Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Charges 2 Firms, Investment Adviser, Their Principals for Their Roles in Alleged Fraudulent Investment Scheme Involving Purported High-Yield Investment Programs
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-23237; S.D. Fla. filed May 7, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Reign Financial International, LLC, et al., No. 1:26-cv-23237 (S.D. Fla. filed May 7, 2026)
On May 7, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Reign Financial International, LLC, Reign Financial International, Inc. (together, "Reign"), their principals, Giorgio Johnson and Gary Mills; Florida resident, Patrick Allen; and Berone Capital, LLC, and its principals, Jeremiah Beguesse and Fabian
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:26-cv-23237; S.D. Fla. filed May 7, 2026):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Reign Financial International, LLC, et al., No. 1:26-cv-23237 (S.D. Fla. filed May 7, 2026)
On May 7, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Reign Financial International, LLC, Reign Financial International, Inc. (together, "Reign"), their principals, Giorgio Johnson and Gary Mills; Florida resident, Patrick Allen; and Berone Capital, LLC, and its principals, Jeremiah Beguesse and FabianStone, for their roles in connection with an alleged fraudulent investment scheme involving three purported high-yield investment programs ("HYIPs") that raised over $26 million from at least 31 investors. Reign, Johnson, and Mills consented to the entry of a judgment, subject to court approval, that would resolve the SEC's litigation as to them.
According to the SEC's complaint, the scheme involved three similar fraudulent HYIPs in which Reign, Johnson, Mills, and Allen enticed investors with promises of outsized short-term profits with little or no risk to their principal, claiming that investor funds would be used to source opaque financial instruments involving leverage through European banks. The complaint alleges that, in reality, the HYIPs did not exist, many investors lost their principal, and no investors received any profits. In addition, the complaint alleges Allen, Reign, Johnson, and Mills misappropriated some of the investor funds. The complaint further alleges Berone, Beguesse, and Stone violated their fiduciary duties and the terms of the governing documents of the hedge fund they managed, which held HYIP investor proceeds, by misappropriating fund assets for their own personal use and benefit, including spending on jewelry, luxury cars, and private jet travel.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, charges Reign, Johnson, Mills, and Allen with violating Section 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder. The complaint also charges Reign, Johnson, and Mills with aiding and abetting Allen's violations. Additionally, the complaint charges Berone, Beguesse, and Stone with violating Section 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Reign, Johnson, and Mills consented to the entry of a judgment, subject to court approval, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from future violations of the applicable provisions of the federal securities laws, conduct-based injunctions, a permanent officer and director bar against Johnson, disgorgement totaling $1,116,650, prejudgment interest totaling $372,420, and civil penalties totaling $1,116,650.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Jason Anthony, Michael Flanagan, and Zachary Scrima and was supervised by Paul Pashkoff and Pei Y. Chung. The SEC's litigation will be led by Jennifer Farer and supervised by David Nasse.
The SEC's Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has issued investor alerts on the red flags of investment fraud. Additional information is available on Investor.gov.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/comp26552.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26552-0
FCC Orders Recovery of Emergency Connectivity Funds From Colegio Paraiso Infantil
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission has denied a request for review and waiver filed by Colegio Paraiso Infantil, San Antonio, Puerto Rico, regarding the recovery of funds from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The decision, issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau, mandates that the school must return funding received for connected devices after failing to comply with program audit requirements (WC Docket No.: 21-93).
The dispute centers on $4,399.45 disbursed in July 2022 for 11 connected devices intended to help close the "homework gap." According to the order, an auditor
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 13 -- The Federal Communications Commission has denied a request for review and waiver filed by Colegio Paraiso Infantil, San Antonio, Puerto Rico, regarding the recovery of funds from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. The decision, issued by the Wireline Competition Bureau, mandates that the school must return funding received for connected devices after failing to comply with program audit requirements (WC Docket No.: 21-93).
The dispute centers on $4,399.45 disbursed in July 2022 for 11 connected devices intended to help close the "homework gap." According to the order, an auditorselected the school for a compliance review in December 2022. Despite numerous attempts to contact the school via email and telephone in both English and Spanish over a 15-month period, the school failed to provide the required asset inventory and documentation.
The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) eventually sought recovery of the funds in June 2024. While Colegio Paraiso Infantil later attempted to submit the missing records during the appeal process in 2025, the Commission found these efforts insufficient.
The Bureau determined that the school violated section 54.1714 and section 54.1715(c) of the Commission's rules. These regulations require all ECF participants to cooperate with audits and produce documentation upon request to ensure program integrity. In the order, the FCC noted that the school's late submission of documents raised concerns regarding the reliability of the evidence. The Bureau emphasized that audits are essential for verifying that taxpayer-funded equipment is used appropriately and in compliance with the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
Colegio Paraiso Infantil sought a waiver of the rules, citing "security issues with email accounts" as the reason for the lack of communication. However, the Commission rejected this argument, stating that the school failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would justify a deviation from standard procedures. The order concluded that the school's prolonged silence--despite reminders from the Commission's Managing Director and USAC--distinguishes this case from others where late-filed information was accepted. USAC has been directed to continue with the recovery of the $4,399.45.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-472A1.pdf
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China
The U.S. International Trade Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations, the existing orders on
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews Concerning Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China
The U.S. International Trade Commission or USITC) today determined that revoking the existing antidumping and countervailing duty orders on citric acid and certain citrate salts from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
As a result of the Commission's affirmative determinations, the existing orders onimports of this product from China will remain in place.
Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns voted in the affirmative.
Today's action comes under the five-year (sunset) review process required by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. See the attached page for background on these five-year (sunset) reviews.
The Commission's public report, Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China (Inv. Nos. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1152 (Third Review), USITC Publication 5740, May 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the reviews.
The report will be available on the USITC website by June 25, 2026.
BACKGROUND
The Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires the Department of Commerce to revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, or terminate a suspension agreement, after five years unless the Department of Commerce and the USITC determine that revoking the order or terminating the suspension agreement would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidies (Commerce) and of material injury (USITC) within a reasonably foreseeable time.
The Commission's institution notice in five-year reviews requests that interested parties file responses with the Commission concerning the likely effects of revoking the order under review as well as other information. Generally, within 95 days from institution, the Commission will determine whether the responses it has received reflect an adequate or inadequate level of interest in a full review. If responses to the USITC's notice of institution are adequate, or if other circumstances warrant a full review, the Commission conducts a full review, which includes a public hearing and issuance of questionnaires.
The Commission generally does not hold a hearing or conduct further investigative activities in expedited reviews. Commissioners base their injury determination in expedited reviews on the facts available, including the Commission's prior injury and review determinations, responses received to its notice of institution, data collected by staff in connection with the reviews, and information provided by the Department of Commerce.
The five-year (sunset) reviews concerning Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China was instituted on December 1, 2025.
On March 6, 2026, the Commission determined to conduct expedited five-year reviews. Chair Amy A. Karpel and Commissioners David S. Johanson and Jason E. Kearns concluded that the domestic interested party group responses were adequate and the respondent interested party group responses were inadequate, and voted for expedited reviews.
A record of the Commission's vote to conduct expedited reviews is available on the investigations page for Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from China; Inv. No. 701-TA-456 and 731-TA-1152 (Third Review) (https://ids.usitc.gov/case/96/investigation/8825).
***
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0512_68587.htm
FCC: GOMEZ CALLS ON DISNEY TO FIGHT CENSORSHIP, EXPOSES DOUBLE STANDARD IN FCC TARGETING
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on May 11, 2026:
* * *
GOMEZ CALLS ON DISNEY TO FIGHT CENSORSHIP, EXPOSES DOUBLE STANDARD IN FCC TARGETING
In First Communication to Disney's New CEO, FCC Commissioner Describes What Appears to Be Entrapment While Encouraging the Company to Stand Firm
*
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez today sent a letter to Walt Disney Company CEO Josh D'Amaro documenting the record of this Administration's campaign of censorship and control against Disney, calling out the FCC's double standard in its selective enforcement
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission issued the following news release on May 11, 2026:
* * *
GOMEZ CALLS ON DISNEY TO FIGHT CENSORSHIP, EXPOSES DOUBLE STANDARD IN FCC TARGETING
In First Communication to Disney's New CEO, FCC Commissioner Describes What Appears to Be Entrapment While Encouraging the Company to Stand Firm
*
FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez today sent a letter to Walt Disney Company CEO Josh D'Amaro documenting the record of this Administration's campaign of censorship and control against Disney, calling out the FCC's double standard in its selective enforcementagainst the company, and encouraging Disney to continue fighting. The letter marks the first formal communication to Disney's leadership from a federal regulator since D'Amaro assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer.
"What Disney and ABC are facing is not a series of coincidental regulatory actions but a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC's authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press and all media into submission," Commissioner Gomez wrote.
The letter traces the censorship campaign from its origins in the settlement of a baseless defamation lawsuit brought against ABC, through a series of investigations into ABC's debate moderation, diversity programs, and The View, and culminating in an unprecedented early license renewal order against all eight ABC-owned stations, which Commissioner Gomez has called the most egregious First Amendment assault this FCC has taken to date.
"That settlement did not buy you peace. It only bought you time. Disney's experience since then has made one thing undeniable for any company facing the same pressure. You cannot buy this Administration's favor. For the right price, you can only borrow it. And the price always goes up," Gomez wrote.
The letter calls out a stark double standard at the heart of the FCC's enforcement posture. While the agency has trained its enforcement apparatus on ABC, other broadcasters operating under the exact same rules, in the same markets, aired interviews with political candidates without filing required notices and received no inquiry, no letter, and no investigation whatsoever. Invoking a recent Supreme Court opinion, Commissioner Gomez wrote: "The threat is the point. As Justice Gorsuch reminded us by invoking Justice Thurgood Marshall, 'the value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it drops."
The letter also raises serious questions about the FCC's conduct in its investigation into The View. Based on Disney's own filing, Commissioner Gomez describes what appears to be a form of entrapment where the Commission selectively used the threat of enforcement actions to pressure ABC affiliates into filing paperwork on a candidate appearance and then used the existence of those filings as evidence against Disney's ABC station. "If true, that is a government agency abusing its authority to punish speech it dislikes while protecting speech it favors," Gomez wrote.
Commissioner Gomez also raises serious concerns about the FCC's investigation into Disney's diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, noting that the agency's own rules on this topic are limited to recruitment outreach and say nothing about internal corporate policies. Despite that overreach, Disney produced over 11,000 pages of documents in response to the inquiry. "The FCC's attempt to usurp control over internal corporate decision-making through its limited authority requires reaching for legal power that the statute, agency rules, and the applicable case law simply do not provide," Gomez wrote.
Commissioner Gomez closed the letter by encouraging Disney to continue fighting, noting the company's previous successful resistance to government overreach in Florida.
"I am encouraged to see that Disney is choosing courage over capitulation. The fight ahead may not be easy, but the law, the facts, and the public are on your side. This is a fight worth having, and one that I am confident you will win."
* * *
Mr. Josh D'Amaro, Chief Executive Officer, The Walt Disney Company
RE: This Administration's Campaign of Censorship and Control Against Disney and ABC
Dear Mr. D'Amaro,
I am writing because The Walt Disney Company has once again been made a target by this FCC, and the record of its actions against your company demands a clear accounting.
What Disney and ABC are facing is not a series of coincidental regulatory actions but a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC's authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press and all media into submission.
You are not the first target of this campaign, and you will not be the last. But Disney's experience is, by now, the most documented, and it is worth laying it out plainly.
This Administration's campaign against Disney and ABC began in earnest when ABC agreed to pay $15 million to settle a baseless defamation lawsuit brought by the incoming President of the United States. Whatever the legal calculations behind that decision, its effect was immediate and unmistakable. It told this Administration that pressure works. It told every other company watching that capitulation was an option. And it opened the door to every action that has followed.
That settlement did not buy you peace. It only bought you time. Disney's experience since then has made one thing undeniable for any company facing the same pressure. You cannot buy this Administration's favor. For the right price, you can only borrow it. And the price always goes up.
Since that settlement, the FCC has pursued your company on multiple fronts, none of which reflect legitimate regulatory enforcement.
In late 2024, a politically motivated outside organization filed a complaint with the FCC alleging that ABC violated the FCC's news distortion policy in its coverage of the presidential campaign, specifically the presidential debate ABC journalists moderated. Agency staff reviewed that complaint and dismissed it in January 2025, finding it contrary to the First Amendment and that it failed to even assert a set of facts that, if true, would violate FCC rules.1 This FCC revived it anyway, for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits and everything to do with politics. It is unclear to what degree this FCC has even seriously pursued that complaint, and I suspect there will be no end in sight for that investigation because the process is the punishment and keeping it open serves that goal.
Then, in March 2025, the FCC opened an investigation into Disney and ABC's diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, directing the Enforcement Bureau to demand a full accounting of your company's diversity policies and practices. The FCC's broadcaster equal employment opportunity (EEO) rule is limited to requiring broadcasters to conduct broad, inclusive recruitment outreach.2 This narrowly tailored rule resulted from significant and hard fought litigation over years that addressed both the scope of the Commission's authority and the substantial intrinsic dangers that arise from the Commission using its licensing authority to enforce its views of the "correct" racial or gender balance in employment practices, dangers this FCC's current course of action exemplifies precisely. As the D.C. Circuit stated when vacating the FCC's prior EEO rule as unconstitutional, "the FCC is not the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . . . and a license renewal proceeding is not a Title VII suit" because the agency's authority is limited by its statutory remit.3 And in its subsequent decision vacating the Commission's revision of its EEO rule, the court went further and described the inherent coercive danger of investigations on alleged discrimination by licensing agencies such as the FCC.4
The FCC's attempt to usurp control over internal corporate decision-making through its limited authority requires reaching for legal power that the statute, agency rules, and the applicable case law simply do not provide. Courts have repeatedly and decisively determined that actions such as the FCC's current investigation are unconstitutional. Despite the extraordinary overreach this investigation represents, it is my understanding that Disney has engaged with the agency in good faith and timely responded to the Commission's Letter of Inquiry and Supplemental Letter of Inquiry by producing over 11,000 pages of responsive documents to date.5
Last year, this Administration tasked the FCC to escalate its campaign against ABC by targeting Jimmy Kimmel. The goal was clear: use regulatory pressure to force his removal from the air and send a message to every other broadcaster about the cost of critical coverage. Under that pressure, Disney pulled Kimmel off the air. But the public outcry from local communities across the country and democracy watchers around the world was immediate, broad, and impossible to ignore. Viewers and community voices from across the political spectrum and every corner of our great nation, including small towns, large cities and everything in between, made themselves heard, and that pressure forced Disney's hand to have Kimmel reinstated.
What that moment revealed is something with which this Administration has never fully reckoned. When the government tries to dictate what people can watch and who is allowed to speak, the American public will fiercely defend their First Amendment rights, the most fundamental freedom we have in this country.
Earlier this year, the FCC opened yet another investigation into ABC, this time targeting The View over an alleged equal opportunities violation stemming from an appearance by a political candidate. To facilitate these investigations, this FCC's Media Bureau issued new interpretive guidance on the equal opportunities rule that upended decades of settled agency precedent, rewriting the rules of the road specifically to create new exposure for broadcasters it wanted to target.6 The pattern by now is familiar: a complaint is filed, an investigation is opened with maximum visibility, and the process itself becomes the pressure.
This Commission has repeated that same pattern across multiple companies it regulates. These investigations are often announced with much fanfare, pursued selectively against perceived critics of this Administration, and most are destined never to be brought to any enforcement conclusion that could face judicial review. That is because the threat is the point. As sitting Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently reminded us by invoking Justice Thurgood Marshall: "The value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it drops."7
And the double standard could not be more glaring. This FCC has trained its enforcement apparatus on ABC while staying conspicuously silent about other broadcasters operating under the exact same rules, in the same markets, that aired interviews with political candidates without filing notices and received no inquiry, no letter, and no investigation whatsoever.8 Meanwhile, in what appears to be a form of entrapment, the Commission selectively pressured ABC affiliates in Texas to file late equal opportunities notices while offering them amnesty for doing so, then used the resulting inconsistency that the Commission helped create as evidence against your station, which received no such offer.9 If true, that is a government agency abusing its authority to punish speech it dislikes while protecting speech it favors.
In what is now the most egregious assault on the First Amendment this FCC has taken to date, the agency has directed Disney's eight ABC-owned local television stations to file for early license renewal, a mechanism that has not been invoked in more than half a century. Some of these licenses were not set to come up for renewal for nearly five years. Using the licenses of individual local stations as leverage against a parent company is an extraordinary and dangerous misapplication of this agency's authority. The FCC licenses local broadcast stations, not national networks, and every action taken against these stations is, in truth, an action taken against local communities and against press freedom.
Ultimately, this effort to punish and intimidate your company will not succeed. The FCC's internal process will be lengthy, and should it produce an outcome unfavorable to your stations, Disney will have every right to challenge that outcome in federal court, a process that could take years. Throughout all of it, Disney's stations keep their licenses.
Disney has been here before. When the state of Florida came after the company with the full weight of its government, Disney fought back and won. The same resolve that carried that fight can carry you in this one. The First Amendment does not belong to this Administration to grant or withhold. It belongs to the public, to the press, and to every broadcaster willing to defend it.
Your stations serve real communities, and the audiences who depend on ABC extend far beyond those eight licenses. Your journalists do work that matters to millions of Americans across the country, and the viewers who rose up to defend Jimmy Kimmel are the same viewers who will stand up again if this FCC follows through with its threat. I am encouraged to see that Disney is choosing courage over capitulation. The fight ahead may not be easy, but the law, the facts, and the public are on your side. This is a fight worth having, and one that I am confident you will win.
I am committed to using every tool available to me as a Commissioner to shine a light on what this FCC is doing to curtail press freedom and to hold this process to account at every step.
Sincerely,
Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-421592A1.pdf
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Region 42 Regional Planning Committees to Hold 700 MHZ & 800 MHZ Meetings
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 23-237 and WT Docket No. 02-378):
* * *
The Region 42 (Virginia, except Northern Virginia)/1 700 MHz and 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) will hold two consecutive planning meetings on Wednesday, May 20, 2026. Beginning at 10:00 am, the Region 42 700 MHz RPC meeting will convene at Colonial Williamsburg Resorts, Williamsburg Lodge 310 South England Street, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.
The agenda for the 700 MHz RPC meeting includes:
*
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 23-237 and WT Docket No. 02-378):
* * *
The Region 42 (Virginia, except Northern Virginia)/1 700 MHz and 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) will hold two consecutive planning meetings on Wednesday, May 20, 2026. Beginning at 10:00 am, the Region 42 700 MHz RPC meeting will convene at Colonial Williamsburg Resorts, Williamsburg Lodge 310 South England Street, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185.
The agenda for the 700 MHz RPC meeting includes:
*Call to Order
* Introductions
* Approval of Minutes
* Approval of Agenda
* Election of New Officers
* Old Business
* Chairmans' Remarks on Issues of Importance in Region 42
* New Business
* Other Business
* Adjourn
Immediately following the 700 MHz RPC meeting, the 800 MHz RPC meeting will convene.
The agenda for the 800 MHz meeting includes:
* Call to Order
* Introductions
* Approval of Minutes
* Approval of Agenda
* Election of New Officers
* Old Business
* Chairmans' Remarks on Issues of Importance in Region 42
* New Business
* Other Business
* Adjourn
The Region 42 RPC meetings are open to the public. All public safety providers in Region 42 may utilize these frequencies. It is essential that eligible public safety agencies in all areas of government, including state, municipality, county, and Tribal Nations be represented in order to ensure that each agency's future spectrum needs are considered in the allocation process. Administrators who are not oriented in the communications field should delegate someone with this knowledge to attend, participate, and represent their agency's needs.
All interested parties wishing to participate in planning for the use of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands within Region 42 should plan to attend. Those wishing to participate remotely can utilize Microsoft Teams and the following link to join the meeting.
Microsoft Teams meeting
Join: https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/23414281328872?p=dLWpS2TWqwWTTRQ6Cq
Meeting ID: 234 142 813 288 72
Passcode: AU9cd3G6
Dial in by phone
+1 434-230-0065, 915933700#
For more information, please contact:
C. J. Shaffer
Region 42 700 MHz Chairman
Hanover County
Emergency Communications Director
P.O. Box 470
7501 Library Drive
Hanover, VA 23069
Ph: 804-365-6142
Fax: 804-365-6300
cjshaffer@hanovercounty.gov
* * *
Rodney W. Thompson
Region 42 800 MHz Chairman
Roanoke County Comm-IT Communications Coordinator
5925 Cove Road, Roanoke, VA. 24019
Ph: 540-777-8556
Fax: 540-777-9771
rthompson@roanokecountyva.gov
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-457A1.pdf
CFTC Reaffirms Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets in Sixth Circuit Amicus Brief
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Reaffirms Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets in Sixth Circuit Amicus Brief
*
WASHINGTON -The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit asserting the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets. The brief was filed in KalshiEx LLC v. Matthew T. Schuler, et al., No. 26-3196.
The filing represents another step in the CFTC's broader effort to protect its jurisdiction over prediction markets
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Reaffirms Exclusive Jurisdiction Over Prediction Markets in Sixth Circuit Amicus Brief
*
WASHINGTON -The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit asserting the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets. The brief was filed in KalshiEx LLC v. Matthew T. Schuler, et al., No. 26-3196.
The filing represents another step in the CFTC's broader effort to protect its jurisdiction over prediction marketsfrom an ongoing campaign of state encroachment. The amicus brief outlines the comprehensive regulatory scheme designed by Congress, which is implemented by the CFTC, and details how that comprehensive regulatory structure preempts state laws as applied to CFTC-regulated markets.
"The federal district court in Ohio took an improperly narrow view of the Commission's jurisdiction, and we are asking the Court of Appeals to correct that error," said CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig. "As I've said repeatedly, the CFTC will not allow overzealous state governments to undermine the agency's longstanding authority over these markets."
The CFTC has previously filed lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and Wisconsin, and secured a preliminary injunction against state regulation of CFTC-regulated prediction markets in Arizona. The CFTC has also filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
-CFTC-
***
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9230-26
CFTC Approves Capital Comparability Determination and Order for Certain Nonbank Swap Dealers Domiciled in the European Union
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Approves Capital Comparability Determination and Order for Certain Nonbank Swap Dealers Domiciled in the European Union
*
WASHINGTON -The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced today it has approved a comparability determination and a related comparability order granting conditional substituted compliance with the agency's capital and financial reporting requirements. This action applies to certain CFTC-registered nonbank swap dealers organized and domiciled in France and regulated
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 12 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Approves Capital Comparability Determination and Order for Certain Nonbank Swap Dealers Domiciled in the European Union
*
WASHINGTON -The Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced today it has approved a comparability determination and a related comparability order granting conditional substituted compliance with the agency's capital and financial reporting requirements. This action applies to certain CFTC-registered nonbank swap dealers organized and domiciled in France and regulatedunder the European Union's Investment Firms Regulation and Investment Firms Directive.
Under the order, an eligible nonbank swap dealer in France may satisfy certain Commodity Exchange Act capital and financial reporting requirements by being subject to, and complying with, comparable requirements applicable under French law, subject to specified conditions.
The comparability order will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register. For several conditions imposing new obligations on the eligible nonbank swap dealers, the CFTC is granting an additional 180 calendar days for compliance.
To rely on the order, an eligible nonbank swap dealer must notify the CFTC of its intent to satisfy the capital and financial requirements by substituted compliance. The swap dealer must receive CFTC staff confirmation before applying substituted compliance. The notice of intent must include certain representations enumerated in the order's conditions and must be submitted to: MPDFinancialRequirements@cftc.gov.
-CFTC-
***
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9229-26
