Investment Management in United States

Key dates

2025-01-01

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

2026-08-27

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-21

Proposal published in the Federal Register for public comment.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Written comments are due 45 days after Federal Register publication.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-18

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

2026-03-17

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-03-17

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

2026-08-18

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-18

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-14

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

2020-12-01

Approximate beginning of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

2025-06-30

Approximate end of the conduct period alleged by the SEC.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-14

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

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 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.

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

May 2026

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

05 August 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

16 March 2026

- Judge Margaret A. Ryan’s resignation as Director of the Division of Enforcement becomes effective, and Principal Deputy Director Sam Waldon is named Acting Director of Enforcement

Early April 2026

- David Woodcock is named permanent Director of the Division of Enforcement, succeeding Judge Ryan

31 July 2026

- Principal Deputy Director of Enforcement Sam Waldon departs the SEC after more than 14 years at the agency; his successor assumes the role of Principal Deputy Director

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-21

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

2026-09-21 Deadline

Comment period closes

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-16

SEC proposed Regulation E-Delivery

2026-09-21 Deadline

Public comments due on the proposal

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-16

SEC issued the proposal for Regulation E-Delivery

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date for the proposing release

2026-09-21 Deadline

Deadline for public comments on the proposal

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

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

TBD Deadline

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

TBD (post‑adoption) Deadline

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

TBD (post‑effective date) Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

20 March 2023

- SEC Office of Municipal Securities updates the Registration of Municipal Advisors FAQs to add guidance on completion and timelines for Form MA, Form MA‑I, and Form MA‑NR, setting baseline expectations for registration filings and updates

22 January 2025

- SEC updates the Registration of Municipal Advisors FAQs to provide additional staff views for public finance market participants on when their activities require municipal advisor registration

10 July 2026

- SEC Office of Municipal Securities issues the latest update to the Registration of Municipal Advisors FAQs, adding clarifications for P3 participants, remote work office disclosures on Forms MA/MA‑I, recordkeeping scope for pricing advice, and a new FAQ on how to register as a municipal advisor

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026 (TBD)

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

13 May 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (post‑comment, est. 2027 or later) Deadline

– Potential SEC adoption of a final rule rescinding Rules 611 and 610(e), including any specified effective and compliance dates

TBD (proposal publication date in Federal Register)

– SEC proposal to rescind Regulation NMS Rules 611 and 610(e) is published, starting the public comment period

TBD (typically 30–60 days after Federal Register publication)

– End of the initial public comment period on the proposal to rescind Rules 611 and 610(e)

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

11 June 2026

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

TBD (30 days after Federal Register publication)

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

TBD (after comment review)

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-06-11

SEC issued the proposed amendments to rescind Regulation NMS Rule 611 and Rule 610(e)

2026-08-17 Deadline

Public comment period closes according to contemporaneous SEC practitioner coverage of the proposal

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether routing, best-execution, and market access controls rely on the continued operation of Rule 611 protected quotation logic.
• Firms may wish to assess whether any surveillance, OMS/EMS configuration, or venue selection logic should be updated if trade-through and locked/crossed market protections are rescinded.
• Market participants may wish to monitor the SEC comment process and any conforming amendments that could affect execution quality metrics, routing obligations, and exchange rulebooks.

What changed

The SEC proposes to rescind Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, which currently prohibits trade-throughs in national market system stocks. It also proposes to rescind Rule 610(e), which restricts locking and crossing quotations in national market system stocks. The proposal would additionally remove related defined terms in Rule 600 and make conforming changes to related provisions.

Key dates

TBD (2026)

– SEC press release date and effective date of the joint data standards rule (exact calendar date to be taken from the final rule and press release)

TBD (2026–2027)

– SEC and other participating agencies publish technical specifications, schemas, and implementation guides for specific forms and data collections that will transition to the joint data standards

TBD (2027 and beyond) Deadline

– Phased compliance dates for particular reporting forms and regimes as each agency completes its implementation plans under the FDTA; individual forms will have distinct first‑applicable reporting periods and transition windows

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

1998

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

21 May 2026

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

03 June 2026

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

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

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

02 July 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting public comments on the Draft Strategic Plan

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 or later)

– Potential SEC adoption of a final rule rescinding, modifying, or replacing the climate‑related disclosure rules, subject to consideration of comments and potential legal challenges

29 May 2026

– SEC issues press release and proposing release announcing the proposed rescission of the climate‑related disclosure rules and opens the public consultation

TBD (comment deadline, est. mid‑2026) Deadline

– Public comment period expected to close a set number of days (typically 30–60) after publication of the proposing release in the Federal Register; the precise date will be specified in the Federal Register notice

TBD (effective date, est. 30–60 days after Federal Register publication of final rule) Deadline

– Effective date of any final rescission; compliance with the existing climate rules would continue to be required for reporting periods and filings before this date

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

Late May 2026

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

Friday, Late May 2026

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

28 May 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

19 May 2026

- CFTC Division of Enforcement issues the new cooperation advisory, which supersedes all prior cooperation and self‑reporting advisories and becomes the operative policy for ongoing and future enforcement matters

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD 2026

– Federal Register publication of the SEC proposing release “SEC Proposes Transformative Reforms to Help Public Companies Conduct Registered Offerings and Simplify Reporting Requirements,” starting the formal comment period

TBD 2026 Deadline

– End of SEC comment period (typically 30–60 days after Federal Register publication; exact deadline to be confirmed in the notice)

TBD (est. late 2026 or 2027)

– Potential adoption of final rules by the SEC, following review of comment letters

TBD (effective date)

– Final rules become effective on a date specified in the adopting release (often 30–60 days after Federal Register publication of the final rules)

TBD (compliance date / transition period) Deadline

– Staggered or delayed compliance dates for specific form and disclosure changes, expected to give registrants time to update registration statements, shelf programs, and periodic reporting templates

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

18 May 2026

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

TBD

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

Nov. 17, 2027 Deadline

Extended compliance date for Names Rule-related Form N-PORT reporting (fund groups ≥$10B AUM); ; related relief via separate SEC action

May 18, 2028 Deadline

Extended compliance date for Names Rule-related Form N-PORT reporting (fund groups <$10B AUM)

60 days after Federal Register publication (est. mid

2026) - End of public comment period; ; proposing release to be published soon after April 2026 announcement

TBD (post

comment, est. late 2026/early 2027) - Adoption of final amendments; , subject to notice-and-comment revisions

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

April 15, 2026

- SEC issues conditional exemptive order and approves FICC's proposed rule change

Post

April 15, 2026 (prior to Federal Register publication); - Exemptive order and rule approval made available on SEC.gov; related CFTC order on CFTC.gov

TBD (after Federal Register publication) Deadline

- Official effective date upon Federal Register publication (no specific comment or implementation deadline specified in announcement)

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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