FINANCIAL REGULATION
The White House is reviewing the SEC’s plan to rescind its long-standing “no admit, no deny” settlement policy, often criticized as a “gag rule.” The proposal, listed by OIRA as “Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions,” could reshape SEC enforcement settlements by allowing companies and individuals to resolve cases without being barred from publicly disputing the allegations.
Geopolitical conflict creates immediate and complex disclosure obligations for public companies. Under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5, and Item 303 of Regulation S-K, issuers must evaluate and disclose known trends and uncertainties, including the impact of war, sanctions, supply chain disruption, and cybersecurity risk, where reasonably likely to affect financial condition or results of operations. Recent SEC guidance, including its Ukraine-related comment letters, reinforces that geopolitical events must be analyzed across MD&A, risk factors, financial statements, and disclosure controls.
The SEC has drawn a new line between software and securities intermediaries. This analysis examines the implications for DeFi interfaces, transaction-based fees, and evolving market structure.
The SEC’s no-action letter to the Bank of England signals a shift in how U.S. securities law applies to cross-border bank resolution. By allowing reliance on Section 3(a)(9) in bail-in scenarios, the SEC is prioritizing market stability over formal registration requirements. Chairman Paul Atkins’ call for broader rulemaking suggests a potential exemption for securities issued during regulatory bail-ins. This development has significant implications for asset managers, broker-dealers, and institutions with exposure to foreign banks. It reflects a more pragmatic approach to global financial regulation and highlights the tension between investor protection and systemic stability in crisis scenarios.
FinCEN’s 2026 AML/CFT proposal reshapes compliance by focusing on risk-based programs, effectiveness, and reduced regulatory burden. Attorney Braeden Anderson provides a detailed legal analysis of what it means for financial institutions.
Avalanche sits at the center of the SEC’s evolving crypto framework, and as a securities law nerd, this is the kind of debate I genuinely enjoy. With the agency’s 2026 interpretation recognizing “digital commodities” and Ava Labs advancing a functional, infrastructure-first approach, the analysis is becoming more precise. This piece explores whether AVAX fits within securities law, how the SEC’s latest guidance reshapes the landscape, and where automation, liability, and real-world network activity still leave meaningful open questions.
Robo-advisers are not a regulatory shortcut. They are fully regulated investment advisers operating through code. While automation reduces human infrastructure, it embeds fiduciary duties, disclosure obligations, and compliance requirements directly into the platform. For fintech founders and financial institutions, success depends on designing systems that satisfy the Advisers Act at scale.
The SEC’s definition of a “small investment adviser” hasn’t kept up with reality, and it shows in how rules are written and analyzed. Firms managing $150–300 million in AUM are still treated like large institutions, even though many are lean, founder-led operations navigating real compliance strain. A proposed shift to a $1 billion threshold is a step in the right direction, but without legislative backing, it may not stick. This piece breaks down why the definition matters, how it shapes regulatory outcomes, and what needs to happen next.
The SEC’s 2026 CAT amendment reduces costs, limits data retention, and introduces a spending cap. Key implications for broker-dealers and market structure.
Arizona’s criminal charges against Kalshi mark a turning point in the regulation of prediction markets, escalating the conflict between federal commodities law and state gambling regimes. This article examines the legal and structural implications of the case, including preemption, CFTC authority, and the growing tension between derivatives markets and sportsbook regulation. As prediction markets continue to expand, this enforcement action may shape the future of event-based trading in the United States.
The SEC’s proposed amendments to Rule 15c2-11 mark a long-overdue correction to years of regulatory uncertainty affecting fixed-income markets. By narrowing the rule’s scope to equity securities, the Commission is realigning its application with market reality and prior intent. This article breaks down what went wrong, why it matters, and what the proposal signals for future rulemaking and regulatory discipline.
The SEC’s March 17, 2026 crypto guidance marks a turning point in digital asset regulation. By clarifying token classifications and, critically, when an investment contract begins and ends under Howey, the Commission introduces a lifecycle-based framework that brings long-awaited structure to the market. This article breaks down what the new interpretation means for crypto projects, investors, and regulatory strategy going forward.
On February 24, 2026, the SEC’s Division of Enforcement published a revised Enforcement Manual. This article is a clean-room, original discussion of the press release and the 2026 Enforcement Manual. It is also meant to sit naturally inside the enforcement “throughline” I have been building on Anderson Insights: the idea that enforcement outcomes are increasingly driven by (i) data and surveillance sophistication, (ii) procedural architecture, and (iii) the downstream consequences of resolutions, often more than the headline penalty itself.
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Hester Peirce used their ETHDenver 2026 remarks to outline the SEC’s evolving approach to crypto regulation, including a possible innovation exemption for tokenized securities, new guidance on investment contracts, and planned rulemaking on custody and transfer agent modernization. This post summarizes what they said and what it signals for crypto issuers, exchanges, broker-dealers, and blockchain developers.
Backbone confirmed. In a development that underscores the accelerating evolution of financial innovation policy, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig has publicly articulated a significant shift in the agency’s posture on prediction markets — just days after my commentary highlighted expectations for decisive leadership.
On January 28, 2026, staff from the SEC’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets published a joint statement aimed at one thing: forcing the market to be precise about what, exactly, is being “tokenized.” What follows is our practitioner’s read: the taxonomy, the legal consequences that flow from each branch, and a compliance checklist for anyone building in the space.
Fintech founders love referral programs for the same reason regulators are skeptical of them: incentives work.
If you are offering an interval fund direct-to-consumer (especially on a “self-distributed” model), a well-designed incentive program can become your most efficient acquisition channel. The wrong program, or the right program implemented the wrong way, can create problems fast: unregistered broker activity, improper compensated solicitation, and RIA Marketing Rule violations, often all at once.
This article is meant to help you spot the issues early, frame the choices, and understand why “just pay people for referrals” is not a clean concept in the securities world. It is not a blueprint you can copy-paste into your business. The details matter, and the compliance architecture matters even more.
On January 26, 2026, SEC Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda delivered the Alan B. Levenson Keynote Address at the 53rd Annual Securities Regulation Institute in Coronado, California, laying out a clear theme for the Commission’s next phase of disclosure policy: tighten the focus on materiality, reduce low-value compliance load, and recalibrate requirements for smaller issuers. The speech is notable not just for its tone, but for its specificity. Uyeda does not speak in abstractions. He names the parts of Regulation S-K he thinks are ripe for revision and ties the policy direction to a broader institutional effort.
Acknowledging the value of dissent does not require suspending scrutiny. It is fair, and necessary, to ask whether the SEC during the prior administration, and Crenshaw in particular, demonstrated sufficient command of the crypto markets they sought to regulate, and whether the agency’s approach over the past several years meaningfully advanced investor protection or instead imposed avoidable costs through uncertainty and inconsistency.
Options trading has become widely accessible to retail investors, particularly through online and app-based brokerage platforms. That accessibility, however, operates within a regulatory framework that assigns specific responsibilities to broker-dealers while preserving customer autonomy in self-directed accounts. Many disputes in this area arise not from market outcomes, but from questions about how that framework functions in practice.
In this video we unpack how FINRA asserts its investigative authority beyond U.S. borders through Rule 8210. Cross-border business is common, and many foreign individuals and firms are surprised to learn they can still be pulled into a FINRA inquiry.
You can’t understand Nasdaq’s tokenization proposal by asking what it adds. You understand it by seeing what it refuses to change. Nasdaq’s tokenization rule filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is one of the most meaningful attempts yet to introduce blockchain-based representations of securities into the existing U.S. market structure.
In today’s video, embedded below, we will examine three critical regulatory filings that broker-dealer applicants and existing members must understand: Form BD, the New Member Application (NMA) under FINRA Rule 1013, and the Continuing Membership Application (CMA) under Rule 1017.
In my recent YouTube video, I discuss how the SEC is beginning to align its custody framework for digital assets with industry practice. The SEC’s Division of Investment Management has issued a no-action letter confirming that certain state-chartered trust companies may serve as qualified custodians for digital assets and related cash equivalents under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act.
This article and embedded video discusses the recent policy shift at the SEC regarding simultaneous consideration of settlement offers and related waiver requests in enforcement actions. The policy change reverses a 2021 decision under prior leadership that had required waiver requests to be considered separately, only after a settlement was finalized.
This article offers a comprehensive examination of the stock options backdating scandal—its mechanics, legal implications, regulatory response, and enduring impact—using illustrative case studies from Research In Motion, Broadcom, and other major players. But more importantly, it offers legal insights and guidance for companies, counsel, and compliance professionals who must navigate the complex intersection of compensation practices, financial reporting obligations, and securities law.
On July 14, 2025, the OCC, Federal Reserve Board, and FDIC quietly issued a joint statement that may one day be remembered as a foundational moment in the formal convergence of traditional banking oversight and crypto infrastructure. The Statement on Crypto-Asset Safekeeping Risk Management sends a clear signal: if your institution intends to hold digital assets for clients, the expectations are not experimental — they are bank-grade.
Private placements under Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 remain a critical avenue for capital formation, particularly among early-stage and smaller companies. Despite their exemption from registration, these offerings are not exempt from the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Broker-dealers that recommend Regulation D securities must undertake a reasonable investigation into the offering, the issuer, and the surrounding circumstances. This obligation stems from SEC and FINRA rules and is central to satisfying suitability, antifraud, and supervisory compliance requirements. This guide summarizes the regulatory foundation and outlines best practices for broker-dealers conducting due diligence in Regulation D offerings, with particular reference to FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-22.
On April 14, 2025, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued Regulatory Notice 25-07, requesting comment on whether and how its rules, guidance, and processes governing the organization and supervision of member firm workplaces should be modernized to reflect significant shifts in industry operations. The comment deadline has been extended to July 14, 2025.
AI fintech startups may need financial regulatory counsel when their products involve money transmission, payments, custody, RIA registration, broker-dealer registration, digital assets, stablecoins, AML, sanctions, capital formation, or bank partnerships. This article explains the key legal questions founders should ask before launching, scaling, fundraising, or responding to regulatory scrutiny.