SEC

Subscribe to SEC via RSS

On April 7, 2026, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement announced its Enforcement Results for Fiscal Year 2025, several months later than usual. Overall enforcement numbers declined again, as expected, but FY 2025 was an unusual transition year. Significant filing activity occurred before the change in administration, and the new Commission used the release to criticize volume-driven enforcement and reset the program around fraud, investor harm, market integrity, and individual accountability.

The SEC’s first year under Chair Paul Atkins, who was sworn in on April 21, 2025, has offered significant insight into the evolution of enforcement priorities, particularly for private fund managers.  Following the more aggressive posture under former Chair Gary Gensler, the Commission has recalibrated its approach, yielding a more selective, resource-conscious enforcement program that places renewed emphasis on traditional fraud, clearer statutory grounding, and demonstrable investor harm.

Many in the crypto space greeted the second Trump Administration with excitement. The first Trump Administration was crypto-friendly, but did not wholly overturn the existing securities framework for crypto assets. The Biden Administration was more skeptical of crypto, with then- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler embracing the Howey test for securities. Crypto supporters thought 2025 might bring about the industry’s holy grail: a crypto-friendly regulatory framework allowing for crypto trading and offerings without the risk of civil (or criminal) inquiries down the line so long as the framework was followed.

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?

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.