SEC

Subscribe to SEC via RSS

On May 22, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settled enforcement action against Foot Locker, Inc. for using separation agreements that required departing employees to waive their right to receive SEC whistleblower awards, in violation of Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a). The case is noteworthy not only for its specific facts, but also because it reflects clear continuity in the SEC’s whistleblower-enforcement agenda: after bringing a significant number of Rule 21F-17 cases under prior Chair Gary Gensler, this Foot Locker order is the first such action under Chair Paul Atkins and signals that the current Commission will continue to prioritize whistleblower protections.

On May 12, we wrote about the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) longstanding “no‑deny” settlement policy heading “for a crossroads” at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Supreme Court. That crossroads arrived quickly. Just six days later, the SEC announced that it has rescinded Rule 202.5(e), the informal rule that, since 1972, conditioned settlement of an enforcement action on a defendant’s agreement not to publicly deny the Commission’s allegations. In its press release, the SEC said the policy had set the agency apart from most other federal regulators and may have created the misimpression that the Commission was trying to insulate itself from criticism, and it emphasized that ending the policy will give the SEC greater flexibility to resolve cases while preserving resources and speeding relief to investors.

On May 8, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quietly sent a final rule titled “Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866. Although the text of the rule has not yet been released, the title strongly suggests that the SEC is preparing to roll back or significantly revise its decades‑old “no‑deny” settlement policy. That development arrives just as a major challenge to the policy is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Troutman Pepper Locke’s Securities Investigations and Enforcement team counsels and defends clients through all stages of securities enforcement proceedings. Our attorneys have served in key government agencies and regulatory bodies, and bring their insight to bear in each representation. The team includes a former branch chief of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, former enforcement lawyers, regulators and government attorneys, assistant United States Attorneys and former assistant attorneys general, as well as in-house counsel for public companies. Our lawyers and practice have been identified as leaders in the field by publications such as the Legal 500, SuperLawyers, Benchmark Litigation, and Chambers USA.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) April 7, 2026, press release on its fiscal year (FY) 2025 enforcement results is less about numbers and more about a philosophical reset. Under Chairman Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda, who served as acting chair prior to the chairman’s confirmation, the SEC is expressly stepping back from what it characterizes as “regulation by enforcement” and volume‑driven metrics, and recentering on what it has described as fraud, investor harm, and congressional intent. For registrants and other market participants, this shift has direct consequences for how enforcement risk is likely to be assessed going forward.

In Sztrom v. SEC, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia confirmed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which curtailed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) ability to seek civil penalties in its administrative forum, does not eliminate the agency’s long-standing ability to pursue industry bars through administrative follow-on proceedings. The opinion underscores that, even after Jarkesy and other recent limits on agency power, the SEC may still use its in-house process to determine whether to bar previously enjoined defendants from the securities industry, with independent review limited to the courts of appeals.

On March 11, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that both agencies describe as “historic.” The MOU is intended to reset the relationship between the agencies by reducing turf battles, avoiding duplicative regulation, and providing clearer, technology-neutral oversight — particularly in markets where securities and derivatives regimes overlap, including crypto. While it does not change either agency’s statutory authority, it creates a formal framework for coordination that will materially affect how policy, examinations, and enforcement play out in practice.

Today, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Enforcement announced significant updates to its Enforcement Manual, the first comprehensive revision since 2017. These changes, which will now be reviewed annually, are designed to promote greater fairness, transparency, and efficiency in SEC investigations and enforcement actions.

Troutman Pepper Locke’s Securities Investigations and Enforcement team counsels and defends clients through all stages of securities enforcement proceedings. Our attorneys have served in key government agencies and regulatory bodies, and bring their insight to bear in each representation. The team includes a former branch chief of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, former enforcement lawyers, regulators and government attorneys, assistant United States Attorneys and former assistant attorneys general, as well as in-house counsel for public companies. Our lawyers and practice have been identified as leaders in the field by publications such as the Legal 500, SuperLawyers, Benchmark Litigation, and Chambers USA.

On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ongkaruck Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The case arises out of an SEC civil enforcement action in the Ninth Circuit and squarely presents an important remedial question that the Court left open in Liu v. SEC, i.e., what counts as a “victim” for purposes of SEC disgorgement, and does the SEC have to show that investors actually lost money before it can obtain that relief?