Choose your words carefully because careless words cost.
Never has this been more true than in disclosures about environmental, social and governance matters. As divergence between the US federal government and “red states” on the one hand, and the UK, EU, and certain US “blue states” on the other hand, solidifies, international asset managers and their underlying portfolio companies must navigate an increasingly narrow regulatory tightrope.
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.
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
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]
The last two decades have been marked by robust enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In line with its “shock and awe” approach, the Trump Administration seemingly called the future enforcement of that law into question when, on February 10, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to “pause” enforcement of the FCPA and conduct a comprehensive review and update of the law’s enforcement approach. The “pause heard around the world” shocked many commentators, anti-corruption campaigners, and countries that are signatories of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (“OECD Convention”), as it raised questions about the United States’ commitment to combatting corruption going forward.
Amid a challenging environment for exits, especially in the wake of the recent market volatility, private fund managers continue to pursue alternative strategies, such as term extensions and liquidity solutions, to ride out the liquidity downturn. While these measures are designed to protect the value of the funds’ investments and are frequently requested by limited partners, they raise potential regulatory concerns that have been the subject of SEC scrutiny in the past. As noted by a senior staff member of the Division of Examinations in March, the SEC continues to conduct exams with a focus on the bread-and-butter issues like fees, conflicts and related disclosures. Therefore, as funds approach maturity, it is worth reviewing the areas that have received the greatest regulatory attention.
Private credit has become an essential source of financing globally, with fund sponsors enjoying strong demand from borrowers, market participants, and investors. However, as the industry’s “golden age” continues, regulatory scrutiny is growing. Media coverage and legislative inquiries have pressured agencies — particularly the SEC — to take action.
With Paul Atkins as the new SEC Chair, the agency’s priorities have shifted away from many of the aggressive policies of former Chair Gensler. The first four months of the Republican controlled SEC saw a dramatic shift in the approach to crypto with the dismissal or pause of major litigation, the termination of several longstanding investigations, the recission of accounting guidance regarding the safeguarding of crypto assets and the establishment of a new task force to help formulate the regulatory approach to crypto going forward. With the enforcement program under a new SEC undergoing significant changes, there will likely be a return to more traditional enforcement cases with greater emphasis on egregious conduct involving pecuniary gain or investor harm, moving away from “pushing the envelope” cases. Enforcement sweeps involving off-channel communications, late filings and other “broken windows” initiatives are expected to fall by the wayside. Regulation by enforcement could be replaced by increased interaction with the Staff, formal or informal guidance or lighter-touch rulemaking.