Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Files Settled Action as to Curastory, CEO Tiffany Kelly for Alleged Offering Fraud
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 25-civ-6876; E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 15, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tiffany Kelly and Curastory Inc., No. 25-civ-6876 (E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 15, 2025)
On December 15, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action as to Brooklyn-based Curastory Inc. and its founder and CEO, Tiffany Kelly, alleging that they engaged in an offering fraud in which they raised approximately $2.8 million from over 1,000 investors nationwide. Curastory and Kelly consented
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 25-civ-6876; E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 15, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Tiffany Kelly and Curastory Inc., No. 25-civ-6876 (E.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 15, 2025)
On December 15, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action as to Brooklyn-based Curastory Inc. and its founder and CEO, Tiffany Kelly, alleging that they engaged in an offering fraud in which they raised approximately $2.8 million from over 1,000 investors nationwide. Curastory and Kelly consentedto the entry of a judgment without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least December 2020 through February 2024, Curastory and Kelly repeatedly misled investors about Curastory's revenue and projected financial performance, often telling investors that the company had earned hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in revenue, when it had actually generated little revenue during that period. The complaint further alleges that Kelly falsely told investors that Curastory had secured or lined up million-dollar investments, when it had not done so. Notably, the complaint also alleges that Kelly forged the signature of a prospective investor as part of a fraudulent scheme to depict Curastory as a successful and profitable company.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charges Kelly and Curastory with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC's complaint, defendants have agreed to settle the SEC's charges, consenting to permanent injunctive relief for the charged provisions. Kelly has also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $125,000 and consented to a ten-year conduct-based injunction, prohibiting her from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security, except for her own personal accounts, and a ten-year bar from serving as an officer or director of a public company. The settlement is subject to court approval.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Katherine H. Stella, under the supervision of Stacy Bogert, with the assistance of Avron Elbaum, Daniel Ball, and James Connor.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26441.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26441
SEC Files Settled Action Against Irfan Mohammed for Alleged Offering Fraud
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:25-cv-01499; C.D. Ill. filed Dec. 12, 2025) involving Irfan Mohammed:
* * *
On December 12, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action against Peoria, Illinois resident Irfan Mohammed, alleging that he engaged in a fraudulent scheme through which he obtained approximately $585,000 from members of the Islamic community in Central Illinois. Irfan Mohammed consented to the entry of a judgment without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations.
According to the SEC's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 1:25-cv-01499; C.D. Ill. filed Dec. 12, 2025) involving Irfan Mohammed:
* * *
On December 12, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled action against Peoria, Illinois resident Irfan Mohammed, alleging that he engaged in a fraudulent scheme through which he obtained approximately $585,000 from members of the Islamic community in Central Illinois. Irfan Mohammed consented to the entry of a judgment without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations.
According to the SEC'scomplaint, from at least January 2021 through March 2023, Irfan Mohammed received investments based on false representations to investors that his company, Dgtal World LLC, had successful operations offering a payment processing system overseas and that he was expanding these services to companies in the United States. In fact, according to the complaint, Dgtal World had no operations, and Irfan Mohammed misappropriated investor funds for an unrelated business and to pay for his personal expenses. As alleged, Irfan Mohammed lulled investors into thinking their investments were generating a return by using investor funds to make sham payments to investors, including at least one Ponzi payment.
The SEC's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, charges Irfan Mohammed with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Irfan Mohammed agreed to settle the SEC's charges. The settlement, which will be filed with the court and is subject to the court's approval, would permanently enjoin Irfan Mohammed from violating the charged provisions of the federal securities laws, impose a conduct-based injunction enjoining him from the issuance, offer, purchase or sale of securities outside of trading through his personal account, and order him to pay disgorgement of $385,220 with prejudgment interest of $70,640, and a civil penalty of $70,000.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Liz Marshall Anderson and Matthew B. Reisig, and was supervised by Tim England, David Nasse, and Pei Y. Chung.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26443.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26443
SEC Charges Florida & California Investment Advisers With Selling Securities in Unregistered Oil, Gas Offerings
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 6:25-civ-01754, 2:25-civ-08610, 8:25-civ-02057; M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025, C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles D. Oliver, No. 6:25-civ-01754 (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., No. 2:25-civ-08610 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kevin N. Richards, No. 8:25-civ-02057 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
On September
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 6:25-civ-01754, 2:25-civ-08610, 8:25-civ-02057; M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025, C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles D. Oliver, No. 6:25-civ-01754 (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., No. 2:25-civ-08610 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kevin N. Richards, No. 8:25-civ-02057 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
On September11, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Florida-based Charles D. Oliver, California-based David P. Ortiz and his entity, DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., and Kevin N. Richards, formerly of Laguna Niguel, California, with selling securities in unregistered offerings of oil and gas securities, acting as unregistered brokers, and failing to disclose financial conflicts of interest to clients.
The SEC's complaints alleged that from at least 2020 through 2021, defendants marketed and sold investments in risky oil and gas securities to clients, many of whom lost their money.
The SEC's complaint against Oliver alleged that Oliver, a Florida-based insurance agent, marketed and sold approximately $52 million of investments in oil and gas securities to approximately 50 retail investors. The complaint alleged that Oliver used his radio show, Hidden Wealth Radio, to solicit investors, and that he received over $4.3 million in transaction-based compensation for selling the unregistered securities.
The SEC's complaint against Ortiz and DaveGlo alleged that Ortiz, a California resident, marketed and sold approximately $18 million of investments in oil and gas securities to approximately 20 retail investors. The complaint alleged that Ortiz used mass marketing, including commercials on radio broadcasts, to solicit investors, and that he received over $800,000 in transaction-based compensation for selling the unregistered securities.
The SEC's complaint against Richards alleged that Richards, a former California-based insurance agent, marketed and sold approximately $12 million of investments in oil and gas securities to approximately 25 retail investors. The complaint alleged that Richards used mass marketing, including his own radio show, to solicit investors, and that he received over $600,000 in transaction-based compensation for selling the unregistered securities.
The SEC's complaint against Oliver was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The SEC's complaint against Ortiz and DaveGlo and its complaint against Richards were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The companies that sponsored the unregistered offerings of oil and gas securities, and their principals, were the subject of a prior SEC enforcement action, In the Matter of Resolute Capital Partners, LTD, LLC, et al., AP File No. 3 20597 (Sept. 24, 2021).
The complaints separately charged Oliver, Ortiz, DaveGlo, and Richards with violating Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oliver, Ortiz, and Richards were also charged with violating Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Without admitting or denying the allegations in their respective complaints, Ortiz, DaveGlo, and Richards each consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violating the charged provisions; as to Ortiz and Richards, enjoining them from offering or selling securities; and as to Richards, enjoining him from acting as or associating with a broker, dealer, or investment adviser for five years. The proposed settlements are subject to approval by the court, which will also determine, at a later date, the amount of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties that each defendant shall pay.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Brian Fitzsimons and David Frisof and supervised by Brian Quinn and Michael Brennan. The SEC's litigation will be led by Mr. Fitzsimons and supervised by James Carlson.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint - David P. Ortiz (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26442-dortiz.pdf)
* SEC Complaint - Charles D. Oliver (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26442-coliver.pdf)
* SEC Complaint - Kevin N. Richards (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26442-richards.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26442
IMG Medical Group to Pay $64,000 to Resolve EEOC Age Discrimination Charge
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
IMG Medical Group to Pay $64,000 to Resolve EEOC Age Discrimination Charge
*
Healthcare provider settles charge it fired employee because of age
TAMPA, Fla. - Independent Medical Group, LLC (IMG), a health care provider with several clinics across Florida, agreed to conciliate an age discrimination charge filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
During the EEOC's investigation of the charge, the agency found reasonable
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
IMG Medical Group to Pay $64,000 to Resolve EEOC Age Discrimination Charge
*
Healthcare provider settles charge it fired employee because of age
TAMPA, Fla. - Independent Medical Group, LLC (IMG), a health care provider with several clinics across Florida, agreed to conciliate an age discrimination charge filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
During the EEOC's investigation of the charge, the agency found reasonablecause to believe the provider violated federal law by terminating an employee on the basis of age in July 2023. The company's alleged conduct violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against people 40 years of age or older.
"Age discrimination continues to be a persistent problem in the workplace," said Evangeline Hawthorne, district director for the EEOC's Miami District. "Employees aged 40 and older come with significant expertise and are an essential part of the workforce."
Following the EEOC's cause determination, the parties successfully engaged in the EEOC's pre-litigation conciliation process. As part of the resolution, IMG agreed to pay the employee $64,000 in damages, representing his full back pay and liquidated damages. In addition, IMG will implement annual training on age discrimination for both employees and human resources and management staff. In addition, IMG will revise its employment policies to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of age and list examples of age discrimination. Further, IMG agreed to report on any future complaints of age discrimination for a period of five years.
EEOC Tampa Field Office Director Tamra Schweiberger said, "This resolution, announced on the ADEA's signing anniversary, serves as a reminder that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of age. IMG has committed to preventing and addressing age discrimination, including training its decision makers to ensure adherence to applicable laws and regulations."
For more information on age discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination.
The Miami District Office's jurisdiction includes Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges against state and local government employers before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
Title Font
Default
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/img-medical-group-pay-64000-resolve-eeoc-age-discrimination-charge
FTC and States File Amended Complaint Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC and States File Amended Complaint Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices
*
The Federal Trade Commissionjoined by 21 states and the District of Columbiatoday filed an amended complaint alleging that Uber charged consumers for its subscription without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings including $0 delivery fees, and made it difficult for users to cancel the subscription.
The FTC sued Uber in April over allegations it engaged in deceptive billing and cancellation
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC and States File Amended Complaint Against Uber for Deceptive Billing and Cancellation Practices
*
The Federal Trade Commissionjoined by 21 states and the District of Columbiatoday filed an amended complaint alleging that Uber charged consumers for its subscription without their consent, failed to deliver promised savings including $0 delivery fees, and made it difficult for users to cancel the subscription.
The FTC sued Uber in April over allegations it engaged in deceptive billing and cancellationpractices related to its Uber One subscription. The states and the District of Columbia joined the FTC in filing the amended complaint, which includes a request for civil penalties for alleged violations of the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act and state laws. In addition to the District of Columbia, the states joining the FTC lawsuit include: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Uber markets a monthly or annual subscription, Uber One, that it claims will qualify consumers for certain discounts or promotions, such as $0 in delivery fees and $25 in monthly savings. Some consumers say they did not receive the promised monthly savings or had to pay fees on deliveries despite the $0 delivery fee promise, according to the complaint.
Many consumers also say that Uber enrolled them in its Uber One subscription without their knowledge or consent and makes it exceedingly difficult to cancel, despite claims that consumers can "cancel anytime." For example, many consumers who signed up for a free trial offer were automatically enrolled and charged for the subscription before the trial ended. Others report being charged for Uber One despite never knowingly signing up for the subscription at all. Users who try to cancel can be forced to navigate as many as 23 screens and take as many as 32 actions to cancel, according to the complaint.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the amended complaint was 2-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.
The lead attorneys on this matter are Paul Mezan, Stephanie Liebner, and James Doty in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-states-file-amended-complaint-against-uber-deceptive-billing-cancellation-practices
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Report: 'The Buy Now, Pay Later Market'
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (TNSres) -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following report on December 10, 2025, entitled "The Buy Now, Pay Later Market."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
1. Introduction
The market for buy now, pay later (BNPL) credit, typically a four-payment loan with no interest used by consumers to make retail purchases, continues to expand.1 Using data provided by six large BNPL companies,2 we examine market trends and key metrics in the BNPL market for calendar years 2022 and 2023. The data demonstrates that BNPL products remain a popular financing choice with consumers.
This
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (TNSres) -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following report on December 10, 2025, entitled "The Buy Now, Pay Later Market."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
1. Introduction
The market for buy now, pay later (BNPL) credit, typically a four-payment loan with no interest used by consumers to make retail purchases, continues to expand.1 Using data provided by six large BNPL companies,2 we examine market trends and key metrics in the BNPL market for calendar years 2022 and 2023. The data demonstrates that BNPL products remain a popular financing choice with consumers.
Thisspotlight is one of several Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) reports that further public understanding of the BNPL market as part of the CFPB's obligation to collect, research, monitor, and publish information relevant to the functioning of markets for consumer financial products and services.4 It builds upon our prior BNPL work, including our 2022 report on BNPL market metrics and practices (hereinafter "2022 Market Trends report"),5 a report exploring the financial profiles of BNPL users as part of our Making Ends Meet survey, and a report on BNPL usage that found that 21 percent of consumers with a credit record made at least one purchase using BNPL and that included findings on frequency of use, simultaneous BNPL loans, and the other credit characteristics of BNPL users.
Currently, there is only minimal public data on the size of the BNPL market or market trends.
The CFPB, however, was able to gather adequate data about BNPL products that enable us to provide general information about BNPL market trends.
For this spotlight, BNPL refers to the "pay-in-four" or "split pay" product: typically, a fourinstallment, no-interest consumer loan, with a down payment of 25 percent and the remaining three installments due in two-week intervals. Most firms that offer BNPL loans also offer other point-of-sale financing. Our data does not include these other forms of short-term financing, such as point-of-sale installment loans and credit card installment plans. The results in this spotlight are limited to BNPL products with four or fewer payments and do not include data from other products that the companies may offer, including products that the companies and others may characterize as BNPL.
* * *
View full report at: https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_bnpl-market-report_2025-12.pdf
Agencies Announce Dollar Thresholds for Smaller Loan Exemption from Appraisal Requirements for Higher-priced Mortgage Loans
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Announce Dollar Thresholds for Smaller Loan Exemption from Appraisal Requirements for Higher-priced Mortgage Loans
*
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency today announced that the 2026 threshold for higher-priced mortgage loans that are subject to special appraisal requirements will increase from $33,500 to $34,200.
The threshold amount will be effective January 1, 2026, and is based on the 2.1 percent
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 -- The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Announce Dollar Thresholds for Smaller Loan Exemption from Appraisal Requirements for Higher-priced Mortgage Loans
*
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency today announced that the 2026 threshold for higher-priced mortgage loans that are subject to special appraisal requirements will increase from $33,500 to $34,200.
The threshold amount will be effective January 1, 2026, and is based on the 2.1 percentannual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, known as CPI-W, as of June 1, 2025.
The Dodd-Frank Act added special appraisal requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans to the Truth in Lending Act, including that creditors obtain a written appraisal based on a physical visit to the interior of the home before making a higher-priced mortgage loan. The rules implementing these requirements contain an exemption for loans at or below a threshold amount that is adjusted annually to reflect CPI-W increases.
Read the Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold (https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/final-rules/appraisals-higher-priced-mortgage-loans-exemption-threshold-adjustments/)
***
Original text here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/agencies-announce-dollar-thresholds-for-smaller-loan-exemption-from-appraisal-requirements-for-higher-priced-mortgage-loans-2025/
