INVESTIGATIONS
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 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.
This piece analyzes the CFTC’s advisory confirming that prediction markets are regulated derivatives subject to anti-fraud and manipulation rules. Braeden Anderson explains how insider trading doctrines apply to event contracts and what this means for exchanges, fintech platforms, and sophisticated traders operating in evolving markets.
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.
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.
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.
After a CEO is caught on camera in a viral public incident, what should a company do? This article provides a comprehensive guide on crisis management and explores the legal response, from initiating an internal investigation to navigating reputational risk, policy violations, and executive transitions.
Matt Levine’s latest Money Stuff column dissects a fascinating and increasingly common financial arrangement that blurs the line between traditional equity, tokenized instruments, and synthetic exposure: Republic’s tokenized forward tied to SpaceX stock.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) just hit the reset button. On March 13, 2025, the Division of Market Oversight (DMO) issued CFTC Letter No. 25-05, officially scrapping the controversial 2021 Advisory on Swap Execution Facility (SEF) Registration (CFTC Letter No. 21-19). Effective immediately, this move restores the pre-2021 regulatory framework, providing much-needed clarity for commodity trading advisors (CTAs), introducing brokers (IBs), and other market players facilitating swap execution.
The Ninth Circuit has upheld securities fraud convictions against Sivannarayana Barama, a former Palo Alto Networks engineer who profited $7 million through insider trading. However, the court remanded the case for resentencing, ruling that the district court improperly used Barama’s trading gains as a proxy for the company’s loss without determining an actual loss.
At Anderson P.C., we’re thrilled to announce that we now offer this innovative legal solution to startups. Our fractional GC services are designed to help founders focus on what they do best—building their business—while we handle the legal complexities. If you’re interested in learning more about how fractional General Counsel services can benefit your startup, contact us today.
Special committees have long been a cornerstone of corporate governance, particularly in situations involving conflicts of interest, significant transactions, or internal investigations. Their relevance persists, not just as a response to crises, but as a proactive measure to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability in decision-making. As corporate transactions become more complex and scrutiny intensifies, the role of special committees remains indispensable.
In moments of crisis, such as allegations of misconduct or conflicts of interest, a company's board of directors must act decisively and transparently. One powerful tool at its disposal is the creation of a special committee to oversee internal investigations. This article explores the mechanics of drafting board resolutions to appoint such committees, leveraging insights and best practices from Anderson P.C., a boutique securities law firm specializing in governance and regulatory matters.
Organizations face heightened scrutiny as financial misconduct, fraud, and ethical breaches become increasingly complex. A well-executed internal investigation is more than just a response to misconduct—it’s an opportunity to demonstrate accountability, strengthen compliance frameworks, and protect your organization’s reputation.
At Anderson P.C., we approach internal investigations with precision, independence, and the strategic foresight our clients demand. Whether you are addressing allegations of misconduct or reinforcing your compliance program, our tailored methodologies ensure thorough, defensible, and results-oriented outcomes.
As we step into 2025, artificial intelligence (AI) continues to redefine corporate landscapes, becoming both an asset and a focal point for regulatory scrutiny. In September 2024, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a significant shift in its Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (ECCP), highlighting the risks associated with AI technologies. For organizations, this move underscores an urgent need to integrate AI risk management into their compliance frameworks.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has released its exam priorities for 2025, providing a roadmap for investment advisers to align their compliance programs with the regulator’s expectations. While the political transition under President Donald Trump may result in fewer enforcement actions than under the Biden administration, certain core priorities remain steadfast, regardless of the administration.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has long stood as the vanguard of financial market integrity, but in recent years, it has transformed into a sophisticated data-driven enforcement machine. By leveraging cutting-edge analytics, the SEC has fundamentally reshaped the landscape of securities regulation, ensuring that the most complex and well-disguised violations come to light. From insider trading and market manipulation to cherry-picking schemes and misconduct in the trading of structured products, the SEC's methods have become simultaneously more advanced and more efficient, making noncompliance an exceedingly risky gamble.
Federal authorities have raised eyebrows with a high-profile seizure of electronic devices from Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan’s Soho residence. The early-morning raid occurred just a week after Polymarket, a decentralized prediction market platform, accurately forecast Donald Trump’s presidential election victory. This incident has sparked debate over the potential political motivations and broader regulatory implications for decentralized finance.
In a November 4, 2024, risk alert, the Division of Examinations (the “Division”) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) unveiled its strategic, risk-based approach to selecting registered investment companies for examination. The Division also shed light on its methodology for scoping exams and shared notable examples of common deficiencies encountered during recent reviews.
Managing MNPI risk is no longer just about avoiding direct trades on inside information; it’s about creating robust, tailored safeguards that address the way MNPI can impact related investments, particularly in intricate vehicles like CLOs. With the SEC placing renewed focus on MNPI in credit markets, now is the time to ensure your compliance protocols are more than just routine. This article unpacks the SEC’s action against Sound Point and provides essential takeaways for investment advisers on avoiding similar pitfalls.
As Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer in the crypto market, faces increasing regulatory pressure, CEO Paolo Ardoino recently underscored the company’s complex relationship with U.S. authorities in an interview with CoinDesk. Despite Tether's compliance with international sanctions and cooperation with law enforcement, Ardoino acknowledged that the company’s survival ultimately depends on the discretion of U.S. regulators. "If the U.S. wanted to kill us, they can press a button and kill us anywhere,” Ardoino stated, adding that Tether’s approach is not to challenge U.S. authority directly.
With the dawn of a new fiscal year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Examinations has unveiled its 2025 examination priorities. This annual roadmap serves as both a warning and a guide for firms navigating the ever-evolving regulatory landscape. The 2025 priorities not only highlight long-standing risk areas like fiduciary duty and cybersecurity, but also shine a spotlight on cutting-edge issues such as artificial intelligence and the growing complexities surrounding crypto assets.
In a recent enforcement action, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Matthew Groom, a North Carolina resident, with insider trading involving the Massachusetts-based biopharmaceutical company, Spero Therapeutics, Inc. According to the SEC’s complaint, Groom used confidential information obtained during his role as an IT consultant for Spero to avoid substantial financial losses ahead of a significant corporate announcement.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed charges against Minerco Inc. (former over-the-counter ticker: MINE) and two individuals—Bobby Shumake Japhia and Julius Makiri Jenge—in connection with an alleged multimillion-dollar pump-and-dump scheme that defrauded investors out of approximately $8 million. The SEC's complaint alleges that the defendants generated millions of dollars in illicit profits by manipulating the market for Minerco’s stock through deceptive tactics and false promotions.
A former executive of a global pharmaceutical company pleaded guilty today in a Boston federal court to insider trading, admitting to earning more than $250,000 through unlawful trading activities based on confidential information.
The SEC’s fiscal year is winding down, and once again, we are seeing what is becoming a predictable, if not formalized, year-end tradition: a broad Enforcement sweep targeting companies and insiders for failing to meet timely filing requirements under Sections 16(a), 13(d), 13(g), and 13(f) of the Exchange Act. This year, 23 respondents—both corporate entities and individuals—were charged for violations stemming from late short-swing trading reports (Forms 3, 4, and 5) and beneficial ownership reports (Schedules 13D and G). Penalties ranged from $10,000 to $750,000, totaling more than $3.8 million. The SEC’s use of data analytics to identify these reporting failures continues to demonstrate the agency’s commitment to leveraging technology to enforce even technical compliance obligations.
On September 9, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced settlements with seven public companies for violations of whistleblower protections under Rule 21F-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This latest enforcement action underscores the SEC's growing commitment to ensuring whistleblowers can report potential securities violations without fear of retaliation or obstruction. Companies are now called to reassess their policies to comply with these important protections.
On September 20, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced its intention to seek sanctions against Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and owner of X (formerly Twitter). This move comes in light of Musk’s failure to comply with a court order to testify regarding his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. The implications of this case extend beyond Musk himself, raising significant questions about corporate governance, transparency, and the responsibilities of high-profile executives.
Explore the SEC's recent enforcement actions targeting "AI washing"—the practice of overstating or misrepresenting the use of artificial intelligence. Learn about key cases, regulatory risks, and compliance strategies for firms leveraging AI technology.
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.