Use of technology referred to as “artificial intelligence” is fast finding its way into many aspects of commercial life. Registered investment advisers are no exception as AI tools are already being used for screening and research, portfolio construction, trading and drafting client communications. As advisers integrate these tools into their investment processes, they face a familiar set of questions under the federal securities laws.
As has been widely reported, digital infrastructure has become one of the fastest growing investment structures in recent years, most recently driven by the explosion in demand from firms in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry. This in turn has led to unprecedented needs for capex spending for the construction, expansion and upgrading of data centers, cell towers and networks, fiber optics and other data transmission facilities and power production and transmission.
Private credit has spent a decade rising from niche alternative to central pillar in global finance. It has become a multi-trillion-dollar engine of corporate lending, infrastructure finance, asset-based credit, specialty finance, and opportunistic capital. While financial regulators have so far taken a relatively hands-off approach, elements of the market and the financial press have raised concerns about longer-term risks arising from the growth in private credit.
If we had to define the mood for 2026 in three words, we would choose alert, intentional and institutional. After several years of normalizing longer hold periods and navigating evolving regulatory frameworks, 2026 will see managers permanently vigilant – vigilant in pursuing value creation theses, identifying exit opportunities and embedding robust governance structures to mitigate litigation and regulatory risks.
On December 16, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC“) Division of Examinations issued a Risk Alert highlighting several recurring deficiencies in investment advisers’ compliance with the provisions of Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-1 (the “Marketing Rule”) governing use of testimonials and endorsements as well as
An action recently filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging a continuation vehicle transaction offers a rare public window into a dispute over a GP-led transaction. The complaint alleges issues around valuation, disclosure and economic terms, and highlights the conflicts and process risks that can arise in these transactions.
In July 2025, the SEC settled charges against the Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) of two investment advisers that involved backdating compliance documents and attempting to conceal these fabrications from examiners. The settlements imposed civil monetary penalties for both officers as well as a three-year bar for the more severe violation.
These actions reinforce a lesson that should be familiar: regardless of the party in power, regulators do not look kindly on backdated documents or attempts to mislead them. While most CCOs would never consider engaging in similar conduct, any action against a CCO in their personal capacity inevitably raise broader questions in the industry about what other actions could expose a CCO to personal liability. Put another way: most CCOs understand not to go 60 miles per hour in a school zone, but what if they roll through a stop sign?
As of 12:01 am on October 1, 2025, congressionally appropriated funding lapsed for most operations of the United States government. Though the government has shut down, business continues, and market participants that need to interact with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in order to complete a transaction may
On August 15, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an order settling proceedings against TZP Management Associates, LLC (“TZP”) for allegedly miscalculating management fee offsets between 2018 and 2023. The SEC’s action, based solely on a non-scienter claim, underscores the SEC’s ongoing focus on management fee calculation practices, despite talk of deregulation and a shift toward cases involving fraud and manipulation. Bread-and-butter issues such as fee miscalculations remain an enforcement priority.[1]
As businesses accelerate their use of automated tools to record and transcribe meetings, risks are growing. The use of these “AI tools” to transcribe meetings, such as witness interviews, expert network calls, investment committee meetings or advisory board discussions can transform ephemeral conversations into permanent records that can affect claims