Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Remarks at the Conference on Financial Market Regulation
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation:
* * *
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Josh [White], for your generous introduction. Before sharing a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners.
Of course, I should also like to thank those who contributed to the success of this conference--especially
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation:
* * *
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Josh [White], for your generous introduction. Before sharing a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners.
Of course, I should also like to thank those who contributed to the success of this conference--especiallythe organizers: Amy Edwards, Vlad Ivanov, Katie Fox, Harmony Yang, and Robert Miller from the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis; Meg Wolf and Kathleen Hanley from Lehigh University; and Ian Appel and Caitlin Boyer from the University of Virginia.
Your work to bring together scholars, researchers, and practitioners comes at a consequential moment for the Commission--and for the broader financial system--a moment in which economic analysis is more central than ever to the conduct and durability of sound financial regulation.
You all know better than most that the quality of our work is only as high as the rigor of our inquiry. This rings true in our rulemaking, of course, but no less in the integrity of our enforcement program--especially as we work to return it to its principled roots and original Congressional intent.
The mission that Congress set for the SEC is clear: to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Yet often over the years, the agency's enforcement program drifted from that missional anchor. The Commission began wielding enforcement more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel--not to remedy demonstrable harm with precision, but to signal regulatory displeasure and expand agency jurisdiction.
Over the past year, however, we have recalibrated that approach. We have empowered the talented, hardworking enforcement staff to pursue cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity--cases grounded in fact and careful analysis, in principle rather than in personal preference and regulation through enforcement. Today, we no longer measure the success of our program by the quantity of enforcement actions or the headlines that they generate, but by the quality and credibility of the actions that we take. And with our new Enforcement Director David Woodcock at the helm, I am confident that his decades of enforcement experience--in both public service and the private sector--will position him and the staff well to effectively carry this mission forward.
At the crux of the course correction that we have undertaken rests methodical economic analysis. Economic scrutiny is not merely a best practice or an optional procedure when considering the appropriate corporate penalties in an enforcement action--though some past Commissions have treated it as such; rather, it is a principled imperative. By looking through the lens of economic evidence, we can assess a corporation's benefit from a violation of the federal securities laws and ensure that the penalties are proportionate to the conduct at issue.
Economic analysis is also crucial to understanding whether or not a violation of the federal securities laws occurred for certain types of cases, and the scope of that violation--for example, in preferential allocation or "cherry-picking" cases. And even after an enforcement case is complete, high-caliber economic analysis is critical to determining how to distribute recovered funds to harmed investors accurately, transparently, and fairly.
In short, just as the Commission evaluates proposed rules through rigorous economic inquiry, often drawing on the data that researchers in this room provide, so too must our enforcement work be grounded in--and commensurate with--the economic evidence at hand.
I expect that our economists at the SEC should play a vital role in helping our enforcement staff separate the wheat from the chaff through sound analysis and factual research. Fraud, manipulation, and trading on material non-public information cause real harm to real people, and we will pursue those cases with vigor. But we will do so with the discipline and analytical diligence that the gravity of enforcement demands.
The Commission could not keep that commitment without the caliber of talent gathered across this room. Academic research is indispensable in helping us identify the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of regulatory decisions--both retrospectively and prospectively. The dedicated work done by those assembled here and in institutions across the country gives us the empirical foundation upon which sound regulatory policy and sensible law enforcement must be built.
When the Commission acts without that foundation, it risks the very outcomes that it seeks to prevent--markets that are less fair, less efficient, and less capable of serving the investors and innovators who depend on them.
Indeed, we value the research that you do. And I say that not as a pleasantry, but as a proclamation of institutional commitment. The Division of Economic and Risk Analysis exists precisely to ensure that the insights that you generate are considered in the decisions that we make. I intend to continue to strengthen that function--not to diminish it.
My comments at last year's conference endure in relevance: that regulation is a bit like golf.[1] It requires careful, precise strokes and meticulous analysis of shot selection to achieve the intended result. If you choose the wrong club, or swing too hard, you risk overshooting the green. In the end, it is the short game--precision, patience, discipline--that most reliably sinks the ball in the hole.
The Commission's integrity--and the strength of our capital markets--depends on our willingness to pursue precise analytical work before we act, and to continuously reevaluate that work as we move forward. It depends on our confidence in what we do know, and our inquiry into what we do not. And it depends on our commitment to letting the evidence, rather than the impulse to regulate or enforce, guide our hand.
At the SEC, economic rigor has an abiding place at the table of regulatory decisions. Policy is no longer set by ad hoc enforcement actions. And, with your engagement, we will police the market by prioritizing cases that further our investor protection goals rather than by amplifying technical rule violations to achieve a policy goal.
Now, let me close where I began--with the consequential moment in which we meet. Today, the relationship between the federal government and the capital markets that the Commission oversees is being renegotiated in real time--not in seminar rooms alone, but in courtrooms, on trading floors, and in the corridors of this Commission. The work that you do matters beyond productive discussions like today's. It matters to the investors who trust that the market that they participate in is honest, and to the entrepreneurs who trust that the risk of innovation can prove worth it in a system that seeks to reward it. Economic analysis is not removed from those realities. It is, at its best, the lantern by which we navigate them.
So, thank you for the work that you do toward that end. You have been a patient and indulgent audience, and I wish you a successful and enjoyable remainder of your conference. Thank you.
* * *
[1] See Paul Atkins, Remarks Before the Securities Traders Association (Oct. 7, 2004), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch100704psa.htm.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-conference-financial-market-regulation-050826
FCC Media Bureau Announces Filing of Petition For Declaratory Ruling By Connoisseur Media Holdco
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (MB Docket No. 26-109) on May 8, 2026:
* * *
Connoisseur Media Holdco, Inc. (CM Holdco or Petitioner) has filed a petition for declaratory ruling (Amended Petition)/1 requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) find, pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act)/2 and section 1.5000(a)(1) of the Commission's rules (Rules),/3 that it would serve the public interest to allow CM Holdco to exceed the 25% benchmarks set forth in section
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (MB Docket No. 26-109) on May 8, 2026:
* * *
Connoisseur Media Holdco, Inc. (CM Holdco or Petitioner) has filed a petition for declaratory ruling (Amended Petition)/1 requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) find, pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act)/2 and section 1.5000(a)(1) of the Commission's rules (Rules),/3 that it would serve the public interest to allow CM Holdco to exceed the 25% benchmarks set forth in section310(b)(4) of the Act./4 Specifically, CM Holdco seeks a Commission ruling to (1) permit up to 100% aggregate indirect foreign ownership (equity and voting) of CM Holdco, and (2) specifically approve the involvement of three parties--two entities organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands and one citizen of the United Kingdom--in the ownership of CM Holdco and the broadcast radio licenses that it controls./5 CM Holdco filed the Amended Petition on behalf of itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries that hold Commission broadcast licenses./6
Background and Reason for Amended Petition. The current aggregate indirect foreign ownership of CM Holdco is 20.37% of its equity and 0% of the voting interest in CM Holdco./7 Although its foreign ownership is currently below the benchmarks set by section 310(b)(4), CM Holdco anticipates transactions that would increase the company's aggregate indirect foreign ownership interests to above the 25% benchmarks. Accordingly, CM Holdco seeks this declaratory ruling to facilitate such future transactions./8
As detailed in the Amended Petition, an increase in the aggregate indirect foreign ownership in CM Holdco would come from two potential sources, each involving an existing interest holder (or group of existing interest holders) increasing its respective equity interest in parent companies above CM Holdco./9
The first potential transaction involves Falcon CM Holdings, LLC (Falcon CM), a Delaware limited liability corporation that currently holds a 29% equity interest in Connoisseur Cos, LLC (Connoisseur Cos), a parent company of CM Holdco./10 Falcon CM holds no voting interest in Connoisseur Cos./11 Both because only a portion of Falcon CM's equity interest is held by foreign entities and because the calculation of Falcon CM's ultimate ownership interest in CM Holdco is diluted by the ownership interests of other stakeholders, the foreign ownership arising from Falcon CM's present interest is less than 25%. The sole member of Falcon CM--Falcon Strategic Partners V, LP, a Delaware limited partnership--holds convertible notes (Falcon Notes) that would allow it to convert an existing debt interest in Connoisseur Cos to equity (such exchange of notes for equity is hereinafter referred to as the Falcon Notes Conversion)./12 Specifically, the Falcon Notes Conversion would allow Falcon CM to increase its existing equity interest in Connoisseur Cos from 29% to 47.5%./13 Because two of Falcon CM's members are organized outside the United States, an increase in Falcon CM's equity interest in Connoisseur Cos would result in an increase of indirect foreign equity interests in the Petitioner.
The second transaction involves warrants issued as part of Connoisseur's recent acquisition of Alpha Media Holdings, Inc. (Alpha Media)./14 As part of that acquisition, certain former executives, shareholders, or investors of Alpha Media (referred to collectively herein as Former Alpha Participants) were issued warrants (Alpha Tranche Warrants) that allow them to obtain additional equity in Connoisseur Media Parent, LLC (CM Parent), a holding company that indirectly holds 100% of the equity and voting of CM Holdco./15 The right to obtain such additional equity depends on whether Connoisseur Media reaches certain valuations./16 In order to ensure that Connoisseur Media complies with section 310(b) if the Alpha Tranche Warrants are exercised, Petitioner seeks approval for this structure. At present, the Former Alpha Participants, some of which are non-U.S. entities, collectively hold 8.75% of the equity of CM Parent./17 As a result of the exercise of the Alpha Tranche Warrants, the equity interests held by non-U.S. Former Alpha Participants in CM Parent could rise from the current level of 4.49% to 8.57%./18
Request for Aggregate Foreign Ownership. According to the Amended Petition, the Falcon Notes Conversion, either alone or in combination with the exercise of the Alpha Tranche Warrants, would raise the aggregate indirect foreign ownership of CM Holdco to more than 25% of the company's equity. The Amended Petition indicates that, depending on the number and sequence of transactions, the indirect aggregate foreign ownership interests in CM Holdco could rise from the present level of 20.37% of equity and 0% voting to between 30.50% and 34.38% of equity and 0% voting./19 Accordingly, as the resulting foreign ownership levels would be above the 25% foreign ownership benchmarks set by section 310(b)(4) of the Act, CM Holdco seeks Commission approval for up to 100% aggregate indirect foreign ownership (equity and voting).
Specific and Advance Approval Requests. Further, pursuant to section 1.5001(i) of the Rules,/20 the Petitioner requests/21 that the Commission grant specific approval for the following foreign-organized entities or foreign individuals to indirectly hold more than 5% of the equity and/or deemed voting interests in CM Holdco:/22
1. Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman), LP (6.26 - 6.94% equity, 6.26 - 6.94% deemed voting) (Cayman Islands);/23
2. Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman 2), LP (5.48 - 6.07% equity, 5.48 - 6.07% deemed voting) (Cayman Islands);/24 and
3. Oliver G. Price (0% equity, 100% deemed voting) (United Kingdom).
The Amended Petition seeks approval for Oliver G. Price to hold a deemed 100% indirect, non-controlling voting interest in CM Parent by virtue of his position as an uninsulated member of CM Broadcast Management, LLC (CM Broadcast Management), the U.S. organized entity that ultimately controls CM Parent and CM Holdco./25 Additionally, according to the Amended Petition, "[f]ollowing receipt of the FCC's approval to become an uninsulated, non-controlling member of CM Broadcast Management, Mr. Price will also hold a less than 5 percent profits interest in CM Broadcast Management."/26 The Amended Petition states that it seeks approval to the extent necessary to allow "Mr. Price to hold up to a 5 percent equity interest (in the form of a profits interest) in CM Broadcast Management."/27
In addition, the Petitioner requests advance approval pursuant to section 1.5001(k) of the Rules/28 for Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman), LP and Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman 2), LP to each increase their indirect interests in CM Holdco up to a non-controlling 20.0% equity interest and a 20.0% deemed voting interest./29
Public Interest Benefits. CM Holdco states that grant of the Amended Petition will afford it greater access to capital and, thus, enable it to better compete in the media marketplace./30 The Petitioner asserts that greater investment will provide it with additional resources to invest in local content and new digital capabilities./31 It states further that favorable action on the Amended Petition would "incentivize foreign investment in broadcasting, and promote U.S. trade policy by encouraging reciprocal investment opportunities for U.S. companies in foreign markets."/32 CM Holdco highlights that the proposed foreign interest holders for whom specific approval is sought are "organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands or is a citizen of the United Kingdom, both of which are allies of the United States and investors in its economy, and with which the U.S. is engaged in robust reciprocal trade."/33 CM Holdco also notes that the Commission previously granted a petition for declaratory ruling permitting up to 100% aggregate foreign investment (equity and voting) in the Alpha Media broadcast stations that are now owned by CM Holdco, and that such prior investment similarly involved companies organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and the Cayman Islands./34 Finally, the Amended Petition emphasizes that the potential increase in indirect foreign equity holders does not change control of the company, as Jeffrey D. Warshaw, a U.S. citizen, will continue to hold de facto and de jure control of CM Holdco and the FCC broadcast licenses it controls./35
Coordination with Executive Branch Agencies. Consistent with the Rules, CM Holdco submitted responses to the standard questions to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Committee) contemporaneous with its filing of the Petition at the Commission./36 On April 16, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the Committee submitted a letter to the Commission in which it advised the Commission that it does not believe that a referral of the Amended Petition to the Committee for review is necessary./37 Accordingly, we find that it would not be an efficient use of resources for either the Executive Branch agencies or the Commission to refer the Amended Petition in these circumstances, and we will exercise our discretion to forgo formally referring the Amended Petition to the Executive Branch agencies./38 Although we are not formally referring the Amended Petition, per our standard practice, we will provide a courtesy copy of this public notice to the Executive Branch agencies. We also retain authority to pursue enforcement action by the Commission for non-compliance with the Act or the Rules.
EX PARTE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING
Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's Rules,/39 the Commission may adopt modified or more stringent ex parte procedures in particular proceedings if the public interest so requires. We announce that this proceeding will be governed by permit-but-disclose ex parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings under section 1.1206 of the Rules./40
Parties making oral ex parte presentations are directed to the Commission's ex parte rules. Parties are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain the presentation's substance and not merely list the subjects discussed./41 More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required./42 Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as well./43
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Petition for Declaratory Ruling referred to in this Public Notice has been accepted for filing upon initial review. The Commission may require CM Holdco to submit any additional documents or statements of fact that in its judgment may be necessary. The Commission also reserves the right to return any filing if, upon further examination, it is determined to be defective and not in conformance with the Commission's rules or policies.
Interested persons must file comments no later than June 8, 2026. Replies must be filed no later than June 23, 2026.
To allow the Commission to fully consider all substantive issues regarding the Petition in as timely and efficient a manner as possible, commenters should raise all issues in their initial filings. A party or interested person seeking to raise a new issue after the pleading cycle has closed must show good cause why it was not possible for it to have raised the issue previously./44 Submissions after the pleading cycle has closed that seek to raise new issues based on new facts or newly discovered facts should be filed within 15 days after such facts are discovered. Absent such a showing of good cause, any issues not timely raised may be disregarded by the Commission.
All filings concerning matters referenced in this Public Notice should refer to MB Docket No. 26109.
Submissions in this matter may be filed electronically (i.e., through the Commission's Electronic Filing Comment System (ECFS)) or by filing paper copies as follows:
* Electronic Filers: Documents may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554.
One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by e-mail, or if delivered as paper copy, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set forth above for paper filings), to: (1) Albert Shuldiner, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at albert.shuldiner@fcc.gov; (2) Christopher Clark, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at christopher.clark@fcc.gov; and (3) Brendan Holland, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at brendan.holland@fcc.gov. Any submission that is e-mailed to Albert Shuldiner, Christopher Clark, and Brendan Holland should include in the subject line of the e-mail: (1) MB Docket No. 26-109; (2) the name of the submitting party; and (3) a brief description or title identifying the type of document being submitted (e.g., MB Docket No. 26- 109, [name of submitting party], Comments).
Copies of the Petition and any subsequently filed documents in this matter are available electronically through the Commission's Electronic Filing Comment System (ECFS), which may be accessed on the Commission's Internet website.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
By: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-452A1.pdf
SEC Commissioner Uyeda Issues Remarks at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Market Regulation
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 7, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Market Regulation:
* * *
Thank you, Kathleen [Hanley], for that kind introduction. Good afternoon and welcome to the SEC's Annual Conference on Financial Market Regulation.[1] Thank you to the staff of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, especially Vlad Ivanov, for your work in putting together this conference. Thank you to our partners at Lehigh University's Center for Financial Services and the University of
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 7, 2026, by Commissioner Mark T. Uyeda at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Market Regulation:
* * *
Thank you, Kathleen [Hanley], for that kind introduction. Good afternoon and welcome to the SEC's Annual Conference on Financial Market Regulation.[1] Thank you to the staff of the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis, especially Vlad Ivanov, for your work in putting together this conference. Thank you to our partners at Lehigh University's Center for Financial Services and the University ofVirginia's Darden School of Business for their assistance in hosting this conference.
Introduction
This is the 13th annual edition organized by the SEC. I am pleased that it is still going strong, because I attended the very first edition of this conference back in May 2014. At the time, I served as counsel to then-Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar. As far as we know, Commissioner Piwowar is only the 2nd Ph.D. economist to ever serve as an SEC commissioner. His perspectives, based on his academic and empirical research, served the Commission well during discussions about financial market policy - particularly when the voices of lawyers often dominate regulatory agencies.
In his remarks at the inaugural conference in 2014, Commissioner Piwowar stated:
Academic research is critically important to the SEC's mission of protecting investors, maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation. Other financial regulators have long benefitted from holding academic research conferences on issues of importance to their agencies and it is high time for the Commission to do likewise. So it is quite exciting for me to be part of your activities today.[2]
I could not agree more. Conferences like this one, where empirical analysis is applied to regulatory practice, are the type of forum that can help inform policy. Of course, that discussion cannot occur unless people are willing to submit papers and others are willing to analyze the papers and serve as discussants. To those individuals, thank you for your contributions.
Over the next two days, a number of important topics over five tracks will be covered at the conference. For my remarks this afternoon, I would like to briefly touch upon two topics that caught my interest.
Broken Windows and SEC Enforcement
One panel during the enforcement track will discuss a paper on the application and effectiveness of the broken windows policy in the securities enforcement context.[3] The broken windows hypothesis, as described in a seminal article published in The Atlantic by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, posits that visible signs of disorder, when left unaddressed, create an environment that encourages more serious crime.[4] The empirical literature on this theory remains contested, but its migration into securities is not merely academic. The paper focuses on a period in the past when the Commission explicitly implemented a broken windows policy, about which concerns have been expressed.[5] Whether the broken windows theory translates effectively in the securities enforcement context is an interesting question, particularly as this theory was implemented by prior Commission leadership.
This particular paper asserts that it "provides the first empirical evidence consistent with a broken windows securities enforcement policy reducing the incidence of severe financial misconduct." The paper does, however, recognize that such a policy may not be effective overall in a white-collar setting because enforcing minor violations could divert limited resources and attention away from pursuing the more serious violations.
I appreciate the efforts to use various metrics in empirical studies in this field. My reactions to the paper are based on nearly twenty years of service at the SEC, half of which has been spent on the executive staff. During that period, I have reviewed thousands of recommendations from the Division of Enforcement.
When it comes to "broken windows," Wilson and Kelling identify two separate, but related, fears. The first is the fear of being a victim of crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger. The second is the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. As Wilson and Kelling describe this group, they are "not violent people, nor, necessarily, criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people."
Wilson and Kelling further describe a neighborhood as being made up of "regulars" and "strangers." Rules regulating order were defined and enforced in collaboration with the "regulars" on the street - and not necessarily by the rules established exclusively by law.
In other words, to achieve order, there was a set of regularly expected behaviors among participants in a neighborhood. In a certain sense, that regular expectation of rules and norms exists in the securities markets as well. Leaking material non-public information to a golfing buddy with the expectation that your friend can trade profitably on such information - definitely prohibited behavior. But requiring monitoring and retention of all texts on personal mobile devices by persons working for broker-dealers and investment advisers? Is that a violation of the technical meaning of the laws and regulations? Perhaps. However, given the reaction to the SEC's sweep effort on off-channel communications, communicating on personal devices was not the type of behavior that was viewed as unambiguously impermissible.
When it comes to regulatory enforcement, one should also be considering the incentives and metrics designated by agency leadership for that program. If the metrics being stressed focus on the number of enforcement actions being brought and the amount of dollars collected in the form of disgorgement and civil penalties, then agency personnel will act in accordance with such instructions and incentives.
The SEC's rulebook has expanded dramatically in volume and complexity over the decades, which leaves significant ground for the Commission staff to exercise discretion in making and recommending enforcement decisions. Without limitations on the exercise of such discretion, there are many violations and novel legal interpretations that can be asserted as the basis for sanctions against virtually any asset class or market participant.
However, random acts of regulatory enforcement dressed up as broken windows enforcement are unlikely to succeed at achieving behavioral conformity with widely-accepted norms intended to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. Abusing our discretionary authority undermines the regulatory predictability that efficient markets require or chills market activity that may be socially valuable.
The author finds that sweep investigations opened during the broken windows era were 8-9% more likely to result in an enforcement action, which can be partially explained by strict liability violations that do not require proving negligence or scienter.[6] The author also divides SEC enforcement actions based on the tenure of various SEC chairman. However, the paper does not appear to make adjustments to reflect that SEC enforcement investigations, particularly for complex accounting cases, can take years between initiation and the bringing of any actual action. Thus, the enforcement actions taken during the early tenure of any chairman often reflects investigations initiated under the prior chairman - and enforcement initiatives undertaken by one chairman may only come to fruition, if at all, during the tenure of his or her successor.
Nonetheless, I appreciate the efforts of researchers to study the actions of regulatory agencies. Their efforts play a role in holding the government accountable to the people.
Active ETFs
Another paper that caught my attention was regarding active exchange-traded funds (ETFs).[7] The first ETF launched in 1993, as a passive, index-tracking tool designed for low-cost, broad market exposure, combining mutual fund diversification with stock-like intraday trading. The ETF space has since experienced exponential growth. In 2005, the ICI Fact Book reported that mutual funds held nearly $8.9 trillion in assets as compared to a mere $296 billion for ETFs.[8] Thus, ETFs represented about 3.2% of assets in SEC-registered open-end fund assets. By 2025, mutual funds held $31.4 trillion in assets while ETFs had grown to $13.4 trillion - with ETFs now representing almost 30% of open-end fund assets.[9]
Among other trends, there is an emerging market of active ETFs. The paper on active ETFs that will be presented tomorrow during the asset management track finds that the growth in the active ETF space is driven by a shift in investor base and expansion of the retail clientele. The authors conclude that active ETF managers benefit from chasing extreme performance, in either direction, which incentivizes asset managers to pursue high-volatility strategies. As we continue to see innovation and growth in the ETF space, ongoing empirical research such as this is essential for understanding market implications and informing sound policymaking.
Conclusion
I have mentioned only two examples from the array of thoughtful and relevant topics in the program. There are many other interesting topics, including with respect to crypto regulation, nocturnal trading of U.S.-listed equities, and corporate loan ratings.
Thank you again to the economists for your work and your participation in this conference. Your work helps to understand the markets and ensure that economic analysis contributes to sound policy development.
* * *
[1] My remarks reflect solely my individual views as a commissioner and do not necessarily reflect the views of the full U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or my fellow Commissioners.
[2] Commissioner Michael S. Piwowar, Remarks to the First Annual Conference on the Regulation of Financial Markets (May 16, 2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/2014-spch051614msp.
[3] Nathan Herrmann, Broken Windows Securities Enforcement (Oct. 2025).
[4] James Q. Wilson & George L. Kelling, Broken Windows, Atlantic Monthly (1982).
[5] Michael S. Piwowar, Remarks to the Securities Enforcement Forum 2014 (Oct. 14, 2014), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/2014-spch101414msp.
[6] Herrmann, supra note 3, at 29.
[7] Da Huang, Vasudha Nair, Christopher Schwarz, Active ETFs as Attention Assets: Retail Trading Meets Managed Funds (Apr. 2026), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5426275.
[8] Investment Company Institute, 2006 Investment Company Fact Book, at 7, available at https://www.ici.org/system/files/attachments/2006_factbook.pdf.
[9] Investment Company Institute, 2026 Investment Company Fact Book, at 13, available at https://www.icifactbook.org/pdf/2026-factbook.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/uyeda-remarks-conference-financial-market-regulation-050726
SEC Charges 21 Individuals With Alleged Wide-Reaching Insider Trading Scheme
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 26-civ-12068; D. Mass. filed May 6, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nicolo Nourafchan, et al., No. 26-civ-12068 (D. Mass. filed May 6, 2026)
On May 6, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against 21 individuals for their alleged involvement in an insider trading scheme that used information misappropriated from multiple global law firms and netted scheme participants millions of dollars in illicit profits.
According to the SEC's complaint, between
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 26-civ-12068; D. Mass. filed May 6, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nicolo Nourafchan, et al., No. 26-civ-12068 (D. Mass. filed May 6, 2026)
On May 6, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against 21 individuals for their alleged involvement in an insider trading scheme that used information misappropriated from multiple global law firms and netted scheme participants millions of dollars in illicit profits.
According to the SEC's complaint, between2018 and 2024, Nicolo Nourafchan, an attorney who worked on mergers and acquisitions, and Robert Yadgarov orchestrated the scheme. Nourafchan misappropriated material nonpublic information about at least a dozen impending corporate transactions from his law firm employer, and he or Yadgarov tipped that information to others who agreed to kick back a portion of their trading profits or who, in turn, tipped others who traded, according to the complaint. Nourafchan and Yadgarov also allegedly recruited another corporate lawyer who misappropriated material nonpublic information about additional deals and tipped that information to them.
The case originated from the SEC Market Abuse Unit's Analysis and Detection Center, which uses data analysis tools to detect suspicious trading patterns.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, charges the defendants with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced criminal charges against all the defendants in this case.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by David Bennett, David Snyder, and John Rymas with assistance from Matthew Koop and supervised by Diana Tani and Joseph G. Sansone, all of the Enforcement Division's Market Abuse Unit. The litigation will be led by Senior Trial Counsel Rua Kelly and supervised by Martin Healey of the SEC's Boston Regional Office. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority, the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, the Mauritius Financial Services Commission, and the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2026/comp-pr2026-44.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26551
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice: Effective Date for Pole Attachment Rules
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 17-84):
* * *
On July 24, 2025, the Commission adopted the Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Orders on Reconsideration./1
In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules (1) ensuring greater collaboration and cooperation between utilities and attachers, (2) establishing a timeline for large pole attachment requests,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 17-84):
* * *
On July 24, 2025, the Commission adopted the Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Orders on Reconsideration./1
In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules (1) ensuring greater collaboration and cooperation between utilities and attachers, (2) establishing a timeline for large pole attachment requests,(3) improving the pole attachment timeline, and (4) speeding up the contractor approval process./2
The Commission stated that these rule changes may contain new or modified information collection requirements and would not become effective until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) completed its review of any information collection requirements that the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) determined is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act./3 The Commission also directed the Bureau to announce the effective date for the rules by subsequent Public Notice./4
On April 17, 2026, OMB approved the information collection requirements related to the pole attachment rules contained in the Fifth Report and Order. Pursuant to the announcement of effective date subsequently published in the Federal Register, the effective date for the amendments to sections 1.1403(b), 1.1411(c)-(k), and 1.1412(a)-(b), (e) of the Commission's rules is May 7, 2026./5
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Fifth Report and Order, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Orders on Reconsideration, 40 FCC Rcd 5395 (2025) (Fifth Report and Order).
2/ Id. at 5395, para. 2.
3/ Id. at 5482, para. 153 (stating that "the Fifth Report and Order shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except that the amendments to sections 1.1403(b), 1.1411(c)-(k), and 1.1412(a)-(b), (e) which may contain new or modified information collection requirements, will not become effective until the Office of Management and Budget completes review of any information collection requirements that the Wireline Competition Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce the effective date for sections 1.1403(b), 1.1411(c)-(k), and 1.1412(a)(b), (e) by subsequent Public Notice."). The Fifth Report and Order was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2025. 90 Fed. Reg. 41726 (Aug. 26, 2025).
4/ Fifth Report and Order, 40 FCC Rcd at 5482, para. 153.
5/ 91 Fed. Reg. 24731 (May 7, 2026).
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-446A1.pdf
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Favoto Bike Helmets
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Favoto Bike Helmets
Hazard: The recalled helmets violate the mandatory safety standard for bicycle helmets because they do not comply with the positional stability, labeling and certification requirements. The helmets can fail to protect the user in the event of a crash, posing a serious risk of injury or death due to head injury.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: May 07, 2026
Units: About 2,200
Consumer Contact: Email at safety@favoto.com or online at www.favoto.com/pages/recall
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Favoto Bike Helmets
Hazard: The recalled helmets violate the mandatory safety standard for bicycle helmets because they do not comply with the positional stability, labeling and certification requirements. The helmets can fail to protect the user in the event of a crash, posing a serious risk of injury or death due to head injury.
Remedy: Refund
Recall Date: May 07, 2026
Units: About 2,200
Consumer Contact: Email at safety@favoto.com or online at www.favoto.com/pages/recalland click "Recall" at the top of the page for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves Favoto Model H-1 bike helmets. The helmet body is black with red stripes, black padding, black straps with a silver reflective pattern in the center and a black and red buckle with a black chin strap. The recalled helmets were sold in youth size large (L). The helmets have a black plastic knob at the back of the helmet for adjusting the fitting. "FAVOTO" can be found in white letters on the side of the helmet.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the helmets immediately and contact Favoto for a full refund. Consumers will be asked to destroy the recalled helmet by cutting the straps and write "Recalled" and email a photo of the destroyed helmet to safety@favoto.com.
Incidents/Injuries: None reported
Sold Online At: Amazon.com from April 2022 through January 2026 for between $20 and $27.
Importer(s): Shenzhen Favoto Co., Ltd., doing business as Favoto, of China
Manufactured In: China
Recall number: 26-467
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Favoto-Bicycle-Helmets-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Head-Injury-Violate-Mandatory-Standard-for-Bicycle-Helmets-Sold-on-Amazon-by-Favoto
CPSC Issues Recall Alert Involving Analemma Water Bottles
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Analemma Water Bottles
Hazard: The recalled water bottle's inner glass liner can break, posing a risk of serious injury or death from laceration and ingestion hazards.
Remedy: Refund/Repair
Recall Date: May 07, 2026
Units: About 800
Consumer Contact: New Earth Technologies toll-free at 844-841-2711, email at info@analemma-water.com, or online at www.analemma-water.com/pages/recall or www.analemma-water.com and click on "Support" and then click on the "Recall Information"
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following recall alert:
* * *
Name of Product: Analemma Water Bottles
Hazard: The recalled water bottle's inner glass liner can break, posing a risk of serious injury or death from laceration and ingestion hazards.
Remedy: Refund/Repair
Recall Date: May 07, 2026
Units: About 800
Consumer Contact: New Earth Technologies toll-free at 844-841-2711, email at info@analemma-water.com, or online at www.analemma-water.com/pages/recall or www.analemma-water.com and click on "Support" and then click on the "Recall Information"button for more information.
Recall Details
Description: This recall involves all Analemma-branded water bottles. The stainless-steel water bottles were sold in black or white and have a glass inner liner and a screw-on top. The Analemma logo, "24 oz" and "Analemma The Architect of Life" are printed on the front of the water bottles.
Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water bottles and contact New Earth Technologies d.o.o. for a full refund or a free repair, including shipping. The repair consists of a stainless-steel mesh insert and instructions on how to insert it into the water bottle.
Incidents/Injuries: New Earth Technologies d.o.o. has received 20 reports of the glass inner liner breaking, including one that resulted in an oral injury.
Sold Online At: Analemma-water.com from November 2025 through February 2026 for about $250.
Importer(s): New Earth Technologies d.o.o., dba Analemma, of Zagreb, Croatia
Manufactured In: Netherlands
Recall number: 26-475
Fast Track Recall
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2026/Analemma-Water-Bottles-Recalled-Due-to-Risk-of-Serious-Injury-or-Death-from-Laceration-and-Ingestion-Hazards-Imported-by-New-Earth-Technologies-d-o-o
