Market Abuse / Surveillance in United States

Key dates

2026-08-21

Request for Comment published in the Federal Register.

2026-10-20 Deadline

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

2026-10-05

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-19

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2022-12-23

The SDNY entered the initial consent orders finding Ellison liable on two CFTC fraud counts and Wang liable on one fraud count; the trading and registration bans run from this date.

2026-08-19

The CFTC announced entry of the supplemental consent orders, continued cooperation requirements, and final sanctions resolving its enforcement actions against Ellison and Wang.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to update individual sanctions, registration-eligibility, and trading-eligibility records for Ellison and Wang, using December 23, 2022 as the start date for the applicable bans.
• CFTC registrants should consider screening applicants, employees, directors, officers, consultants, and controlled-account traders against the specific five-year trading prohibitions and registration prohibitions before permitting covered activity.
• Firms should consider obtaining and reviewing the operative supplemental and initial consent orders to determine the precise scope of prohibited trading, registration, and cooperation-related provisions rather than relying only on the press release.
• Digital asset and derivatives firms may wish to retain evidence of due diligence and escalation decisions concerning former FTX or Alameda personnel, counterparties, and beneficial owners.
• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the resolution's treatment of substantial cooperation and the absence of additional monetary relief creates a relevant precedent for internal investigations, voluntary cooperation, document preservation, and regulator-engagement protocols.
• Firms should continue treating the permanent antifraud injunctions under Commodity Exchange Act Section 6(c)(1) and CFTC Regulation 180.1 as conduct restrictions applicable to Ellison and Wang; the resolution does not create a general exemption from those provisions for other market participants.
• Affected firms may wish to coordinate CFTC, SEC, bankruptcy, and criminal-case screening because the CFTC sanctions are distinct from the SEC officer-and-director restrictions and the criminal forfeiture order.

What changed

The supplemental consent orders finalize the CFTC's actions against Ellison and Wang in conjunction with their initial December 23, 2022 consent orders. Ellison is subject to a five-year trading ban and a 10-year registration ban; Wang is subject to a five-year trading ban and an eight-year registration ban. Both must continue cooperating with the Commission and remain permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions charged under the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. The bans run from the date of the initial consent orders rather than from August 19, 2026.

Key dates

2026-08-06

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

2026-10-05 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

TBD (est. late 2026 / 2027)

- Potential adoption of final rules on affiliations requirements, depending on the volume and content of comments and Commission deliberations

TBD (mid‑2026) Deadline

- Federal Register publication date of the NPRM on affiliations (the comment deadline will run for 60 days from this publication; firms should monitor the Federal Register and CFTC website to confirm the exact date)

30 July 2026

- CFTC issues press release announcing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on affiliations among CFTC‑regulated entities and indicates that comments will be accepted for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register

TBD (60 days after Federal Register publication)

- End of public comment period on the proposed amendments to Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55 concerning affiliations and vertically integrated market structures

Suggested considerations

• Identify and map all affiliate relationships involving CFTC‑regulated entities within your group (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, SD/MSP, trading entities, market makers) and document how roles and control relationships could create actual or perceived conflicts of interest.
• Conduct a gap analysis of existing governance, conflicts‑of‑interest, information‑barrier, and supervision frameworks against the anticipated principles‑based expectations for vertically integrated structures under Parts 37, 38, 39 and regulations 1.52 and 1.55.
• Review and, where necessary, enhance board‑level and committee‑level oversight arrangements for affiliated entities to ensure independent decision‑making on listing, clearing, rule enforcement, membership, and client treatment where affiliates are involved.
• Assess current customer risk disclosures, including those required under regulation 1.55 for FCMs, to determine whether affiliate relationships and related conflicts are adequately described, and prepare draft revisions that could be implemented if the new requirements are finalized.
• Engage legal, compliance, and business stakeholders for each affected entity (DCO, DCM, SEF, FCM, trading entity) to prepare a coordinated comment letter to the CFTC explaining operational impacts, potential unintended consequences, and recommendations on specific rule language.

What changed

• - Introduces principles‑based requirements for vertically integrated market structures involving affiliations between derivatives clearing organizations, designated contract markets, swap execution...
• Amends Part 37 to set additional governance, conflict‑management, and structural requirements for swap execution facilities where the SEF is affiliated with an intermediary or trading entity.
• Amends Part 38 to impose enhanced conflict‑of‑interest and self‑regulatory safeguards for designated contract markets that are affiliated with futures commission merchants or proprietary trading...
• Amends Part 39 to clarify and strengthen requirements on derivatives clearing organizations in group structures where the DCO is affiliated with intermediaries or other market participants, including...
• Amends regulation 1.52 (accounts and records; FCM supervisory requirements) to reflect the heightened expectations placed on futures commission merchants that are part of vertically integrated...

Key dates

22 June 2026

- CFTC issues the targeted request for comment on extending standard energy futures to 24/7 trading and on the listing of perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

26 July 2026 Deadline

- Original 30‑day comment deadline for the RFC on 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts (now superseded by the extension)

26 August 2026 Deadline

- Extended deadline for submission of public comments on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard energy futures and perpetual contracts referencing physically delivered or storable energy commodities

Suggested considerations

• Identify and convene an internal cross‑functional working group (trading, risk, operations, compliance, legal, and IT) to assess potential impacts of 24/7 trading and energy perpetual contracts on your firm’s business model and control environment.
• Perform a gap analysis of current trading, clearing, surveillance, margin, and risk management frameworks against the operational and risk expectations articulated in recent CFTC staff advisories and policy statements on 24/7 markets and perpetual contracts.
• Draft and submit a data‑driven comment to the CFTC by 26 August 2026 addressing the RFC questions most relevant to your activities, including empirical analysis of liquidity, price formation, manipulation risk, funding rate behavior, and customer protection in energy derivatives.
• Review and update internal policies and procedures for trade surveillance, market abuse monitoring, and manipulation detection to address continuous 24/7 trading windows and any contemplated use of energy perpetual contracts.
• Assess whether current staffing models, systems support, and incident‑response processes can support 24/7 trading or clearing operations, and document enhancements or mitigations that would be needed to maintain operational resilience.

What changed

• - The CFTC has extended the comment deadline on the RFC regarding 24/7 trading of standard futures contracts and perpetual contracts in energy markets by 30 days, moving the due date to 26 August...
• The RFC focuses on the extension of standard futures contracts, including energy futures, to a 24/7 trading schedule while keeping fixed expirations but allowing potentially material economic changes...
• The RFC separately focuses on the listing and regulation of perpetual contracts that reference physically delivered or storable energy commodities, such as crude oil, and that have no fixed...
• The Commission has added additional questions to the original RFC to probe market integrity, price formation, operational resilience, customer protections, and risk management implications of 24/7...
• The RFC builds on and is informed by the CFTC’s May 29, 2026 coordinated actions on perpetual contracts and 24/7 trading in digital commodities, including the Policy Statement on perpetual contracts,...

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

2011-07-22

CFTC adopted Part 20 as a temporary large trader reporting framework for physical commodity swaps.

2026-07-21

Final order effective date; routine Part 20 reporting requirements become ineffective and unenforceable.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that Part 20 daily and event-based filing workflows are disabled or archived as of the effective date.
• Firms may wish to retain the underlying books, records, and futures-equivalent conversion methodologies required for special-call production under § 20.6 and related retained provisions.
• Operational teams may wish to map any legacy Part 20 controls to SDR, Parts 43 and 45, and Part 150 processes to avoid duplicate reporting.
• Firms may wish to review document retention and response procedures so that special-call requests can be answered promptly if the CFTC seeks underlying records.
• Compliance functions may wish to update internal regulatory inventories and policies to reflect that Part 20 routine reporting is no longer enforceable, while recordkeeping obligations remain.

What changed

The order renders the routine position-reporting requirements of Part 20 ineffective and unenforceable, so clearing organizations, clearing members, and swap dealers are no longer required to file the daily and event-based reports previously required under §§ 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, and related reporting provisions. The CFTC is retaining, under § 20.9(b), the recordkeeping and special-call provisions, including the obligation to keep records of paired swaps and swaptions and the methods used to convert positions into futures equivalents and to produce those records on request.

Key dates

2025-07-25

CME requested exemptive relief from CFTC regulation 41.25(c)

2026-07-10

SEC granted CME exemptive relief, subject to heightened listing standards

2026-07-15

CME submitted an updated request to the CFTC incorporating the SEC-conditioned listing standards

2026-07-16

CFTC order became applicable

2026-07-21

Federal Register publication date of the CFTC order

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether any proposed or existing single-stock futures products rely on opening-price settlement and whether the CME order changes product design assumptions.
• Firms may wish to confirm that the relevant underlying securities satisfy CME’s heightened liquidity and market-capitalization listing standards before marketing, clearing, or supporting these contracts.
• Market surveillance teams may wish to assess whether surveillance procedures need updating for closing-price settlement mechanics and end-of-day manipulation risks.
• Operational teams may wish to align settlement, market data, and surveillance processes with the product’s closing-price final settlement methodology.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to track the separate SEC and CFTC conditions, since CME’s ability to proceed depends on both regimes.

What changed

The order exempts CME from CFTC regulation 41.25(c), which generally requires the final settlement price of a cash-settled security futures product to fairly reflect the opening price of the underlying security or securities. The relief is granted under regulation 41.25(e), which permits exemptions on specified terms and conditions when consistent with the public interest and the protection of customers.

Key dates

2026 (TBD)

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

13 May 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

23 June 2026

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

TBD (2026–2027)

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

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

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

Suggested considerations

• Review and update state‑law risk assessments for all CFTC‑regulated DCM activities, with a specific focus on gambling, consumer‑protection, tax, and licensing regimes in Kentucky and other active states.
• Conduct a targeted legal analysis of whether existing or planned event‑based or prediction‑market contracts might be recharacterised as gambling under relevant state laws, and document the basis for treating them as CFTC‑regulated derivatives.
• Map all customer‑facing operations, servers, marketing, and on‑the‑ground presence in Kentucky and other contentious states, and evaluate whether operational changes (e.g. geofencing, revised onboarding flows) are warranted pending judicial outcomes.
• Engage external counsel to monitor *CFTC v. Kentucky* and related state and federal cases, and establish an internal escalation protocol so that material developments (e.g. injunctions, adverse rulings) trigger prompt compliance and product‑governance review.
• Update board and senior management reporting to include a standing item on state–federal jurisdictional conflicts affecting prediction markets, highlighting litigation exposure, revenue at risk, and contingency plans.

What changed

• - The CFTC has initiated federal litigation against Kentucky seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the state from enforcing civil actions and special transaction fees against...
• Kentucky has filed civil enforcement actions in state court against CFTC‑regulated DCMs, characterising their event contracts as illegal gambling and seeking substantial monetary penalties.
• Kentucky has adopted a new “special transaction fee” (functionally an excise or levy) specifically targeting transactions on CFTC‑regulated DCMs, intended to incentivise these platforms to cease...
• The CFTC is explicitly framing Kentucky’s actions as an impermissible interference with Congress’s federal preemption framework and the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over futures, options, and swaps,...
• The Commission is building a broader litigation strategy, noting parallel proceedings against Minnesota, Illinois, and Rhode Island and amicus participation before the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and...

Key dates

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

2026-06-11

SEC open meeting at which Chairman Atkins discussed the proposed rescission of Rules 611 and 610(e)

2026-08-10 Deadline

Comment period deadline if measured as 60 days after the June 11, 2026 Federal Register publication date reflected in the SEC materials

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory policies, procedures, surveillance logic, and supervisory manuals that reference Rule 611, Rule 610(e), or related Rule 600 definitions.
• Broker-dealers and ATS operators may wish to assess whether current routing and execution-quality models assume protected-quotation routing obligations that could change if the proposal is finalized.
• Market structure and legal teams may want to map client disclosures, best execution policies, and venue-selection standards that rely on the current trade-through regime.
• Surveillance and technology teams may wish to test how lock/cross alerts, protected-quote checks, and trade-through exception logic would operate under a rescinded Rule 611/610(e) framework.
• Firms may want to monitor the Federal Register publication and comment process, since the proposal states comments would be due 60 days after publication.

What changed

The publication is not a final rule; it is a policy statement accompanying a proposed rulemaking. The SEC said the proposal would rescind Rule 611, rescind Rule 610(e), remove related defined terms in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, and make conforming amendments to related provisions. Rule 611 currently requires trading centers to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs of protected quotations in NMS stocks, subject to exceptions, and Rule 610(e) addresses locking and crossing quotations.

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

10 June 2024

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

06 February 2026

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

12 March 2026

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

30 April 2026 Deadline

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

10 June 2026

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

Suggested considerations

• Map and inventory all existing and planned event contracts listed or cleared through CFTC‑registered entities to identify those that may “involve” terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or conduct unlawful under federal or state law.
• Conduct a legal analysis of how the proposed definitions of “involve” and “gaming” would apply to your current product set, particularly sports, political, entertainment, and other contest‑based contracts, and document the rationale.
• Review and update internal product‑approval and new‑contract listing procedures to incorporate the proposed 90‑day CFTC review process, including timelines, documentation standards, and decision gates tied to Section 5c(c)(5)(C).
• Develop or update written policies and controls to ensure that contracts potentially involving enumerated activities are escalated for legal, compliance, and regulatory‑affairs review before submission to the CFTC.
• For DCMs and SEFs, enhance product‑submission templates to clearly address the proposed Appendix F public‑interest factors, including description of the underlying event, potential for unlawful activity, market integrity risks, and consumer‑protection considerations.

What changed

• - The NPRM would amend CFTC Regulation 40.11 to embed a formal analytical framework for assessing whether an event contract involves an activity enumerated in CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C) and, if so,...
• The NPRM would add Appendix F to Part 40 to set out the factors, tests, and procedural steps the Commission will apply when reviewing specific event contracts referencing enumerated activities.
• The proposal would define key statutory terms, including at minimum “involve” and “gaming,” to clarify when an event contract is considered to touch an enumerated activity under CEA Section...
• The NPRM would establish a 90‑day review process for the Commission to evaluate event contracts that may implicate enumerated activities, including procedural protections such as notice, opportunity...
• The proposed framework would codify public‑interest factors the Commission will apply when deciding whether a particular contract involving an enumerated activity is contrary to the public interest...

Key dates

1998

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

21 May 2026

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

03 June 2026

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

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

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

29 May 2026

– CFTC issues the policy statement on listing of perpetual contracts and an order permitting a DCM to list a perpetual futures contract referencing the spot price of bitcoin

TBD (upon Federal Register publication)

– Policy statement is published in the Federal Register; from that point, DCMs and market participants can treat it as the Commission’s formal articulation of expectations for perpetual contract listings

Suggested considerations

• DCMs intending to list new perpetual contracts must route proposed products that are not clearly covered by the existing bitcoin perpetual order through a Commission Regulation 40.3 case‑by‑case review process, and should build internal product‑approval workflows accordingly.
• DCMs must enhance their surveillance, market‑integrity, and risk‑management frameworks for perpetual contracts, including monitoring of the referenced spot market, funding‑rate or cash‑flow mechanisms, and potential manipulation vectors stemming from the underlying asset.
• FCMs and clearing members should identify client exposure to perpetual futures, review margin models and risk limits, and ensure that risk disclosures, product descriptions, and account‑opening documentation accurately reflect the regulatory status and unique risks of perpetual futures.
• Compliance teams at DCMs and intermediaries should update policies and procedures for new product approval, explicitly flagging perpetual contracts as requiring heightened CFTC engagement and governance review before listing.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should brief senior management and boards on the policy statement, emphasizing that future perpetual contracts on non‑bitcoin or non‑covered asset classes carry additional regulatory scrutiny and potential delays due to the required case‑by‑case review.

What changed

• - The CFTC formally recognizes that perpetual contracts may be listed as “futures contracts” by DCMs, as evidenced by an order permitting listing of a perpetual contract referencing the spot price of...
• The Commission states that perpetual contracts have “unique characteristics” that vary by underlying asset, and therefore they will not be treated as a homogeneous product category for listing...
• For perpetual contracts referencing asset classes not covered by the contemporaneous bitcoin perpetual order, the Commission indicates that the appropriate path is a case‑by‑case review under CFTC...
• The policy statement signals that DCMs should expect closer CFTC scrutiny of perpetual contract design, including settlement mechanisms and underlying market integrity, before new perpetuals (beyond...
• The statement confirms that it is a policy statement rather than a binding rule, but it effectively sets Commission expectations for how DCMs must approach the listing of perpetual contracts going...

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

September 4, 2024

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Matos and Aureus

April 13, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida enters consent order resolving claims against Matos (action against Aureus remains pending).[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Suggested considerations

• Registration verification: Confirm CPO/AP registration status via NFA BASIC (https://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/) before solicitations; prohibit any implication of CFTC "licensing" without proof.
• Marketing review: Audit all promotional materials for false claims (e.g., seals, signatures, fictitious licenses); require pre-approval by compliance.
• Fund segregation: Implement strict controls on pool participant funds, including third-party custody and daily reconciliations to prevent misappropriation.
• Controlling person policies: Document oversight duties for principals; conduct gap analyses for personal liability under CEA Section 13(b).
• Training: Mandatory annual training on CEA fraud provisions, with attestations.

What changed

• This is an enforcement action, not a rulemaking, so there are no new regulatory changes or requirements.
• Fraud in futures trading (CEA Section 6(c), 7 U.S.C. § 9).
• Fraud by associated persons of commodity pool operators (CPAs) (CFTC Regulation 4.41(a)(1), 17 C.F.R. § 4.41).
• Acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator (CPO) (CEA Section 4m(1), 7 U.S.C. § 6m).
• Controlling person liability for firm violations (CEA Section 13(b), 7 U.S.C. § 13c(b)), as applied to Matos over Aureus.[https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9212-26]

Key dates

March 2026

- Arizona files 20-count misdemeanor criminal case against prediction market platform Kalshi, alleging illegal gambling and election betting

Week prior to April 2, 2026

- CFTC files complaints (with DOJ involvement) against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois seeking declaratory judgments on exclusive jurisdiction and permanent injunctions

April 9, 2026

- CFTC files motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to halt state enforcement

April 10, 2026

- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona grants CFTC's requested TRO, barring Arizona from pursuing criminal charges against CFTC-regulated DCMs. (Note: Ongoing litigation timelines for preliminary injunction and permanent relief remain undetermined.)

Suggested considerations

• Monitor federal court dockets in the District of Arizona for updates on the preliminary injunction hearing and broader cases against other states.
• Document compliance with CFTC regulations for event contracts to demonstrate adherence to federal law in any state inquiries.
• Review state exposure for prediction market activities, pausing non-federal compliant operations in high-risk states like Arizona pending resolution.
• Enhance legal consultations on federal preemption defenses for ongoing or potential state enforcement. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9211-26

What changed

There are no new regulatory requirements or changes imposed by this publication; instead, it documents a court-granted TRO that temporarily blocks Arizona's enforcement of state criminal and gambling laws against CFTC-regulated prediction markets, affirming CFTC's claimed exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts via federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Key dates

May 2025

- Arizona issued initial cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi

December 2025

- Connecticut's Department of Consumer Protection issued cease-and-desist letters to Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood Derivatives

March 2026

- Arizona filed criminal charges against Kalshi executives

April 2, 2026

- CFTC and DOJ filed coordinated lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois

April 9, 2026

- CFTC filed motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Suggested considerations

• *For CFTC-Registered Prediction Market Operators:
• *Immediate Compliance Monitoring: Continue operating under CFTC registration while monitoring court proceedings; do not unilaterally cease operations in affected states pending injunction decisions.
• *Legal Coordination: Engage counsel to coordinate with CFTC enforcement efforts and provide evidence of compliance with federal registration requirements.
• *Documentation Preservation: Maintain comprehensive records demonstrating compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations to support the federal preemption argument.
• *State-Level Engagement: Respond to any outstanding cease-and-desist letters through counsel; do not ignore state enforcement communications, but assert federal preemption defenses.

What changed

• The CFTC's enforcement action establishes several critical legal positions:
• Federal Preemption Doctrine: The CFTC asserts that the Commodity Exchange Act grants it exclusive jurisdiction over event contracts and prediction markets, rendering state gambling laws inapplicable...
• Scope of Federal Authority: The CFTC claims "clear and longstanding exclusive jurisdiction" to regulate event contracts, positioning prediction markets as commodities derivatives rather than gambling...
• Injunctive Relief Sought: The CFTC is requesting both preliminary injunctions (immediate relief) and permanent injunctions (ongoing prohibition) preventing states from enforcing preempted laws...
• Declaratory Judgment Framework: The lawsuits seek court declarations that state gambling laws are "unconstitutional and invalid" if applied to prediction markets.

Key dates

March 2026

- Prior Director Margaret Ryan resigned after approximately six months in the role amid reported disagreements on enforcement priorities

May 4, 2026

- David Woodcock assumes role as Director of the Division of Enforcement, succeeding Acting Director Sam Waldon

Suggested considerations

• Review current exposure to SEC enforcement matters, particularly in financial reporting, accounting, and disclosures, in light of Woodcock's expertise.
• Monitor SEC announcements post-May 4, 2026, for signals on evolving priorities, such as reduced crypto focus or enhanced fraud detection.
• Enhance internal compliance training on investor protection and market integrity cases, aligning with the stated "course correction."
• Engage external counsel familiar with Woodcock's tenure (e.g., Gibson Dunn alumni or Fort Worth Regional Office veterans) for strategic advice.

What changed

There are no direct regulatory changes or new requirements in this announcement; it is a personnel appointment rather than a rulemaking or policy shift. However, SEC Chairman Atkins highlighted the Division's ongoing "course correction" to prioritize cases aligned with congressional intent for meaningful investor protection and market integrity, moving away from prior Gensler-era emphases. Woodcock's background in securities enforcement, financial reporting, and audit task forces suggests potential heightened scrutiny in those areas, though no specific mandates are outlined.

Key dates

October 1, 2024

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

January 20, 2025

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

April 21, 2025

- Paul Atkins sworn in as SEC Chair

September 30, 2025

- End of FY 2025; period covered by the announcement

Suggested considerations

• Review and strengthen controls around core risks: insider trading, offering fraud, fiduciary duties, and retail investor disclosures.
• Self-assess exposure to legacy Gensler-era cases, especially crypto-related, anticipating potential dismissals or settlements.
• Enhance self-reporting, remediation, and cooperation protocols, as SEC continues to credit these in resolutions.
• Monitor SEC task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud for emerging priorities.
• Update firm-wide risk assessments to deprioritize novel theories (e.g., shadow trading) in favor of traditional misconduct.

What changed

• This is not a rulemaking publication introducing new regulations but an annual enforcement summary reflecting operational shifts rather than formal regulatory changes. Key developments include:
• Enforcement volume decline: 313 standalone actions (down 27% from 431 in FY 2024), with only 4 new actions against public companies post-January 20, 2025 (93% of 56 public company cases initiated...
• Monetary penalties reduced: $808 million in settlements (lowest since 2012) and record-low $108 million in disgorgement.
• Policy shifts: Dismissals of high-profile crypto cases (e.g., Coinbase, Binance); new task forces on crypto and cross-border fraud; emphasis on "bread-and-butter" cases like offering fraud, insider...
• Leadership and staffing impact: Post-Gensler transition (Uyeda as Acting Chair, Atkins sworn in April 2025); ~15% Enforcement staff reduction; record Q1 actions (200 total, October-December 2024)...

Key dates

March 31, 2026

Speech delivery; Outlines priorities and previews new cooperation policy advisory

Soon after March 31, 2026

New cooperation policy advisory issuance; Expected imminently; firms should monitor CFTC site for formal release

Suggested considerations

• Enhance surveillance: Implement robust monitoring for insider trading in prediction markets, manipulation in energy, disruptive trading, retail fraud signals, and AML/KYC red flags; prioritize misappropriated nonpublic info detection.
• Update policies: Revise insider trading protocols to align with CEA anti-fraud provisions; train staff on prediction market risks (debunking "no insider laws apply" myth).
• Strengthen cooperation readiness: Develop self-reporting/escalation processes, remediation plans, and documentation for declination credit under forthcoming policy; review prior CFTC advisories (e.g., 2025 mitigation matrix).
• Conduct gap analysis: Audit AML/KYC programs for willful violations; assess exposure in priority markets (energy, prediction/crypto, retail).
• Monitor updates: Subscribe to CFTC Press Room for cooperation advisory and related actions (e.g., Feb 25, 2026 Prediction Markets Advisory post-enforcement cases: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9185-26).

What changed

• - End of "regulation by enforcement": CFTC Enforcement will focus solely on policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation under existing CEA anti-fraud provisions, avoiding policy-setting via enforcement...
• Five explicit enforcement priorities: 1. Insider trading, with strong emphasis on prediction markets (e.g., misappropriation of nonpublic information violates CEA). 2.
• New cooperation policy advisory (forthcoming soon): Includes "significant changes" to declination policy, building on prior frameworks like mitigation-credit matrices and safe harbors for...

Key dates

March 26, 2024

CFTC files civil enforcement complaint; against Peken Global and affiliates for CEA violations (Press Release 8884-24)

July 28, 2025

FINTRAC imposes $19,552,000 penalty; on Peken Global (KuCoin) for Canadian AML failures (failure to register, report large virtual currency transactions, submit suspicious transaction reports)

March 30, 2026

U.S. District Court enters consent order; imposing injunction, penalty, and dismissals.[1 from provided content]

Suggested considerations

• Verify Registration Status: Foreign platforms must confirm CFTC registration as FBOT if offering direct access to U.S. participants for futures/swaps/derivatives; implement geo-blocks or KYC to exclude U.S. users.[1 from provided content]
• Restrict U.S. Access: Proactively block U.S. IP addresses, require attestations of non-U.S. residency, and monitor for circumvention.
• Pay Penalties: Peken Global must remit $500,000 civil penalty per court order.
• Enhance Supervision/CIP: Implement effective customer identification programs (CIP) and supervision of activities, avoiding off-exchange leveraged retail commodity transactions.
• Monitor Affiliates: Dissolved entities (e.g., Mek Global, PhoenixFin) or non-operational parents (Flashdot) should ensure no residual U.S. exposure.

What changed

• - Permanent Injunction: Peken Global is barred from future violations, specifically prohibiting U.S. participants from direct trading on its electronic trading and order-matching system without FBOT...
• Civil Penalty: $500,000 payment required; no disgorgement sought due to cooperation in CFTC investigation and related criminal proceedings (United States v. Flashdot Limited, et al., No.
• Dismissals: Voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Mek Global Limited, PhoenixFin PTE Ltd., and Flashdot Limited; dismissal of CFTC complaint counts II-V against Peken Global,...
• No new broad regulatory rules, but underscores CEA violations for off-exchange commodity futures, leveraged retail transactions, and unregistered FCM/SEF/DCM operations.

Key dates

TBD (post

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

Rule 15c2-11 requires broker-dealers to review current, publicly available issuer information (e.g., via EDGAR or issuer websites) before publishing or submitting quotations for OTC securities, with exceptions like piggybacking limited to scenarios with one-way priced quotes, post-trading suspension restrictions (60 days), and time-bound quoting for shell companies (18 months).

Key dates

April 26, 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for public comments (45 days after Federal Register publication; ANPRM published March 12, 2026). Comments via CFTC Public Comments Portal. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9194-26)

Suggested considerations

• Submit comments: Affected parties should prepare and file written comments within 45 days via the CFTC Public Comments Portal, addressing ANPRM questions on CEA principles, prohibited contracts, and costs/benefits.
• Monitor developments: Track Federal Register publication, related litigation (e.g., state challenges to CFTC jurisdiction), and CFTC Enforcement Division advisories. (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26)

What changed

• This ANPRM proposes no immediate changes, as it is an early-stage consultation seeking input on:
• Application of Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) core principles and existing CFTC regulations to prediction markets.
• Criteria for prohibiting event contracts deemed contrary to the public interest (e.g., potentially sports, politics, or sensitive topics like government employee outcomes).
• Cost-benefit analyses for regulating prediction markets. It builds on prior actions, including withdrawal of a 2024 proposed ban on certain event contracts and a 2025 staff advisory on sports-related...

Key dates

June 2025

Paul Hayeck began as acting director; (historical context; Hayeck transitions to Complex Fraud Task Force chief)

March 02, 2026

Announcement and effective start of David I. Miller as Director of Enforcement

Suggested considerations

• Review internal controls for fraud, manipulation, and abusive trading, prioritizing digital asset activities (e.g., derivatives, prediction markets).
• Assess exposure from Miller's past cases (e.g., BitMEX, ICOs, Ooki DAO) and strengthen defenses against similar enforcement theories.
• Monitor CFTC enforcement dockets and coordinate with counsel experienced in CFTC/SEC/DOJ matters for upcoming investigations.
• Update training on "core" violations (fraud, abuse, manipulation) to align with stated enforcement focus.

What changed

This announcement introduces no new regulatory rules, requirements, or statutory changes; it is a personnel appointment reshaping enforcement leadership. Chairman Selig highlighted Miller's role in refocusing the Enforcement Division on "policing fraud, abuse, and manipulation rather than setting policy," potentially signaling reduced pursuit of novel legal theories and a narrower enforcement scope.

Key dates

May 2025

- First enforcement case (political candidate trading incident) identified and resolved by Kalshi

February 25, 2026

- CFTC Enforcement Division issues Prediction Markets Advisory

August

September 2025; - Second enforcement case (YouTube editor trading incident) identified and resolved by Kalshi

No specific future deadlines Deadline

- Advisory does not establish new compliance deadlines; it clarifies existing obligations

Suggested considerations

• *For Prediction Market Platforms (DCMs):
• *Implement robust surveillance systems to detect trading by individuals with material nonpublic information or direct/indirect influence over contract outcomes
• *Establish clear trading prohibitions in exchange rules addressing:
• Trading in contracts where the trader has influence over the outcome
• Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through breach of duty

What changed

• The advisory does not introduce new rules but rather reaffirms existing CFTC enforcement authority over prediction markets and clarifies the scope of prohibited conduct:
• Insider trading/misappropriation: Trading based on material nonpublic information obtained through a breach of fiduciary duty or pre-existing duty of trust and confidence (Section 6(c)(1) of the...
• Fraud and manipulation: Use of manipulative schemes or artifices to defraud, including trading in contracts where the trader has direct or indirect influence over the outcome
• Pre-arranged and wash trades: Noncompetitive trading under Section 4c(a)(1) and (2)(A) and Regulation 1.38(a)
• Disruptive trading practices: Violations under Section 4c(a)(5) The advisory demonstrates the CFTC's commitment to enforce these prohibitions on prediction market platforms, reinforcing that...

Key dates

February 24, 2026

- Updates to Enforcement Manual announced and effective; last major revision was 2017, with annual reviews planned going forward

Four weeks from Wells notice receipt Deadline

- Standard deadline for Wells submissions

Four weeks from Wells submission receipt

- Scheduling of Wells meetings with senior leadership

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

June 10, 2024

- Publication of withdrawn "Event Contracts" Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

September 30, 2025

- Issuance of withdrawn CFTC Staff Letter 25-36 (Sports Event Contracts Advisory)

February 4, 2026

- CFTC announcement withdrawing both the 2024 proposal and 2025 advisory; no final rules from 2024 proposal; new rulemaking to advance

Suggested considerations

• Review and disregard prior compliance programs built around the 2024 proposal or 2025 advisory (e.g., cease preparations for prohibiting political/sports contracts).
• Monitor CFTC docket for new event contracts rulemaking notice and provide comments during any future consultation period.
• Assess current offerings for event contracts under existing Commodity Exchange Act prohibitions (e.g., gaming, manipulation); document reliance on CFTC's innovation stance pending new rules.
• Evaluate litigation exposure, especially state gaming regulator actions; prepare for potential CFTC intervention asserting exclusive jurisdiction.
• No immediate prohibitions lifted or mandates imposed—continue operating within current CEA framework (e.g., anti-fraud, market integrity).

What changed

• - Withdrawal of the June 10, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled “Event Contracts,” which proposed prohibiting political event contracts as contrary to public interest (e.g., akin to war or...
• Withdrawal of CFTC Staff Letter 25-36 (issued Sept. 30, 2025), a Staff Advisory cautioning designated contract markets (DCMs) against offering sports event contracts due to litigation risks and state...
• Commitment to new event contracts rulemaking based on a "rational and coherent interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act" to promote innovation, with clear standards for prediction markets; CFTC...

Key dates

September 2019

- CFTC enforcement action filed against Smith and Nowak

December 2021

- CFTC complaint filed against Miller and Omerta Capital; DOJ criminal charges filed

December 2022

- CFTC complaint amended against Miller and Omerta Capital

August 2023

- Smith and Nowak sentenced to prison (criminal case)

June 2024

- Miller sentenced to prison (criminal case)

Suggested considerations

• *For Registered Futures Firms and Banks:
• trade and post-trade compliance controls
• *For Commodity Pool Operators and Investment Advisors:
• by-jurisdiction licensing analyses before soliciting investors
• *For All Market Participants:

What changed

The enforcement actions establish precedent in three critical areas: Market Manipulation (Spoofing): The CFTC secured consent orders against precious metals futures traders for spoofing—placing and canceling orders to create false market impressions. The orders impose three-year and six-month trading bans and require cease-and-desist compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act's spoofing prohibition. Misappropriation and Fictitious Trading: The CFTC obtained permanent injunctive relief requiring disgorgement of unlawful gains ($135,788) plus civil penalties ($200,000), with 18-month trading...

Key dates

January 6, 2026

- Paul H. Tzur joins SEC as Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement.

January 12, 2026

- SEC announces appointments of Paul Tzur and David Morrell as Deputy Directors.

Suggested considerations

• Review and update internal protocols for SEC investigations to align with centralized reporting structures, anticipating uniform standards across regions.
• Train legal/compliance staff on refined Wells process (e.g., prepare for four-week timelines and evidence access requests).
• Monitor upcoming SEC communications for Enforcement Director Judge Margaret Ryan's guidance on fraud-focused priorities.
• Assess current or potential matters for earlier engagement with Deputy Directors on case theories and resolutions.

What changed

• This announcement reflects structural reforms rather than new substantive regulations:
• Replacement of Regional Directors with Deputy Directors, centralizing reporting from local offices (e.g., Boston, Fort Worth, Atlanta) and specialized units directly to headquarters-led Deputy...
• Enhanced supervision of enforcement decisions, aiming for consistency and reduced regional variations in handling investigations.
• Complements parallel Wells process reforms under Chairman Paul Atkins, including a baseline four-week response period, greater access to evidence, and senior-level meetings for transparency and due...

Key dates

April 4, 2025

- CFTC Staff Letter 25-09 issued, establishing no-action position on PTMMM requirement

September 12, 2025

- CFTC issued further amended exemptive order permitting JSCC to clear interest rate swaps

September 24, 2025

- CFTC issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (comment period opened)

October 24, 2025 Deadline

- Comment period deadline (ISDA and SIFMA submitted comments on this date)

December 18, 2025

- CFTC approved final rule (subject to pre-publication technical corrections)

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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