Insights
On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) related beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting rules.
-
A well-trodden path for banks to achieve regulatory capital reductions by mitigating credit risk is through a synthetic securitization, either by issuing credit-linked notes (CLNs) or engaging in bespoke bilateral credit derivative transactions. These transactions—while complex to execute—offer the significant advantage of transferring risk on a large, diversified portfolio of obligors, allowing investors to evaluate credit risk on a statistical basis. This lessens the need for investor diligence at the level of individual obligations, which facilitates risk transfer on obligors for whom information might be limited or costly to digest.
Chapman wrote the book on the marketplace lending regulatory landscape that the entire industry has come to rely upon. First published in 2013, the 2024 update covers a vast array of topics affecting the marketplace lending industry.
The Division of Examinations of the Securities and Exchange Commission published its examination priorities for fiscal year 2025. The 2025 Exam Priorities reflect practices, products, and services the Division believes present heightened risks to investors and the U.S. capital markets.
-
There have been several recent notable enforcement actions, including continued enforcement by the SEC and CFTC against off-channel communications, as well as an SEC fraud settlement with Macquarie Investment Management Business Trust.
Chapman's quarterly Regulatory Update contains an overview of the latest regulatory actions, market happenings, and litigation and enforcement activity in the investment management space.
-
On September 12, 2024, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) adopted amendments to CFTC Regulation 4.7 (Reg. 4.7), a rule that provides exemptions from the broader compliance requirements under Part 4 of the CFTC regulations (Part 4) for registered commodity pool operators (CPOs) with respect to pools (4.7 pools) offered solely to “Qualified Eligible Persons” (QEPs) and registered commodity trading advisors (CTAs) that advise or manage commodity trading accounts of QEPs. The amendments (i) increase the financial thresholds in the “Portfolio Requirement” of the QEP definition and (ii) permit CPOs of fund of fund pools offered solely to QEPs to provide monthly account statements within 45 days of the month-end, rather than providing quarterly account statements within 30 days of the quarter-end. The CFTC chose not to adopt, at this time, the proposed minimum QEP disclosures.
A recognized securities and commodities regulatory authority, Peter’s practice focuses on the registration and regulation of investment advisers, broker-dealers, commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators, and introducing brokers, as well as the formation and ongoing compliance obligations of registered and private investment companies.
Chapman's 2024 Social Impact and Sustainability report showcases our commitment to the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC).
- Topic: U.S. Supreme Court
2 matches.
On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States Trustee, who had objected to Purdue’s plan of reorganization that granted releases of third party claims to members of the Sackler family in exchange for their contribution of up to $6 billion to the Purdue bankruptcy estate. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, found that the type of relief being granted to the Sacklers (i.e., a blanket shield from all existing or potential liability relating to the opioid crisis) represented the kind of “discharge” only available to debtors who have “placed all their assets on the table.”
The U.S. Supreme Court recently took up In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to address a common, recurring, and sometimes vexing question as to attorney-client privilege: how to apply the privilege to communications with counsel that contain both legal and non-legal advice? This is a particularly important question for corporate in-house counsel who, as the courts often say, “wear two hats,” providing both legal and business or policy advice to their employers.
