Insights

On April 7, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memorandum establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED) within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). This new division will be dedicated to the centralized, coordinated investigation and prosecution of fraud against taxpayer dollars and taxpayer-funded programs. AAG Blanche acknowledged that, while DOJ has a “storied history of combatting fraud,” DOJ has “never adopted a comprehensive and coordinated approach to investigating and prosecuting fraud against taxpayer dollars and tax-payer funded programs.” The NFED was created to close that gap with its core mission being to “zealously investigate and prosecute those who steal or fraudulently misuse taxpayer dollars.”

On March 12, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) took formal steps toward establishing additional regulations for prediction markets. The agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting public input on potential new rules, and separately, released staff guidance outlining its views on how existing rules apply to prediction market platforms currently in operation. These developments signal a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for an industry that has grown rapidly over the past year.

On March 10, 2026, the Department of Justice released the first-ever Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (the “Department-wide CEP” or “Policy”), which applies to all non-antitrust corporate criminal cases across the Department. The new policy has been anticipated since December 2025, when Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the Department’s plans to release a new, single corporate enforcement policy for all criminal matters. According to the Department, the new policy is designed to “help ensure consistency across the Department” and “transparently describe the Department’s policies and decisionmaking.”

On January 14, 2026, State Senator Zellnor Myrie proposed legislation in the New York State Senate that would amend New York law to make it a criminal offense to operate a virtual currency business in New York without the proper license. By introducing the possibility of criminal penalties, Senate Bill S. 8901, the Cryptocurrency Regulation Yields Protections, Trust, and Oversight Act (CRYPTO Act), would mark a significant regulatory shift in the state’s oversight of virtual currency businesses, given New York’s prominence in virtual currency regulation in the U.S.

Seeking to protect their investments in the face of increased liability management exercises, lenders began signing “cooperation agreements,” which required the lenders to cooperate when negotiating to restructure existing debt or provide new debt to their shared borrower. These cooperation agreements protect lenders from “creditor-on-creditor violence” — when one lender (or a subset of lenders) renegotiates with a borrower to the benefit of the negotiating lender and the detriment of the others.

On January 1, 2026 (“Effective Date”), the New York LLC Transparency Act ("New York Act”) is scheduled to take effect, introducing new disclosure requirements for limited liability companies (“LLCs”) formed or registered to do business in New York State.  The New York Act is expected to impose the type of broad beneficial ownership requirements the federal CTA and rules implementing it was designed to require, before the federal government’s decision to limit the scope of the CTA’s beneficial ownership reporting requirements to foreign companies and foreign beneficial owners.

U.S. Government and private sector sources continue to report efforts by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) nationals to infiltrate companies around the world by posing as information technology (IT) professionals, in order to get hired by U.S. and other businesses and gain access to sensitive company systems. Crowdstrike, a U.S. cybersecurity company, has reported a 220% increase in the number of companies infiltrated by North Korean threat actors over the last 12 months. In particular, a DPRK-affiliated group known as “Famous Chollima” has leveraged artificial intelligence and deepfake technology to generate synthetic identities, as well as resumes and CVs, draft communications, and conduct job interviews. Enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Department of Justice identify victims in the cryptocurrency sector, including decentralized finance (“DeFi”) projects. In addition, media reports indicate that North Korean hackers are purportedly offering fake job offers targeting employees in the cryptocurrency sector, with the goal of stealing crypto.

Historically, SEC-registered investment advisers have not been subject to comprehensive AML regulation under the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) unless they also qualify as a broker-dealer or other BSA-regulated financial institution. Notwithstanding the absence of a formal requirement to date, many SEC-registered investment advisers have voluntarily adopted AML programs in line with industry expectations and investor demands. However, on August 28, 2024, FinCEN issued its Final Rule, establishing anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism (“AML/CFT”) requirements for Covered Advisers similar to those that apply to broker-dealers. The Final Rule, which was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2026, required Covered Advisers to maintain written AML programs, perform customer due diligence, file Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”) and other reports required of BSA-regulated financial institutions, and retain standard AML records.  

In a previous client alert on a recent Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) report on litigation funding in England and Wales we discussed the issue of whether payment waterfalls providing funders with payment priority are compliant with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), the issue being a matter to be heard on appeal in June 2025. Funders will be pleased to hear that the answer is “yes”. The Court of Appeal has held that the DBA Regulations focuses on whether a funding agreement determines the amount of a funder’s fees by reference to the damages awarded to the successful litigant. The fact that a funder may receive its fees from the proceeds is not enough in itself for the arrangement to fall under the DBA Regulations.

 

You want to own electric generation or energy storage facilities that are used to sell power to data centers or other end user parties (e.g., other types of industrial or commercial customers, institutional entities, traditional utilities, or RTO/ISO markets).  Will Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulation apply to you?     

On 2 June 2025 the Civil Justice Council (a UK public body that advises on civil justice and civil procedure) (“CJC”) issued its Review of Litigation Funding Final Report (the “Report”). The CJC has provided comprehensive recommendations on the regulation and reform of litigation funding in England and Wales. The highlight recommendation of the Report is for the UK Government to remove third party litigation funding from the regulations and requirements of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013 (“DBA Regulations”), reversing the judgment of the Supreme Court in PACCAR.[1] Meanwhile, the UK Court of Appeal has recently endorsed a position that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) may order that third party funders of collective proceedings be paid first from litigation proceeds before claimants according to waterfall provisions in their funding agreements.

On May 23, 2025, the U.S. Departments of State (“State”) and the Treasury (“Treasury”) took actions that resulted in immediate sanctions relief for Syria. Specifically, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued General License 25 (“GL 25”) pursuant to the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (“SySR”), the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations (“NPWMD”), the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations (“IFSR”), the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (“GTSR”), and the Foreign Terrorist Organization Sanctions Regulations (“FTOSR”). In parallel, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and State took supporting actions outlined below.

All insolvency professionals appreciate that Section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s236”) grants significant investigatory powers to office-holders into a company’s business dealings, affairs and director conducts, including the power to obtain third-party records and information.

Since December of last year, the status of the CTA has been in a state of perpetual flux, following a dizzying series of federal court rulings and FinCEN announcements. On February 28, 2025, we reported that FinCEN paused enforcement actions for entities required to report under the CTA’s Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule (BOI Rule) until FinCEN issued an interim final rule providing new guidance regarding the BOI Rule’s requirements and associated deadlines. Then, on March 2, 2025, Treasury went a step further, indicating that it would altogether cease enforcement against U.S. citizens and domestic reporting companies for violations of the BOI Rule, explaining that it would instead issue proposed rulemaking to narrow the scope of the BOI Rule to “foreign reporting companies” only and set new reporting deadlines. 

The Annual Global Fund Finance Symposium was held in Miami from 26-28 February 2025. The symposium typically brings together all major market participants in fund finance and this year was no exception, with over 2,500 delegates attending.

From the inception of the secondary market for syndicated bank loans some 35 years ago, we have seen continuous movement in the direction of increased liquidity for the asset, but recent developments in this market point toward a reversal of this trend.

On February 20, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced the formation of the Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit, known as “CETU,” which will replace the Crypto Assets and Cyber Unit (“CACU”).

On February 28, 2025, we reported that the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) paused enforcement actions for entities required to report under the CTA’s BOI Rule (Reporting Companies) for failure to file or update beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports by a previously-announced March 21, 2025, deadline. FinCEN had explained that the pause would last until it issued an interim final rule further updating reporting deadlines and providing new guidance around the BOI Rule’s requirements.

We previously reported that the Corporate Transparency Act’s Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule (BOI Rule) was back in effect as of February 18, 2025, with a stay of the final nationwide block to enforcement. At that time, the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) extended the BOI Rule’s reporting deadline until March 21, 2025 (in cases where the originally-applicable deadline had expired) for entities required to report, which includes certain entities formed or registered to do business in the United States (Reporting Companies).