Senior Managers / Governance in United States

Key dates

2026-08-27

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-27

The OCC issued Bulletin 2026-42 announcing the notice of proposed rulemaking.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open and recently closed MRAs arising from alleged legal or regulatory violations and assess whether each matter would satisfy one or more of the proposed substantive-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider strengthening documentation linking examination findings to duration, frequency, systemic characteristics, financial-condition effects, books-and-records impacts, customer harm, restitution, or insider misconduct.
• Banks may wish to separate remediation plans for legal or regulatory violations from broader supervisory enhancements, because the proposal would limit examiner authority over technical violations to directing correction of the violation itself.
• Compliance and examination-management teams should consider preparing comments or internal positions on the undefined terms more than minimal, systemic, pattern, and meaningfully impact, including how those terms should be applied to isolated but high-severity events.
• Management may wish to review escalation thresholds so that technical-violation treatment does not result in under-escalation of recurring findings that could become systemic or satisfy the proposed substantive criteria.
• Banks should monitor the Federal Register publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking and calculate the 30-day comment period from that publication date rather than from the OCC bulletin date.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to assess this proposal alongside the OCC-FDIC final rule and related supervisory reforms concerning unsafe or unsound practices, MRAs, and material financial risk, while treating the proposal as nonfinal until adopted.

What changed

The proposed rule would provide that the OCC may issue an MRA for a violation of a banking or banking-related law or regulation only when the violation is substantive. A violation would be substantive when its nature, duration, frequency, or severity could meaningfully impact the bank or its customers, and at least one of five criteria would need to be met: the violation is systemic or constitutes a pattern; it has had or could reasonably be expected to have a direct, clear, predictable, and more than minimal impact on the bank's financial condition; it has had or could reasonably be expected...

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC issued revised PPM 5310-3 and PPM 5400-11; PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 manual, PPM 5400-11 replaces the February 27, 2026 version, and OCC Bulletin 2023-16 is rescinded.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map open MRAs, enforcement orders, capital directives, and supervisory findings against the new material-harm, Deposit Insurance Fund risk, and substantive-violation thresholds.
• Banks should consider reviewing issue-management taxonomies and governance procedures so that MRAs, other violations, and supervisory observations are recorded and escalated according to their distinct consequences.
• Board and committee reporting processes may warrant review because supervisory observations do not automatically require board presentation or a corrective-action plan, whereas MRAs and enforcement actions remain subject to formal remediation and validation expectations.
• Large and complex banks should consider reassessing whether deficiencies that might previously have produced a community-bank-level supervisory response could receive faster escalation under the revised tailoring framework.
• Banks with existing enforcement actions may wish to assess whether their remediation evidence demonstrates substantial compliance with the essential requirements of each order and whether remaining issues are minor and isolated.
• Capital management teams may wish to review procedures for the institution of and termination of individual minimum capital ratios under the revised enforcement manual.
• Legal and regulatory change teams should monitor Federal Register publication of the joint OCC-FDIC final rule and calculate the actual effective date rather than relying on the bulletin date.
• Internal audit and compliance functions may wish to preserve objective factual support for responses to MRAs and other supervisory communications, particularly where the bank believes an issue does not meet the new risk-based threshold.

What changed

Revised PPM 5310-3 replaces the May 25, 2023 version and structures the OCC enforcement framework around escalation, tailoring, and focus. The OCC generally intends to provide banks an opportunity to remediate deficiencies through supervision before initiating a Section 8 enforcement action, although it retains authority to act at any time when legally supportable and warranted.

Key dates

2026-08-27

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the joint final rule through OCC Bulletin 2026-40. The bulletin applies to all OCC-supervised banks; it does not state the Federal Register publication date, effective date, or a firm compliance deadline.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify the final rule’s Federal Register publication and effective date, because the OCC bulletin itself does not state either date or a compliance deadline, and should monitor OCC and FDIC implementation guidance before relying on any transition treatment.
• Compliance teams may wish to inventory open MRAs, supervisory recommendations, enforcement matters, and examination findings and map each item to the final rule’s material-financial-risk, DIF-risk, actual-violation, or already-caused-harm criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level MRA remediation obligations from discretionary management responses to supervisory observations and documenting why a weakness is treated under one category rather than another.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to enhance evidence files supporting assessments of likelihood, materiality, current and reasonably foreseeable conditions, and impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and market-risk sensitivity.
• Banks should consider documenting how supervisory requirements and remediation plans are tailored to asset size, complexity, activities, capital structure, and other financial-risk factors, particularly where the institution has heightened systemic, concentration, liquidity, or operational complexity.
• Legal and compliance teams may wish to distinguish actual violations of banking or banking-related laws and regulations from prudential weaknesses, because an actual violation can support an MRA without separately satisfying the prudent-operation and material-risk test.
• Boards and senior management should consider reviewing governance procedures so that MRAs receive required escalation and tracking while supervisory observations are clearly identified as non-binding potential enhancements.
• Firms should consider preparing a process for requesting and retaining the objective facts and reasoning underlying an MRA or unsafe-and-unsound-practice determination, as the rule requires examiners to share that basis.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either is likely, if continued, to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. “Likely” requires more than a merely possible risk; relevant financial-condition effects include impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk.

Key dates

2026-08-27

OCC and FDIC issued the final rule and OCC published Bulletin 2026-40 describing its application to OCC-supervised banks.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and anticipated MRAs, enforcement commitments, supervisory recommendations, and examination findings against the new material-financial-risk and actual-violation criteria.
• Firms should consider separating board-level corrective-action items from nonbinding supervisory observations and documenting why each issue does or does not meet the MRA threshold.
• Risk and compliance functions may wish to update issue-taxonomy and escalation procedures to assess impacts on capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, and the Deposit Insurance Fund.
• Banks should consider retaining objective evidence and documented reasoning supporting materiality assessments, including institution-specific factors such as asset size, complexity, activities, and capital structure.
• Management and boards may wish to review outstanding policies, process, and documentation findings to determine whether they remain mandatory remediation matters, are better treated as supervisory observations, or independently constitute violations of banking or banking-related law.
• OCC-supervised banks should monitor the related examination guidance and assess whether planned lookbacks, independent-consultant requirements, or suspicious-activity review scopes are affected by the revised supervisory approach described in industry reporting.
• Firms should track Federal Register publication and calculate the 60-day effective date once publication occurs; the August 27, 2026 announcement date is not itself the effective date.

What changed

An unsafe or unsound practice is now defined as a practice, act, or failure to act that is contrary to generally accepted standards of prudent operation and either, if continued, is likely to materially harm the bank’s financial condition or present a material risk of loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund, or has already materially harmed the bank’s financial condition. Relevant financial-condition impacts include capital, asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk; reputation concerns unrelated to financial condition are excluded.

Key dates

2026-04-22

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

2026-07-21

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

2026-08-25

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

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

2025-09-10

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

2025-12-17

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

2026-08-18

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-14

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC announcement of the administrative proceeding

2026-08-22 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC administrative proceeding and release for Santander Securities LLC

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2014-01-01

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

2018-03-28

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

2019-03-11

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

2020-12-31

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2019-04-01

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

2024-03-31

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

2024-08-12

SEC press release and administrative order were posted

2024-09-11 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2017-06-01

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

2022-02-01

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

2025-01-17

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2021-07-09

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

2026-08-12

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2019-08-01

SEC civil action filed in the District of Massachusetts

2024-03-29

District court entered final judgment against Commonwealth

2024-04-01

Whistleblower notice lists the qualifying judgment/order date

2024-07-05

Whistleblower notice last reviewed or updated

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2021-07-09

SEC announced and settled the Kestra Advisory Services administrative proceeding

2021-07-09 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC release date for the administrative proceeding listing

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2014-01-01

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

2018-03-30

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

2026-08-12

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-12

SEC administrative-proceedings listing date for the AXA Advisors matter

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2025-12-29

NCUA published the proposed rule to remove 12 CFR 701.25(b)

2026-02-27 Deadline

Public comment period closed

2026-08-06

Final rule published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50664

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective and 12 CFR 701.25(b) is removed

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to confirm that internal lending policies still reflect the remaining limits in 12 CFR 701.25(a) and any other applicable provisions, even though the separate policy requirement in paragraph (b) has been removed.
• Boards may wish to review whether any internal approval process for loans to other credit unions remains desirable as a governance control, particularly where state law, bylaws, or enterprise risk practices still support formal approval.
• State-chartered credit unions may wish to verify whether state law or state supervisory expectations still require board approval or written policies for loans to other credit unions.
• Monitoring teams may wish to update regulatory inventories, policy cross-references, and exam prep materials to reflect that 12 CFR 701.25(b) is no longer codified effective 2026-09-08.
• Training and procedure documents may wish to distinguish between the removed board-policy requirement and the continuing statutory and regulatory loan limits that still apply.

What changed

The final rule removes the documentation requirement in 12 CFR 701.25(b) that required board approval of all loans to other credit unions and written policies governing those loans. NCUA states that federal credit unions remain subject to statutory requirements on loans to credit unions, and the remaining limits and requirements in § 701.25 continue to apply. The rule does not change the aggregate loan limit in § 701.25(a), which remains 25% of the lending federal credit union’s paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus.

Key dates

2026-02-25

NCUA published the proposed rule for public comment.

2026-04-27

Public comment period closed after NCUA received 15 comments.

2026-08-06

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

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-03-25

NCUA issued the proposed rule to remove the prescriptive requirements

2026-05-26 Deadline

Public comment period closed

2026-08-06

Final rule was published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50677

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current indirect vehicle lending policies to confirm they no longer reference the removed 50% and 100% net-worth limits.
• Boards may wish to document a board-approved risk appetite and concentration framework for third-party serviced indirect vehicle loans.
• Credit unions may wish to align vendor oversight, due diligence, and servicing controls with their internal policies since the prior waiver pathway is no longer the operative framework.
• State-chartered federally insured credit unions may wish to verify any conforming updates needed to insurance-related procedures and governance materials.
• Compliance functions may wish to update training, policy manuals, and examination binders to reflect that supervision will now focus on principles-based oversight rather than the deleted rule text.

What changed

The final rule removes 12 CFR 701.21(h) in full, eliminating the existing concentration limits, the 30-month step-up to a higher limit, the waiver process to a Regional Director, the related response timeline, and the embedded definition framework tied to that paragraph. NCUA also states that it removed the parallel requirement in 12 CFR 741.203(c) and the related citation in 12 CFR 746.201(c), as part of the same deregulatory package.

Key dates

2026-02-25

NCUA issued the proposed rule removing 12 CFR 701.26; public comments were invited through April 27, 2026

2026-04-27 Deadline

Public comment deadline on the proposal

2026-08-06

Final rule published in the Federal Register at 91 FR 50674

2026-09-08 Deadline

Final rule becomes effective

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to remove references to 12 CFR 701.26 from policies, procedures, and training materials once the rule is effective.
• Firms should consider confirming that contract templates still include written terms addressing audit rights, information security, business continuity, indemnification, performance metrics, data ownership and return, termination, and dispute resolution.
• Credit unions involved in shared operational arrangements may wish to review whether documentation now reflects the updated clarification in 12 CFR 721.3.
• Firms may wish to confirm that third-party risk management, vendor oversight, and due diligence controls remain aligned with existing supervisory expectations despite the regulatory deletion.

What changed

The final rule rescinds 12 CFR 701.26, which had addressed FCU authority to enter written contracts for assets or services relating to daily operations and required those agreements to be in writing. NCUA states that the contractual authority already exists under the FCU Act and incidental powers authority, so the regulation was redundant. The Board also amended 12 CFR 721.3 to formally clarify that credit unions may act as representatives in shared operational arrangements with other credit unions or organizations, and that fixed assets may be shared.

Key dates

2026-08-06

FDIC published the notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comments on the proposal must be received by the FDIC

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-06

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

2026-10-05 Deadline

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

May 2026

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

05 August 2026

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-04

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

2026-10-05 Deadline

Public comments on the proposed rule are due.

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-08-04

Publication of the Federal Reserve Board notice of proposed rulemaking ‘Regulatory Modernization and Relief for Mutual Holding Companies’ in the Federal Register (91 FR 49490; FR Doc. 2026-15774) amending Regulations Q (12 CFR part 217) and MM (12 CFR part 239).

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment deadline for submitting responses to the Federal Reserve Board on the proposed amendments to Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26).

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at mutual holding companies and savings and loan holding companies may wish to review the proposed amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239), particularly the sections on dividend waivers, mutual-to-stock conversion processes, post-conversion restrictions, chartering requirements for subsidiary holding companies, and updated model charters and bylaws, to assess operational and governance impacts.
• Firms planning or contemplating mutual-to-stock conversions should consider comparing their current conversion documentation, use of FR MM-PS, FR MM-OC and FR MM-OF forms, and liquidation account methodologies with the proposed streamlined forms, corrected liquidation account calculations, and revised rules on stock pricing, repurchases, offers and sales, employee stock ownership plan financing and benefit plans.
• Institutions that issue, or are considering issuing, mutual capital certificates should review the proposed Appendices B and C to Regulation Q (12 CFR part 217) to evaluate whether their existing or planned instrument terms align with the model key terms for qualification as Common Equity Tier 1 or Additional Tier 1 capital, including permanence, loss-absorption, distributions and redemption features.
• Subsidiary holding companies of thrift mutual holding companies may wish to analyze the proposed elimination of the federal charter requirement and related changes to Subpart C of Regulation MM to determine chartering options, corporate structure implications, and any needed updates to organizational documents and regulatory commitments.
• Governance and legal teams at MHCs could review the proposed revisions to membership rights, proxy processes, postal mail requirements, voluntary dissolution, and the model charter and bylaws in Appendices A, C and D to Regulation MM, with a view to aligning internal policies and corporate governance frameworks with the modernized regime once finalized.
• Risk and capital management functions at bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies and state member banks should consider evaluating capital planning assumptions and buffers in light of the clarified eligibility of mutual capital instruments as regulatory capital under Regulation Q, and identify any systems or reporting changes that may be required if the proposal is adopted.
• All affected firms may wish to prepare internal impact assessments and, where appropriate, draft comment letters addressing specific elements of Regulations Q and MM (Docket No. R-1895; RIN 7100-AH26), including any perceived risks around conflicts of interest, reduced accountability, or adjustment costs noted in the economic analysis.
• Compliance monitoring teams should plan to track the rulemaking through the comment close date and subsequent Federal Reserve actions so that, if the proposal is finalized, implementation plans can be developed for policy updates, staff training and revisions to regulatory reporting and capital instrument documentation.

What changed

The NPR proposes targeted amendments to Regulation MM (12 CFR part 239) governing mutual holding companies (MHCs), including eliminating certain dividend waiver requirements that currently apply to MHCs and their subsidiary holding companies, and revising post-conversion restrictions to reduce burdens following mutual-to-stock conversions.

Key dates

2026-07-31

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board requested comment on the proposed Regulation O modernization

2026-10-05 Deadline

Expected comment deadline stated in the Federal Register notice

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-31

Federal Reserve Board issued the request for comment on the proposal.

2026-08-04

Federal Register publication date referenced in the available materials.

2026-10-05 Deadline

Comment period closes 60 days after Federal Register publication, according to secondary reporting and the referenced publication timeline.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review whether the institution falls within the mutual banking organization or mutual holding company framework and assess whether the proposal would affect capital planning.
• Firms may wish to evaluate existing and planned capital instruments to determine whether they could qualify as regulatory capital under the proposed clarification.
• Institutions may wish to review dividend-waiver, conversion, and other mutual-structure processes for possible operational or governance changes under the proposal.
• Affected firms may wish to prepare comment letters on capital treatment, loss-absorption, conflicts of interest, accountability, and competition effects, consistent with the issues highlighted by the Board statement.

What changed

The proposal would modernize the Board’s rules applicable to mutual banking organizations, including mutual holding companies, for the first time in about 30 years. It would clarify which instruments may count as regulatory capital, expand flexibility for certain mutual banks to raise capital, and reduce procedural burdens. The Board’s memo says the proposal would amend Regulation MM and the capital rule to address limited access to equity and costly, unclear requirements.

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

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

2026-07-16

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

2016-01-01

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

Suggested considerations

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

What changed

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

Key dates

2026-07-13

Federal Reserve speech delivered in London on modernization of financial regulation

2026-07-22 Deadline

FSB public comment deadline for the consultation report on sound practices for responsible adoption of AI

2026-07-13

Speech states the FSB modernization consultation report will be published in the fall and then delivered to the G20

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map the speech to ongoing capital-rule workstreams, especially Basel III, stress testing, and G-SIB surcharge calibration.
• Large-bank firms may wish to assess whether current capital planning assumes overlapping stress-test and risk-based requirements that could be reduced or realigned.
• Community and regional banks may wish to review whether fixed-dollar regulatory thresholds continue to overstate burden as assets grow with inflation and nominal GDP.
• Supervised firms may wish to align internal issue-management processes with the Federal Reserve’s stated shift toward findings tied to material financial risk and more differentiated treatment of lesser issues.
• AI governance teams may wish to compare current model-risk, vendor-risk, and use-case controls against the FSB’s consultation themes on responsible adoption and use of AI.
• Boards and senior management may wish to review whether supervisory documentation, escalation, and risk reporting are sufficiently focused on material safety-and-soundness issues.

What changed

This speech does not itself impose binding requirements, but it signals several concrete regulatory and supervisory changes already underway. Bowman said the Federal Reserve is advancing a 2026 Basel III proposal and related capital framework reforms, including a single stack of risk-based capital requirements for large banks, recalibration of the G-SIB surcharge, reduced overlap between stress testing and risk-based capital requirements, and indexing the G-SIB surcharge to nominal economic growth going forward.

Key dates

2026-07-06

Federal Reserve and the firms executed the written agreement

2026-07-09

Federal Reserve publicly announced the enforcement action

2026-08-05 Deadline

Cash flow forecasts due 30 days after the agreement date, as described in the agreement reporting

2026-09-04 Deadline

Capital plan due 60 days after the agreement date, as described in the agreement reporting

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the written agreement and map each requirement to responsible owners, due dates, and reporting lines.
• Firms in similar structures may wish to confirm whether capital distribution limits, new debt restrictions, or prior-approval conditions apply under their own supervisory agreements.
• Boards may wish to assess whether consolidated capital planning, liquidity forecasting, and subsidiary support expectations are sufficiently documented and tested.
• Supervisory response plans may wish to be updated to reflect escalation triggers for capital shortfalls, liquidity stress, and required regulator communications.

What changed

The Fed executed a written agreement with TS Banking Group, Inc. and TS Contrarian Bancshares, Inc. on July 6, 2026, and publicly disclosed it on July 9, 2026. The public press release identifies only the parties and the action type, while the attached agreement indicates the Board can enforce the agreement under section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and section 50 of the FDI Act.

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

2026-06-18

Federal Reserve determined Small Business Bank was significantly undercapitalized

2026-06-25

Termination effective date for the BNP Paribas-related cease-and-desist order and the Community Bankshares cease-and-desist order

2026-06-29

Prompt Corrective Action Directive issued for Small Business Bank

2026-07-29 Deadline

Approximate latest date to increase equity if measured as 30 days from the June 29, 2026 directive date; the exact deadline depends on the directive's effective date and any permitted extension

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at banks facing PCA should review whether capital ratios trigger section 38 of the FDI Act and Regulation H thresholds.
• Affected institutions may wish to map the directive's capital restoration timeline to board oversight, funding sources, and shareholder approval processes.
• Firms with open Federal Reserve enforcement matters may wish to monitor the Board's enforcement database for termination notices and effective dates.
• Boards and management teams may wish to ensure the documentation supporting capital adequacy, if relevant, is current and ready for supervisory review.

What changed

For Small Business Bank, the Board executed a Prompt Corrective Action Directive dated June 29, 2026 under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and Regulation H. The directive states the bank was significantly undercapitalized as defined in 12 C.F.R. 208.43(b)(4) and requires the bank to raise equity within 30 days of the effective date so it becomes adequately capitalized under 12 C.F.R. 208.43(b)(2).

Key dates

2026-06-25

FDIC Board met in open session and approved three notices of proposed rulemaking

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess whether the institution would fall above the proposed resolution-submission threshold if raised to $100 billion in assets.
• Firms may wish to inventory current resolution-planning, interim supplement, and public-section processes to identify work that could be reduced or repurposed if the proposal is finalized.
• Assessment and finance teams may wish to model the impact of a $10 billion to $30 billion threshold change and any indexed future adjustments on deposit insurance assessments.
• Legal and information-governance teams may wish to review confidentiality-agreement templates and third-party-sharing controls in anticipation of broader permitted disclosure under Part 309.
• Institutions currently subject to FDIC resolution submissions may wish to monitor whether the proposed filing-cycle change to every three years alters internal preparation calendars and governance approvals.

What changed

The Board approved a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise resolution-submission requirements for covered insured depository institutions; secondary reporting indicates the proposal would raise the applicability threshold from $50 billion to $100 billion in total assets, move covered institutions to a three-year filing cycle, eliminate certain interim supplements and public sections, and remove a substantial portion of current narrative content requirements.