recent enforcement action by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is sending a clear signal to corporate compliance teams: HIPAA obligations don’t stop at hospitals and insurers.

In a newly reported case, the agency’s Office for Civil Rights pursued enforcement against a self-funded employer health plan—marking a notable shift in how regulators are applying health data privacy rules. While HIPAA has long governed how medical providers and insurers handle protected health information, this action underscores that employers who sponsor health plans may also face direct scrutiny.

For many organizations, that represents a meaningful change in risk exposure.

Employer-sponsored health plans, particularly self-funded arrangements, are common across large and mid-sized companies. These plans often rely heavily on third-party administrators to process claims and manage data. As a result, compliance responsibilities can feel diffuse, split between HR, vendors, and legal teams. This latest enforcement activity suggests regulators are taking a different view.

Rather than focusing solely on service providers, enforcement is moving upstream—toward the plan sponsors themselves.

For compliance officers, the implications are practical. It is no longer sufficient to rely on vendor assurances or contractual protections alone. Regulators appear to be expecting companies to demonstrate active oversight of how health data is handled, including how vendors store, process, and secure sensitive information.

That shift puts a spotlight on governance. Companies may need to reassess whether their compliance programs adequately cover employee health data, particularly if responsibility has historically sat outside the core compliance function. Coordination between compliance, HR, IT, and third-party risk teams is likely to become more important.

The development also reflects a broader regulatory trend. Across industries, enforcement agencies are expanding their focus beyond traditional targets and looking more closely at how organizations manage outsourced activities. Whether the issue is cybersecurity, financial controls, or data privacy, the message is consistent: delegating a function does not eliminate accountability.

In the HIPAA context, that means plan sponsors may be expected to maintain clear documentation of their oversight efforts. This could include vendor due diligence, periodic audits, incident response procedures, and employee training around the handling of health information.

For companies that have not historically treated HIPAA as an enterprise-wide compliance issue, this may require a reset. Even organizations outside the healthcare sector could find themselves subject to enforcement if their internal controls fall short.

The takeaway for compliance professionals is straightforward. Employer health plans are no longer a peripheral concern. They are becoming part of the broader compliance landscape, with regulators paying closer attention to how these programs operate in practice.

As enforcement evolves, companies that take a more integrated approach to data privacy and vendor oversight will be better positioned to manage the risk—and to demonstrate that their controls work when it matters most. 

Joseph McCafferty is editor and publisher of Compliance Chief 360°.

The post HIPAA Enforcement Targets Employer Health Plans, Expanding Compliance Risk appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he crackdown on off-channel communications at financial firms isn’t over—it has simply taken a quieter, more targeted turn.

While the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission drew headlines over the past several years with multibillion-dollar penalties for financial firms where employees communicated with undocumented texts and messages, recent developments suggest that FINRA is continuing to pursue the issue with steady intensity.

In the past several days, compliance observers and industry reporting have pointed to ongoing FINRA enforcement activity tied to unapproved communication channels. Rather than large, broad settlements, the regulator’s current approach appears more embedded in routine examinations and disciplinary actions. That shift makes the risk less visible—but no less real.

At the center of the issue is a familiar problem: employees using personal devices and apps such as text messaging or encrypted platforms to conduct business conversations. When those communications are not captured and retained, firms can fall short of recordkeeping requirements, a longstanding pillar of securities regulation.

What has changed is the expectation around control. Regulators are no longer satisfied with written policies that prohibit off-channel communications. Instead, they are looking for evidence that firms are actively detecting, preventing, and addressing violations in practice.

Recent enforcement patterns also suggest a growing focus on individual accountability. In addition to firm-level penalties, disciplinary actions increasingly include suspensions and fines for registered representatives and supervisors. For compliance leaders, that raises the stakes internally, particularly when it comes to training, supervision, and escalation.

The continued attention from FINRA is significant for another reason: it challenges a perception that the issue had cooled following the SEC’s earlier enforcement wave. In reality, the underlying expectations have not changed, and examination programs continue to test firms’ controls in this area.

For chief compliance officers, the takeaway is straightforward. Off-channel communications remain an active enforcement priority, even if they are no longer dominating headlines. Firms that scaled back monitoring efforts or treated the issue as largely resolved may find themselves exposed during routine exams.

More broadly, the trend reflects a shift in how regulators evaluate compliance programs. The question is no longer just whether a firm has a policy in place, but whether that policy is working in day-to-day behavior. In that sense, off-channel communications have become a clear test case for a wider regulatory approach—one that places increasing weight on evidence, supervision, and real-world outcomes. 

Joseph McCafferty is editor and publisher of Compliance Chief 360°.

.

The post FINRA Keeps Pressure on Off-Channel Messaging as Enforcement Focus Shifts appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has announced that it is working on significant reforms of the country’s anti–money laundering (AML) framework. Rather than a single sweeping overhaul, the current reform effort consists of a series of interrelated rulemakings, delays, and targeted expansions that collectively signal a shift toward a more risk-based, sector-inclusive, and flexible regulatory regime.

At the center of this effort is FinCEN’s proposed reconsideration of its 2024 rule extending AML obligations to investment advisers. That rule, originally slated to take effect in January 2026, would have required certain registered investment advisers (RIAs) and exempt reporting advisers to establish AML programs, file suspicious activity reports (SARs), and comply with Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements for the first time. However, in September 2025, FinCEN issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to delay implementation until January 1, 2028.

This delay, finalized in early 2026, is more than a procedural adjustment. Treasury explicitly stated that the additional time would allow regulators to revisit the substance of the rule and better tailor it to the “diverse business models and risk profiles” of the investment adviser sector. The move reflects industry concerns that the original rule was overly broad and potentially burdensome, particularly for smaller firms. At the same time, FinCEN emphasized that AML obligations for the sector are inevitable, underscoring a longer-term policy objective of closing perceived gaps in financial system oversight.

Parallel to this reconsideration is a broader conceptual shift in how AML compliance is structured. FinCEN has proposed modernizing AML/CFT program requirements to emphasize effectiveness and risk alignment over rigid procedural checklists. Under this approach, institutions would be expected to design compliance programs that are “risk-based” and “reasonably designed” to mitigate specific illicit finance threats, rather than simply meeting prescriptive regulatory requirements. This reflects a growing recognition that a one-size-fits-all compliance model may be ill-suited to the complexity of modern financial markets, particularly as new technologies and nontraditional financial intermediaries emerge.

“For too long, Washington has asked financial institutions to measure success by the volume of paperwork rather than their ability to stop illicit finance threats,” Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in a statement. “Our proposal restores common sense with a focus on keeping bad actors out of the financial system, not burying America’s banks in more red tape.”

Another key pillar of FinCEN’s reform agenda is the expansion of AML obligations into historically under-regulated sectors—most notably residential real estate. A new nationwide reporting rule, which took effect in 2026 (with some implementation delays and legal challenges), requires reporting of certain non-financed residential property transfers involving legal entities and trusts. These transactions have long been viewed as a vulnerability in the U.S. AML regime, as illicit actors can use shell companies to purchase real estate without triggering traditional financial institution reporting requirements.

Beyond sector-specific reforms, FinCEN is also exploring structural changes to AML enforcement. According to reporting on Treasury’s internal proposals, the agency may seek a more centralized role in overseeing AML compliance across federal banking regulators. One proposal would allow FinCEN to review—or even veto—certain enforcement decisions made by other regulators under the BSA framework. While still in the proposal stage, such a shift could significantly alter the balance of authority among U.S. financial regulators and potentially lead to more consistent enforcement outcomes.

Among the most significant proposals and aims of AML reform are:

• Refocus compliance obligations and expectations on effectiveness by distinguishing between deficiencies stemming from program design and implementation
• Reinforce Treasury’s belief that financial institutions are best positioned to identify and evaluate their illicit finance risks
• Empower financial institutions to devote more attention and resources toward higher risks rather than toward lower risks
• Clarify expectations related to certain program requirements and functions—including independent testing and audit functions—to ensure that examiners and auditors do not substitute their subjective judgment in place of financial institutions’ risk-based and reasonably designed AML/CFT programs; and
• Affirm FinCEN’s central role in AML/CFT supervision, including through the introduction of a notice and consultation framework between Federal banking supervisors and FinCEN with respect to significant AML/CFT supervisory actions.

These reforms are unfolding against a backdrop of evolving enforcement priorities. Recent FinCEN actions—including expanded geographic targeting orders along the Southwest border and high-profile designations of foreign financial institutions—highlight a continued focus on combating drug trafficking, cybercrime, and transnational fraud networks. This suggests that while certain compliance burdens may be recalibrated, the overall intensity of AML enforcement is unlikely to diminish.

For financial institutions and other affected sectors, the implications are significant. Firms must prepare for an expanded AML landscape that encompasses new industries and transaction types, while also adapting to evolving expectations around program design and effectiveness. At the same time, the regulatory uncertainty created by ongoing revisions may complicate compliance planning in the near term.

FinCEN’s insists its current reform initiative does not represent a rollback of AML regulation, but rather a strategic reconfiguration. By combining expansion, flexibility, and structural reform, Treasury is attempting to build a more comprehensive and adaptive AML regime—one that is better equipped to address the complexities of modern illicit finance while balancing the operational realities faced by regulated entities. 

The post FinCEN Proposes Broad Reforms in AML Enforcement and Rulemaking appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he Securities and Exchange Commission’s director of the Enforcement Division, Margaret Ryan, stepped down this week after only a little more than half a year on the job. Sam Waldon, who served as head of enforcement before Ryan, will return to the role as acting director.

During her time in the office, Ryan oversaw what the SEC calls a “course correction” within the division, which it says enabled it to refocus on prioritizing cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity, rather than technical rule violations with no charges of investor harm. She also allocated division staff toward addressing misconduct such as fraud, market manipulation, and abuses of trust, emphasizing holding individuals accountable for their wrongdoings, promoting stronger deterrence, and better safeguarding investors, according to the SEC.

“I extend my thanks to Chairman Atkins, the Commission, and the staff of the Enforcement Division for the opportunity to continue my public service in a different role,” said Ryan. “As I recently said, I did not seek the role of Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. Rather, this role found me. And for that, I am grateful. I am confident that the foundation I helped to shape—working together with Chairman Atkins—will continue to serve investors and the markets well.”

Under Ryan, enforcement actions at the SEC reached multi-year lows in the 2025 fiscal year, following the leadership transition from SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Paul Atkins. The SEC filed 313 new enforcement actions in 2025, a 27 percent decrease from fiscal year 2024 and the lowest in a decade. Actions against public companies and subsidiaries dropped 30 percent from 2024, with 93 percent of the year’s total actions initiated during the first quarter under Gensler.

Only four actions against public companies were initiated after January 2025 under the new administration, the lowest since 2013. Total monetary settlements for public companies declined by 45 percent, the lowest since 2012. Additionally, the SEC initiated only 10 accounting and auditing actions, a 68 percent decrease from 2024. The main reasons for the decline include leadership changes, new strategies, staffing adjustments, reorganization, and case dismissals. Despite the overall decrease, the SEC says Atkins is prioritizing retail investor protection, cross-border fraud, AI washing, and insider trading. 

The post Head of SEC Enforcement Resigns After Seven Months in Position appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

almart has agreed to a $100 million judgment to settle allegations by the Federal Trade Commission and 11 states that the company caused delivery drivers to lose earnings, by deceiving them about the base pay, incentive pay, and tips they could earn. The FTC estimates that Walmart delivery drivers lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings due to the deception.

The proposed order also imposes significant changes to Walmart’s business practices to ensure that Walmart “never engages in such behavior again.” The injunction prohibits Walmart from modifying offers after a driver has accepted the offer, unless one of six exceptions applies. It also prohibits Walmart from making or assisting others in making similar misrepresentations to drivers or customers in the future.

Joined by Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin, the FTC alleged in its complaint that Walmart lured drivers into its Spark Driver delivery program with inflated base pay and tip prospects. The complaint claims Walmart deceived customers by falsely proposing that 100 percent of customer tips would go to drivers.

“Labor markets cannot function efficiently without truthful and non-misleading information about earnings and other material terms,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Today’s settlement reflects the Trump-Vance FTC’s focus on ensuring a healthy labor market for American workers, which is critical to the nation’s success.”

The FTC says the enforcement action against Walmart  is a result of it’s Joint Labor Task Force which was created by the cross-agency Labor Task Force to “root out and prosecute deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers.” It also said the it’s dual consumer-protection and competition mandate makes the agency uniquely well-suited to address these worker harms. “Chairman Ferguson’s Labor Task Force harnesses expertise from the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning.”

Walmart uses its Spark Driver service to deliver goods to customers using gig workers via the Spark Driver app, similar to Door Dash or Uber Eats. Those workers decide whether to accept “offers” to deliver orders, based on Walmart’s statements about the base pay and tips that a driver can expect to receive if they complete the work.

Details of allegations against Walmart.

The complaint alleges that Walmart engaged in several deceptive practices related to its Spark Driver service, including:

• Deceiving drivers about the number of tips they will receive from an order— the company failed to notify drivers that, unlike the payment for the goods being delivered, the payment for the advertised tip amount had not been preauthorized, and therefore drivers would not receive that amount if the customer was unable to cover the cost of the tip or if the charge otherwise failed. The company also failed to inform drivers that it would split tips when a customer’s delivery was split across multiple drivers.
• Deceiving drivers about the amount of base pay and tips they will receive when Walmart modifies “batched” offers— the company failed to inform drivers that it will reduce their base pay and/or tips when it removes orders from “batched orders,” which involve delivering goods to multiple customers during one trip. In many instances, Walmart either failed to notify drivers at all about the change in base pay and tips or only notified them of the change in their earnings after they completed the delivery.
• Misrepresenting the incentive pay drivers can earn in exchange for completing certain tasks— the company failed to disclose all the conditions that must be met to earn the promised incentive pay for completing certain tasks and denied the promised earnings on the basis that drivers failed to meet all the conditions.
• Deceiving consumers that “100% of tips go to the driver.” — despite this promise, Walmart, on multiple occasions, failed to provide collected tips to drivers as promised and did not refund the tip to customers either.

The FTC alleges that these practices violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act—by obtaining drivers’ bank and other financial information while deceiving them about the amount base pay and tips they will earn from Spark Driver deliveries—as well as laws of the agency’s state partners.

As part of the proposed order, Walmart is:

• Required to implement an earnings verification program to ensure drivers are paid the promised earnings and tips.
• Prohibited from modifying an offer for base and incentive pay or tips after the initial offer except under limited circumstances such as when the driver fails to provide the required service or the customer cancels an order.
• Banned from misrepresenting the earnings and other information included in the delivery offers it makes to Spark drivers.

If Walmart fails to obey this injunction, the Commission can return to Court in contempt proceedings. 

The post Walmart to Pay $100 Million to Settle FTC Deception Charges on Delivery Service appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

axful, an online virtual currency trading platform, will pay a criminal penalty of $4 million after pleading guilty to violating the Bank Secrecy Act, promoting illegal prostitution, and knowingly transmitting funds derived from criminal offenses.

From 2015 to 2019, Artur Schaback, the operator of Paxful, allowed customers to open accounts and trade cryptocurrencies without having sufficient know-your-customer (KYC) information. He also presented fake anti-money laundering policies to third parties that were never implemented, and failed to file a suspicious activity report, despite knowing that Paxful customers were using this platform for criminal activity. According to the Justice Department, Paxful became a hub for romance scams, money laundering, human trafficking, sanctions violations, and other illegal activity.

“Paxful profited from moving money for criminals that it attracted by touting its lack of anti-money laundering controls and failure to comply with applicable money-laundering laws, all while knowing that these criminals were engaged in fraud, extortion, prostitution, and commercial sex trafficking,” said assistant attorney general A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Crimes like this are a high priority for the Criminal Division because criminal money transmitters facilitate so many other crimes like money laundering, prostitution, fraud, romance scams, extortion and human trafficking. This sentence shows that companies will be held accountable when they create safe havens for criminal activity.”

Paxful knowingly transferred virtual currency on behalf of its customers, including Backpage, an online advertising platform for illicit prostitution and similar sites. In various criminal proceedings, Backpage and its owners and operators admitted that Backpage advertised and profited from illegal prostitution, including illegal sex work depicting minors. Paxful’s founders boasted about the “Backpage Effect,” which enabled the business to grow.

“By putting profit over compliance, the company enabled money laundering and other crimes. This sentence sends a clear message: companies that turn a blind eye to criminal activity on their platforms will face serious consequences under U.S. law. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will continue to protect victims and ensure that the cryptocurrency ecosystem is not exploited by criminals,” said U.S. Attorney Eric Grant for the Eastern District of California.

“Paxful’s deliberate disregard for anti-money laundering requirements and its role in promoting illegal prostitution and other criminal schemes enabled the movement of illicit funds at scale. This case sends a clear message: platforms that choose profit over compliance will face serious consequences and be brought to justice,” said Special Agent in Charge Linda Nguyen of the IRS-CI Oakland Field Office.

Considering how Paxful was marketed, Paxful knew its platform was used as a vehicle for prostitution, fraud, romance scams, and extortion schemes enforcement agencies stated. Paxful pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the Travel Act; conspiring to operate an unlicensed MTB; and conspiring to violate the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) anti-money laundering (AML) program requirement.

The Justice Department reached its resolution with Paxful based on several factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offenses, which involved Paxful’s processing of millions of dollars of illicit transactions and allowing its platform to be used for criminal activity. 

The post Online Trading Platform to Pay $4 Million for Promoting Criminal Activity appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released an online voluntary self-disclosure (VSD) portal for disclosure of potential violations of U.S sanctions earlier this month. The VSD portal will replace the current system, where organizations voluntarily disclose potential violations over email. The VSD portal provides a more secure and user-friendly method of self-disclosure.

OFAC says the improved system will provide a faster acknowledgement of violation submissions and better communication with the agency. While the method of reporting is changing, nothing about the underlying requirements for self-disclosure will change. OFAC continues to offer the potential for a 50 percent reduction in penalties for qualifying self-disclosures.

A VSD is a self-initiated notification to the OFAC of a potential sanctions violation that can earn cooperation credit, should the following OFAC investigation find a violation. Compliance experts warn of the importance of self-reporting, since if caught, there could be severe repercussions like civil penalties (fines of over $1 million for each violation), criminal prosecutions ($20 million in fines for each violation and up to 30 years in prison), and administrative actions, among others.

The main features of the new online portal include the two-step disclosure process and disclosure timeline. The two-step disclosure process includes an initial submission regarding the potential violation which prompts the start of the disclosure timeline, and a final submission which is a detailed report after the completion of the entity’s internal investigation. The disclosure timeline will not change, with OFAC expecting companies to submit a follow-up report within 180 days of the initial notification. Additionally, the new portal allows multiple documents to be filed with OFAC at once efficiently. All other underlying procedures and requirements will stay the same.

The new VSD portal took effect early February. 

The post OFAC Launches New Online Voluntary Self-Disclosure Portal appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

he California Attorney General’s office has announced a settlement with the Walt Disney Co., resolving allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to answer consumers’ requests to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data across all devices and streaming services associated with consumers’ Disney accounts. Under the settlement, Disney must pay $2.75 million in civil penalties and must implement opt-out methods that fully stop Disney’s sale or sharing of consumers’ personal information.

The California Department of Justice’s investigation into Disney stems from a January 2024 investigative sweep of streaming services for potential CCPA violations. Effective opt-out is one of the requirements of complying with CCPA. The investigation found that Disney’s opt-out processes did not allow a consumer to completely opt-out of and stop all sale or sharing of their data, in violation of the CCPA.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to go to infinity and beyond to assert their privacy rights. Today, my office secured the largest settlement to date under the CCPA over Disney’s failure to stop selling and sharing the data of consumers that explicitly asked it to,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California’s nation-leading privacy law is clear: A consumer’s opt-out right applies wherever and however a business sells data — businesses can’t force people to go device-by-device or service-by-service. In California, asking a business to stop selling your data should not be complicated or cumbersome.”

The investigation found that each of the methods Disney provided had gaps that allowed Disney to continue to sell and share consumers’ data, including:

Opt-Out Toggles: If a user requested to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data via an opt-out toggle in Disney’s websites and apps, Disney only applied the request to the specific streaming service the user was watching, and often only the specific device the consumer was using. This meant that in most instances, using the toggle would not stop selling or sharing from other devices or services connected to the consumer’s account.

Webform: If a user opted out using Disney’s webform, Disney only stopped the sharing of personal data through the company’s own advertising platform and offerings. However, Disney continued to sell and share consumer data with specific third-party ad-tech companies whose code Disney embedded in its websites and apps. Disney also failed to provide an in-app, opt-out method in many of its connected TV streaming apps, instead directing consumers to its webform, effectively leaving consumers with no way to stop Disney’s selling and sharing from these apps.

The Global Privacy Control: For consumers who opted out via the Global Privacy Control (GPC), Disney limited the request to the specific device the consumer was using, even when the consumer was logged into their account. The GPC is an easy-to-use ‘stop selling or sharing my data switch’ that is available on some internet browsers or as a browser extension.

About the California Consumer Protection Act

The CCPA has opened up a whole new world of privacy protection and increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. The CCPA vests California consumers with control over the personal information that businesses collect about them, including the right to request that businesses stop selling or sharing their personal information.

Today’s settlement represents the seventh enforcement action under the CCPA. The Attorney General’s office has also announced settlements with Sephora and DoorDash as well as mobile app gaming company, Jam City; streaming service, Sling TV; website publisher, Healthline.com; and entertainment company, Tilting Point Media. In order to monitor the businesses’ compliance with the CCPA, Attorney General Bonta has conducted investigative sweeps related to location data, streaming apps and devices, employee information, and surveillance pricing. 

Joseph McCafferty is editor & publisher of Compliance Chief 360.

The post Disney Settles ‘Opt-Out’ Privacy Case with California for $2.75 Million appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

This announcement comes weeks after Commissioners Summer Mersinger and Christy Goldsmith Romero announced that they intend to leave the agency by the end of the month. As a result of these announcements and the departure of former Chairman Rostin Behnam earlier this year, only acting Chair Caroline Pham remains.

While Pham remains at the CFTC, she does not intend to do so for too much longer, either. Pham has made it known that once Trump’s nominee for CFTC chair, Brian Quintenz, is confirmed, she will immediately leave the agency.

As a result of the CFTC’s significant vacancies, many expect and are preparing for disorder. Sharon Bowen, an ex-CFTC commissioner stated that when she departed the agency in 2017, it was mostly due to her experience under a two-member commission. “Having just two commissioners makes routine business difficult, but makes important policy decisions almost impossible,” Bowen said. “Without a full complement of commissioners to consider the far-reaching implications of our decisions, we are frozen in place while the markets we regulate are moving faster every day.”

However, CFTC spokesperson, Taylor Foy, said in a statement that the agency can still operate and function effectively regardless of its commissioner vacancies. “Vacancies do not impact the commission’s ability to vote on agency matters or the day-to-day work of CFTC divisions,” Foy said, per the report.

 Johnson was most notably nominated during the Biden administration. Now that she has completed her three-year term as commissioner at the CFTC, Johnson believes it is time to step away from the role and pursue new opportunities yet to be specified.

With only Commissioner Pham remaining, there are some legal contentions that may be implicated in a situation in which the CFTC is comprised of one member. Many believe that having one member to set forth an agenda can pose issues under the government’s checks and balances system. However, with Pham’s inevitable departure incoming, it is difficult to see if such contentions will be brought.  

The post CFTC’s Johnson to Depart, Leaving Just One Commissioner appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.

Atkins published a few initial potential questions to be raised at the roundtable in determining whether the CEO compensation rules are not only cost-effective but also necessary for the purpose of providing information that will enable investors to make informed investment decisions.

“While it is undisputed that these requirements, and the resulting disclosure, have become increasingly complex and lengthy, it is less clear if the increased complexity and length have provided investors with additional information that is material to their investment and voting decisions,” Atkins said in a statement.

Among Atkins proposed questions, was the chair’s inquiry into the “pay-versus-performance” and “bonus claw back” rules that were recently adopted by the SEC in 2022. The “pay-versus-performance” rule ultimately requires public companies to disclose in a clear manner the relationship between the executive compensation actually paid by the company and the financial performance of the company itself. Meanwhile, the “bonus claw back” rules originally require companies to adopt policies that require executive officers to pay back incentive-based compensation that they were awarded erroneously.

This announcement comes at a time when the agency has demonstrated a shift toward reducing regulatory enforcement, in line with the priorities set by the Trump administration “The SEC, in its regulatory capacity, is tasked to balance investor protection with promoting capital formation and market efficiency,” according to Atkins. “In years past, the commission has unfortunately demonstrated a tendency to prioritize regulatory expansion over meticulous economic analysis, potentially jeopardizing this delicate balance.”

Since President Trump took office, the SEC has largely ceased pursuing high-profile cases against companies within its jurisdiction and has released staff-level statements suggesting that meme coins and certain crypto mining activities fall outside its regulatory scope.

Regulatory Rollbacks Draw Criticism

While many are in support of deregulation, many have expressed their opposition to it. SEC Commissioner, Caroline Crenshaw, believes that such deregulation may pave a path for a crisis similar to the financial crisis that occurred in 2008. It feels all too familiar to those of us who have lived through 2008,” Crenshaw warned, quoting a report from an independent commission that found that the 2008 crisis was preventable and that “the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand, and manage evolving risks.”

“After a crisis happens, the first thing people ask is, ‘How could this have happened?’ And, more specifically, ‘Where were the regulators?” Crenshaw said. “But before a crisis happens, everyone demands that regulators get out of their way. I don’t want us to suffer the same fate.”

While Atkins has yet to respond to such comments, it is almost certain the agency will address such issues at its incoming roundtable meeting. The roundtable will be open to the public and held at the SEC’s headquarters. The discussion will be streamed live on the SEC website and a recording will be posted at a later date.

The post SEC to Revisit Executive Pay Disclosure Rules appeared first on Compliance Chief 360.