Insights

On September 11, 2026, the OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve, and NCUA proposed to replace the 2023 Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships with a shorter, principles-based document.1 Two companion releases complete the package: a final interagency statement on the supervision of the use of core service providers by community banks, effective on issuance,2 and a proposed Federal Reserve guide for traditional community banks (the Community Bank Guide).3 Comments are due November 16, 2026.4

The UK Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Mr Francesco Costa, former chairman of Spring Media Investments Limited, in the first Supreme Court judgment to consider the scope of the duty under section 172(1) of the Companies Act 2006. The foundational position is that good faith requires honest conduct as well as honest thinking. A director's genuine belief that they are acting in the company's best interests will not excuse covert or disloyal conduct in pursuit of that belief. 

On August 27, 2026, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) jointly issued a final rule that, for the first time, gives the term “unsafe or unsound practice” a binding regulatory definition.[1] With it came a uniform standard for Matters Requiring Attention (MRAs) and revised OCC examination manuals.[2]The Federal Reserve did not join the rulemaking, but has adopted comparable standards through guidance. What that means for holding companies and state-chartered institutions is addressed below.[3] The regulation takes effect November 2, 2026, and the revised OCC examination manuals took effect upon their issuance on August 27.

Of particular interest for investors with interests in Canada or the UAE, for counsel advising on treaty coverage, dispute strategy, or treaty design, the Canada-UAE FIPA is essential reading and the clearest evidence yet of where Canada's investment treaty practice stands over 30 years after NAFTA came into force.

Over the past 18 months, the federal banking agencies have clarified supervisory expectations for banks’ crypto-asset activities, and several of the largest U.S. banks have announced programs accepting Bitcoin and Ether as loan collateral. Separately, on June 3, 2026, New York’s enactment of the 2022 amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code took effect, changing the rules governing the perfection of a security interest in digital asset collateral in New York, the jurisdiction whose law governs most institutional credit documentation. Together, these developments may create significant opportunities for lenders navigating the complexities to comply with the newly enacted statutes. This alert surveys the current landscape, from regulatory permissibility and perfection through custody, structuring, and compliance, for institutions active in this market or considering entering it.

The president of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has signalled a more rigorous approach to scrutinising opt-out collective actions at the certification stage, with particular attention to whether the financial benefits of such claims flow to the claimant class or primarily to their lawyers and funders. Coming at a time when the UK Law Commission is consulting on expanding the scope of the opt-out regime, this development warrants careful consideration by all those with interests in the UK litigation funding market.

In its April 21, 2026, opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling in Liberty Global, holding that the codified economic substance doctrine applies even when a taxpayer mechanically utilizes the provisions of the Tax Code. The court also held that common mergers and acquisitions elements and basic business transactions are not categorically carved out from the economic substance doctrine. The court dismissed the taxpayer’s argument that a separate relevancy determination needs to be made before the economic substance doctrine can be applied.

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.

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.