derivatives trade is assigned to intended portfolios at or near execution, with documented reasons, approvals and timestamps for any necessary delay.
• Compliance teams may wish to test whether allocation systems and workflows prevent personnel from using intraday price movements, daily settlement prices or first-day performance to select recipient accounts.
• Firms should consider surveillance comparing execution time, allocation-entry time, settlement-price availability, subsequent performance and recipient portfolio across portfolio managers and strategies.
• Compliance teams may wish to investigate statistically significant differences in allocation latency, first-day gains and losses, reallocations, exception rates and benefits received by particular portfolios, fee arrangements or clients.
• Advisers should consider reconciling written fair-allocation and reallocation procedures with actual operating practices, including practices followed by chief investment officers and other highly senior personnel.
• Firms should consider preserving allocation instructions and related communications from trading platforms, order-management systems, email, messaging tools and manual worksheets in a form suitable for supervisory review.
• Compliance teams may wish to enhance escalation procedures for delayed allocations, repeated reallocations, unexplained exceptions and material performance differences among similarly situated accounts.
• Advisers should consider reviewing client disclosures and policies describing pro rata, fair or equitable allocation methodologies against the firm’s actual allocation logic and exceptions.

What changed

This is an enforcement resolution, not a new rule or prospective compliance deadline. It reinforces that delayed post-execution allocation can create an Advisers Act antifraud and fiduciary-duty violation where the decision-maker can observe market or settlement-price information before assigning trades to client portfolios. The matter also signals that written allocation policies are insufficient if firms do not operate, test and supervise them effectively, particularly for senior investment personnel.

Key dates

2026-10-14

The CFPB announced the debanking investigation and enforcement initiative; the OCC released its report on the nine largest national banks on the same date.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory account closures, service restrictions, onboarding denials, credit denials, and material service-friction decisions since 2020, with particular attention to political or religious affiliations and lawful activities in firearms, oil and gas, coal, tobacco, digital assets, and other sectors identified by the OCC.
• Firms should consider testing whether customer-facing reasons for adverse decisions accurately and specifically reflect the documented internal rationale, including compliance with ECOA and Regulation B adverse-action notice requirements and applicable FCRA adverse-action notice requirements.
• Institutions may wish to review reputation-risk policies, sector restrictions, escalation criteria, committee materials, employee guidance, and risk taxonomies to confirm that decisions are based on objective, individualized, documented, and legally supportable risk considerations rather than generalized political, social, or reputational preferences.
• Compliance teams should consider preserving relevant complaints, account-review records, escalation communications, decision logs, adverse-action notices, and policy versions in anticipation of CFPB information requests or supervisory examination.
• Banks and covered nonbanks may wish to compare complaint-portal submissions and internal complaint data against account-closure and service-denial populations to identify unexplained patterns, inconsistent reasons, or failures to provide required notices.
• Firms should consider assessing whether deposit-account and payment-service decisions create potential UDAAP exposure even where ECOA or FCRA does not directly apply, while continuing to apply legitimate safety, soundness, sanctions, fraud, AML, credit, and operational-risk controls.
• Senior compliance and legal personnel may wish to establish governance for politically sensitive or sector-based account decisions so that risk-based controls are not removed indiscriminately and exceptions are documented, consistently applied, and subject to appropriate review.

What changed

The CFPB did not issue a new regulation or impose a new compliance deadline. It announced a supervisory and enforcement initiative implementing Executive Order 14331 and responding to the OCC's report covering conduct identified between 2020 and September 2025. The CFPB stated that it will investigate potential violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, including Regulation B adverse-action requirements, the Fair Credit Reporting Act adverse-action requirements, and the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Key dates

2026-10-09

CFTC announced publication of the NPRM concerning inclusion of certain event contracts in the definition of swap and identified a 30-day comment period beginning on Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory event contracts by underlying event, settlement structure, customer type, and current legal classification, including whether each product is a binary option, another swap, a future, a security-based swap, or a casino-style gambling product.
• Potential operators, DCMs, SEFs, registrants, trade associations, and affected customers should consider submitting written comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after the NPRM is published in the Federal Register; the Federal Register publication date and resulting calendar deadline should be monitored because the CFTC release does not specify either date.
• Firms may wish to assess whether current exchange, venue, customer-eligibility, market-surveillance, anti-manipulation, product-certification, disclosure, margin, reporting, and recordkeeping controls would support treatment of relevant contracts as swaps under existing CFTC requirements.
• Operators currently relying on state licenses may wish to evaluate the potential need for DCM or SEF arrangements, CFTC registration, federal compliance infrastructure, and transitional management of overlapping state and federal obligations if the rule is finalized.
• DCMs and SEFs may wish to review product-listing governance against CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C), applicable core principles, and 17 CFR 40.2(c), including whether particular contracts are readily susceptible to manipulation or involve gaming or other activity contrary to the public interest.
• Legal and tax teams may wish to keep CEA classification separate from federal tax and information-reporting analysis, which the NPRM states will continue to depend on the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury regulations, and IRS guidance.
• Firms may wish to monitor the separate CFTC action concerning casino-style gambling products and assess how the two rulemakings interact for products near the boundary between event contracts and gambling wagers.

What changed

The NPRM, RIN 3038-AF82, would add proposed 17 CFR 1.3(Swap)(2)(i)(G): “Event contracts, including those based on sports-, politics-, cultural, and weather-related events.” The CFTC relies on several existing swap-definition provisions, including CEA section 1a(47)(A)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vi), covering options, transactions dependent on events with potential financial, economic, or commercial consequences, instruments commonly known as swaps, and combinations or permutations of covered instruments.

Key dates

2026-10-09

The CFTC announced the interim final rule.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify sportsbook, casino, lottery, bingo, raffle, and other wagering products in their portfolios and map each product against the provider, licensing, State or Tribal regulatory, and trading-venue conditions in 17 CFR 1.3(7).
• Licensed gaming operators should retain evidence that each relevant product is offered within the scope of the applicable State or Tribal authorization and is regulated as gaming or gambling under applicable law.
• Operators and market intermediaries should assess whether any product is traded on an exchange, board of trade, swap execution facility, or other multilateral or individually negotiated market, because that structure prevents reliance on the specific exclusion.
• Prediction-market and derivatives businesses should maintain a separate legal analysis for products that fail the exclusion; failure to qualify does not by itself establish that a product is a swap.
• CFTC-regulated market participants should compare the rule's house-versus-customer and price-formation distinctions with their event-contract inventories, exchange rules, clearing arrangements, and product approvals.
• Interested parties should consider submitting comments through Regulations.gov within 30 days after Federal Register publication, referencing RIN 3038-AF81 and the title "Further Definition of Swap to Exclude Casino-Style Gambling Products."
• Compliance teams should continue evaluating applicable State gaming, Tribal gaming, tax, consumer-protection, licensing, and other federal requirements because the rule addresses CEA classification only and does not displace those regimes.

What changed

The rule adds 17 CFR 1.3(7) to the definition of "Swap" and excludes an agreement, contract, or transaction offered or entered into by a person licensed or otherwise authorized under State law or by a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., acting within the scope of that authorization and subject to State or Tribal gaming regulation. The product must not be traded on a board of trade, organized exchange, swap execution facility, or any other market where trades are executed multilaterally or are subject to individual negotiation.

Key dates

2026-10-09

SEC issued the proposal to amend Investment Company Act Rule 17a-7.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine which corporate, municipal and other fixed-income holdings are currently excluded from Rule 17a-7 cross-trading because they lack a readily available market quotation under the valuation-rule framework.
• Firms should consider assessing potential execution-cost savings, liquidity benefits and conflicts risks from expanded internal crossing, using the SEC’s indication that market impact is concentrated among larger fund families and that corporate-bond cross-trading materially declined after the valuation-rule compliance date.
• Registered fund advisers may wish to review pricing governance, independent price verification, best-execution analysis, allocation controls and conflict-management procedures in anticipation of any final rule.
• Firms may wish to map the data needed for the proposed aggregated cross-trade reporting and test whether existing order-management, compliance-monitoring and regulatory-reporting systems can capture it.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments during the 60-day period after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register, particularly on eligible security classes, pricing methodologies, reporting granularity and oversight conditions.
• Until a final rule becomes effective, firms should continue applying the existing Section 17(a), Rule 17a-7 and Rule 2a-5 requirements and should not treat the proposal as a current exemption.

What changed

The proposal would amend Rule 17a-7, the exemption from Section 17(a) for specified purchases and sales between a registered investment company and certain affiliated persons. It would generally restore eligibility for cross-trading most fixed-income securities, which became substantially unavailable after the SEC’s adoption of the Investment Company Act valuation rule in 2020, while modernizing the conditions governing pricing and oversight to reflect more verifiable and transparent market pricing.

Key dates

2021-01-01

Beginning of the alleged cherry-picking period involving delayed allocations and disproportionate assignment of first-day gains and losses.

2023-10-31

End of the alleged cherry-picking period, described by the SEC as running through October 2023.

2024-11-01

The SEC filed its prior litigated district-court complaint against Leech; the source identifies November 2024 but does not specify the filing day.

2026-06-05

The SEC settled administrative proceedings against Western Asset, imposing a $100 million penalty, censure, cease-and-desist order, and Fair Fund process.

2026-10-06

The SEC announced its motion for entry of a consent final judgment against Leech; the judgment remains subject to court approval.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether trade timestamps, allocation timestamps, order-entry records, and market settlement-price data permit detection of allocations made after material price movements are known.
• Firms should consider testing allocation controls for fairness and consistency across strategies, accounts, clients, and affiliated portfolios, including review of first-day gains and losses and unexplained deviations among portfolio managers.
• Firms should consider validating that written allocation, reallocation, and error-correction procedures are implemented in practice, with documented approvals, exception handling, and independent oversight.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether portfolio-manager trading and allocation practices diverge materially from peers or from client disclosures, and whether those differences trigger escalation, surveillance, or enhanced supervision.
• Investment advisers should consider reviewing supervisory arrangements for senior investment personnel, including evidence that surveillance alerts, exception reports, and known control weaknesses are investigated and remediated.
• Firms should consider preserving records sufficient to reconstruct the timing and rationale of trade placement, allocation, reallocation, and approval decisions, and reviewing whether disclosures accurately describe fair and equitable allocation practices.
• Affected firms may wish to monitor the court’s decision on the proposed Leech judgment and the administration of Western Asset’s Fair Fund; no general compliance deadline is stated in the publication.

What changed

This publication does not establish a new generally applicable rule; it advances a case-specific consent judgment, subject to court approval, against Leech. The proposed judgment includes a $3 million penalty, a permanent injunction against violations of the federal securities-law antifraud provisions, an officer-and-director bar, and a forthcoming associational bar. The related June 5, 2026 administrative settlement against Western Asset imposed a $100 million civil penalty, censure, and cease-and-desist order, with the penalty deposited into a Fair Fund for harmed investors.

Key dates

2026-10-06

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 63676 and the comment period opened.

2026-12-07 Deadline

Comments on the proposed rule are due to the SEC.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether existing or proposed fund products could use the regulated-fund performance-compensation pathway and map each arrangement against the proposed 20% net-gains cap, specified-period methodology, governance requirements, and board-determination condition.
• Advisers and fund sponsors should consider inventorying current performance-fee arrangements and identifying clients who could become eligible under the proposed accredited-investor route, without treating the proposal as authority to implement changes before adoption and an applicable compliance date.
• Fund sponsors may wish to assess the operational and disclosure impact of separately reporting performance-based compensation in Forms N-1A, N-2, and N-CSR, including fee-table, prospectus, financial-reporting, and board-material changes.
• Adviser compliance programs should consider reviewing Rule 205-3 eligibility controls, investor-classification procedures, accredited-investor evidence, client look-through analysis, and controls for the related Rule 203A-3, Rule 204-3, and Form ADV amendments.
• Fund boards and advisers may wish to evaluate how performance-fee proposals would affect fiduciary-duty analysis, conflicts management, valuation, incentive alignment, investor communications, and approval documentation.
• Affected firms should consider submitting comments by December 7, 2026, particularly on the 20% cap, specified performance period, governance conditions, disclosure design, accredited-investor eligibility, and transition or compliance-period issues.

What changed

Proposed amendments to Investment Advisers Act Rule 205-3 would create an additional route for registered investment advisers to receive compensation based on capital gains or capital appreciation from registered management investment companies and business development companies, collectively referred to as regulated funds.

Key dates

2026-10-05

The CFTC Chairman announced the proposed Regulation CTX and Regulation CAM framework, and independent industry reporting identified the accompanying action as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to monitor the Federal Register for publication of the CTX/CAM ANPRM and calculate the 60-day comment period from the actual publication date rather than from the Chairman’s October 5 statement.
• Affected exchanges should map each product and customer flow against margin, leverage, financing, custody, settlement, and internal-ledger features to determine whether the activity could fall within the proposed CTX concept.
• State-licensed platforms may wish to assess the strategic and operational consequences of pursuing a CFTC registration pathway instead of relying solely on state money-transmitter licenses.
• Firms may wish to review governance, conflicts-of-interest controls, market surveillance, anti-manipulation controls, customer-asset segregation, operational resilience, disclosure, and recordkeeping capabilities against existing CFTC designated contract market and customer-protection expectations.
• Exchanges and service providers may wish to prepare comments addressing the scope of Section 2(c)(2)(D), the treatment of fully paid transactions, the boundary between spot trading and financed transactions, and the interaction between CAM registration and state licensing.
• Legal and compliance functions may wish to inventory crypto assets and classify them consistently with the referenced joint CFTC-SEC interpretation, while preserving separate analysis for assets that may constitute securities or fall outside the proposed framework.
• U.S.-facing offshore platforms should reassess territorial exposure and customer-access controls because the proposal may create a clearer federal compliance pathway without eliminating potential CFTC jurisdiction over unregistered or fraudulent activity.

What changed

The CFTC is proposing to use its existing Commodity Exchange Act authority, including Section 2(c)(2)(D), to develop a purpose-built framework for crypto asset transactions and markets. Regulation CTX would address retail crypto transactions involving margin, leverage, or financing. Regulation CAM would establish a tailored category of CFTC-registered crypto asset market, apparently as a specialized form of designated contract market, for exchanges offering those transactions.

Key dates

2026-10-05

Chairman Michael S. Selig delivered the remarks at the Fordham Law Blockchain Regulatory Symposium and publicly described the CFTC-SEC crypto-asset classification framework and the shift toward formal crypto market regulation.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory each supported token and document its likely classification under the five-category framework, including the facts supporting treatment as a digital commodity, digital collectible, digital tool, stablecoin, or digital security.
• Firms may wish to reassess whether their products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA section 2(c)(2)(D), including transactions involving margin, leverage, financing, or other arrangements that may require execution on or registration with a CFTC-registered venue.
• Crypto exchanges and trading platforms may wish to assess whether their activities could require DCM registration, a future crypto-asset-market registration, SEC registration, or multiple registrations depending on the asset and service provided.
• Issuers and platforms may wish to preserve evidence concerning network functionality, decentralization, token utility, marketing, purchaser expectations, transfer restrictions, and the separation of a crypto asset from any investment contract.
• Firms may wish to maintain controls addressing customer-asset segregation, custody, conflicts of interest, orderly trading, market surveillance, anti-manipulation, recordkeeping, and AML obligations, because the speech criticizes state money-transmission licensing as insufficient to provide federal market protections.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the CFTC and SEC rulemaking dockets and distinguish the Chairman's personal views, the joint interpretation, proposed rules, and any final rules or effective compliance dates.
• U.S. and offshore groups serving U.S. customers may wish to reassess their territorial and solicitation controls because the policy direction is intended to offer a federal pathway without eliminating the risk of CFTC or SEC jurisdiction over offshore conduct.

What changed

The Chairman described a joint CFTC-SEC interpretation that classifies crypto assets into five categories: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins, and digital securities. The interpretation reportedly provides that digital commodities, digital collectibles, and digital tools are generally not securities; stablecoins may in some circumstances be securities; and digital securities remain subject to the federal securities laws.

Key dates

2026-10-05

CFTC published Release 9307-26 announcing the ANPRM and beginning consultation on a potential framework for crypto asset transactions and crypto asset markets.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to determine whether current or planned products involve retail commodity transactions under CEA Section 2(c)(2)(D), particularly where crypto assets are leveraged, margined, financed, or embedded in derivatives or perpetual-style products.
• Firms should consider mapping their customer-facing crypto activities, order execution arrangements, custody model, financing terms, liquidation processes, conflicts, market-abuse controls, and consumer disclosures against the issues identified in the ANPRM.
• Potential commenters may wish to prepare submissions addressing the scope of CTXs, the proposed treatment of spot versus financed transactions, appropriate registration and supervisory requirements, and the operational feasibility of a crypto asset market category.
• Designated contract markets and prospective applicants should consider assessing whether existing governance, surveillance, listing, liquidity, technology, and risk-management controls could support a future crypto asset market registration framework.
• Firms may wish to preserve evidence of existing controls and industry practices that they regard as effective, because the CFTC is specifically seeking information on crypto-specific contextual guidance and compliance practices.
• Compliance teams should monitor the Federal Register for the ANPRM publication and calculate the 60-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the October 5 press release.
• Firms should continue complying with currently applicable CEA, CFTC, securities, commodities, consumer-protection, AML, and state requirements because the ANPRM does not replace or suspend existing obligations.

What changed

The CFTC has opened a consultation process and is considering future rules referred to in market commentary as Regulation Crypto Asset Transactions (CTX) and Regulation Crypto Asset Markets (CAM). The ANPRM seeks views on preventing abusive practices in crypto asset markets and CTXs, providing crypto-specific context on compliance requirements and industry practices that the Commission considers best practices, and codifying a subcategory of designated contract market registration for crypto asset markets.

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

2026-08-14

The CFPB announced and implemented the cessation of discretionary publication of complaint narratives and associated visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database; previously published narratives remain subject to proactive FOIA Reading Room disclosure.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to continue treating CFPB complaints as supervisory and potential enforcement inputs, notwithstanding the removal of narratives from the public database.
• Firms should consider maintaining controls that support complete, accurate, and timely responses to CFPB complaints, including documented investigation, escalation, remediation, and quality-assurance procedures.
• Complaint-management owners may wish to monitor whether the removal of public narratives affects internal trend analysis and should preserve their own historical complaint records and supporting evidence.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider reviewing previously published complaint narratives concerning the firm in the CFPB FOIA Reading Room and assessing whether existing disclosure, litigation, reputation, and remediation processes remain appropriate.
• Firms should consider retaining evidence supporting complaint responses because complaint information may continue to be shared with prudential regulators, the FTC, and federal or state agencies, and may remain accessible through FOIA.
• Management may wish to avoid interpreting the change as a basis for reducing complaint-governance staffing, monitoring, root-cause analysis, or board and senior-management reporting.

What changed

The CFPB will no longer publish consumer-submitted complaint narratives or related data visualizations in the Consumer Complaint Database. The Bureau characterizes publication of these materials as discretionary rather than statutorily required and states that the materials are unverified, potentially misleading, and not necessarily evidence of legal violations.

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.