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.
Risk #9: What the New SEC’s First Year Signals for the Future of Private Fund Oversight
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.
Risk #7: Crypto’s Second Act: A Rational Framework or a Regulatory Mirage?
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.
Risk #6: Valuation Under Pressure: Market Stress and the Enforcement Lens
Markets have recently been experiencing heightened volatility and credit availability has tightened, which has placed valuation practices under unusual pressure from regulators and investors. The events of the past several years, including rising interest rates, geopolitical turmoil and the impacts of artificial intelligence tools, among other issues, have amplified the inherent challenges of valuing illiquid assets and sparked greater regulatory scrutiny. This is particularly true when marks affect fees paid by investors, or the prices at which they invest in or redeem from a fund.
Risk #4: Five Guidelines for ESG Disclosures in 2026: Choose Your Words Carefully
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.
Risk #3: Five Considerations for Advisers Implementing AI in Investment Decisions
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.
Risk #1: Private Credit under the Microscope – Why Vigilance Matters
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.
Top Ten Regulatory and Litigation Risks for Private Funds in 2026
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.
SEC Issues Risk Alert to Remind Advisers of Core Compliance Expectations
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
Dos and Don’ts for CCOs: How You Can Avoid Firm and Personal Liability for Wholesale Compliance Failures
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?