DROPLETS

On September 17 2026 the SEC issued its Innovation Exemption order, granting a five‑year experimental exemption that allows tokenized forms of S‑&P 500, Russell 1000, and other U.S. listed securities to trade on Tokenized Securities Venues (TSVs) operated by U.S. persons. The exemption requires TSVs to provide issuers with written notice and an opportunity to object within 30 days before trading the issuer’s tokenized shares. TSVs must limit the number of symbols and the volume of each tokenized security, provide equivalent shareholder rights, and publish detailed operational notices and trade data. Although still subject to SEC comment, the order signals a significant pivot toward blockchain‑enabled secondary markets for equities. Issuers and advisors should immediately review their investor‑relations processes to ensure timely notice receipt, consider potential risks of price divergence or voting misalignments, and assess whether to adopt overarching policies for tokenized trading on future quarterly filings.

On 1 October 2026, the EU AML Authority (AMLA) finalized three Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) under the new EU AML/CFT framework. The first set clarifies when a customer relationship counts as a business relationship versus an occasional transaction and how multiple linked transactions must be aggregated for due‑diligence thresholds. The second defines the exact information and verification steps required for customer and beneficial owner identification, introduces proportionate measures for lower‑risk cases, and sets rules for non‑face‑to‑face digital onboarding. The final set establishes minimum requirements for group‑wide AML/CFT governance, internal controls, and secure intra‑group information sharing, with special attention to subsidiaries and branches in third countries. Once the European Commission adopts the RTS and they’re published in the Official Journal, obliged entities have a six‑month runway to implement the changes. Firms must review onboarding, monitoring, and group policies now, adjust IT systems, train staff, and track the adoption date to avoid supervisory s

…

In a landmark en‑bank decision, Bolton v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. held that the Administrative Procedure Act’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to ERISA claims, invalidating the Eleventh Circuit’s own precedent from 1983 (Mason v. Continental Group). The ruling means that parties can file claims directly in court without first litigating through a plan administrator, potentially shortening deadlines from 90 to 60 days and eliminating a costly, time‑consuming step.

This change will reverberate across the industry: law firms must reassess the timing of filing ERISA cases, and counsel must adjust client advisories and comply with new notification windows.

Clients with pending benefit disputes should consult counsel immediately to determine if earlier court filings are now feasible and whether any planned administrative proceedings must be abandoned or expedited.

…

On Oct. 5, 2026 the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury issued final rules extending the No Surprises Act framework to additional covered hospitals and ambulatory providers. The rules set forth new filing requirements for machine-readable price data, obligate disclosure of negotiated rates for smaller or indirect payors, and modify preemption scopes for state all-payer laws in certain contexts. Hospitals and health systems will need to align their electronic health record pricing modules, point-of-care insurance verification processes, and contracts with payors to ensure compliance. Key actions include: retrieving the final rule text, reviewing effective dates and generic compliance deadlines, performing a gap analysis against current pricing files and negotiated-rate clauses, and confirming that state specific all-payer requirements are not overridden by the federal framework. Additionally, payor contracts that rely on confidential fee schedules may require renegotiation. The new requirements also have implications for payor claims adjustment practices, pote

…

California's Office of Administrative Law approved CARB's initial regulations implementing the state's corporate greenhouse gas emissions reporting and climate-related financial risk disclosure statutes on 12 October, ahead of the first November reporting deadline. The approval converts previously pending legal obligations into operative requirements with near-term compliance dates, and it lands on companies that already carry overlapping disclosure burdens. In-scope large U.S. and foreign private issuers will need emission data, documented calculation methodologies, and standardized financial-risk disclosures, typically supported by third-party assurance and specified tagging formats, so finance, controllership, legal, and investor-relations functions all become clients in the same workstream. Sophisticated counsel should care because the rules settle practical questions — scope thresholds, phasing, data provenance, and assurance — that drive audit and controls readiness, and because California requirements must now be reconciled with separate federal climate rulemaking and with EU

…

California's 2026 session produced a package of AI statutes with direct operational impact on large employers, and counsel must map them onto existing obligations rather than treat them as isolated items. AB 1883 prohibits AI-powered workplace surveillance tools that recognize, infer or predict emotional state or collect "neural data," raising questions about vendor-marketed wellness or engagement products. SB 947, the "No Robo Bosses Act," bars sole reliance on automated systems in disciplinary and termination decisions, requiring independent human verification, post-use notice and employee requests describing data inputs, layered on FEHA and CCPA automated-decision rules with different influence thresholds. SB 951 extends WARN-style notice, including automated functions and affected job classifications, to covered layoffs driven partly by AI, with contemplated Employment Development Department public reporting.

…

Per a single law firm client alert (Morgan Lewis, republished on JD Supra), the Federal Trade Commission has settled its Robinson-Patman Act case against Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC, and the court has entered a consent decree. The decree reportedly places the company’s pricing under independent review for six years.

Why sophisticated counsel should care: Robinson-Patman Act litigation — long dormant and rarely prosecuted — is being revived by the Commission, and a six-year pricing monitor is an unusually intrusive and durable remedy. Suppliers and distributors in beer, wine and spirits, and other consumer-goods verticals sell through tiered, volume-discounted channels, so a compliance monitor of this length reaches directly into trade discount architecture, customer classifications, freight and billing practices, and territory management. Retailers and distributors who buy or resell through affected channels should expect scrutiny of how discriminatory terms are documented and defended.

…

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury have issued final regulations updating the Transparency in Coverage rules that require self-funded group health plans to publish an explanation of benefits and a machine-readable file of covered items and services. The source reports a January 1, 2027 deadline for the updated disclosures and urges employers to contact their service providers now rather than wait for the effective date.

…

On September 30, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released two proposals targeting the Investment Company Act of 1940. First, the “Interval Fund Release” would amend Rules 23c‑3, 18f‑3, and 17d‑3, and related forms, to increase transparency and protect investors in interval funds by tightening disclosure requirements and broadening the range of permissible investment strategies. Second, the SEC would revise closed‑end fund share‑class mechanics, aiming to improve liquidity and align shareholder interests. The third pillar addresses investment adviser performance‑fee rules, proposing stricter limits on management fee calculations to curb excessive fee structures. These changes are still in the proposal stage, but they are likely to affect a wide spectrum of funds, investors, and advisers. Firms advising fund managers should closely monitor the comment period and prepare for potential adjustments to fund prospectuses and fee schedules.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed a revision to Rule 17a‑7 that would re‑establish the ability for registered investment funds to cross‑trade a broad range of fixed‑income securities with affiliated funds and accounts. The proposal expands the eligible securities set, potentially boosting liquidity and enabling more efficient internal asset re‑allocation. For asset‑management firms, this could streamline portfolio adjustments and lower transaction costs, but would also impose stricter reporting obligations under the amended rule. Currently, cross‑trading of fixed‑income assets by registered funds is limited, and the rule change would revisit that constraint. Firms will need to assess compliance readiness, update trade‑capture systems, and monitor any saturation of affiliated accounts to avoid regulatory pitfalls. The SEC is soliciting comments through the end of December; industry participants should watch for comment deadlines and prepare interim guidance before a final rule is issued.

The U.S. Treasury’s first publicly announced civil penalty under the Outbound Investment Security Program (OISP) signals a shift toward aggressive enforcement of U.S. outbound investment controls. Amidi LLC was cited for not submitting a required 30‑day notification for its Chinese subsidiary’s roughly US$92,000 stake in a firm that develops embodied AI technology—a transaction that would not have been prohibited under the program. The penalty—more than twice the transaction value—illustrates the Treasury’s willingness to sanction only the notification failure, not the investment itself, and demonstrates its enforcement framework’s reliance on compliance record, intent, and remedial actions. The action also occurs just months after Congress enacted the Comprehensive Outbound Investment National Security Act of 2025 (COINS), which broadens the OISP’s scope and empowers Treasury to establish a non‑notified‑transaction identification program. Firms with foreign subsidiaries or controlled investment funds should audit their notification processes, ensure real‑time visibility into oversea

…

On October 5, 2026, the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and Health and Human Services released the final version of the Transparency in Coverage rule that originally appeared as draft guidance in 2020. The revised rule clarifies and expands the types of information health plans must provide consumers about covered benefits, cost sharing, and out‑of‑network care. It also tightens disclosure requirements for premium rates, plan design, and the calculation of safeguard balances that protect employees from out‑of‑pocket costs. For major‑firm clients, the rule means additional compliance deadlines, potential redesign of benefit statements, and new data‑reporting obligations for insurance carriers. Firms must assess whether current plan documents meet the new standards and advise clients on updating policies and compliance training. Ongoing monitoring of any future adjustments, especially those tied to the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, will be crucial as the rule’s enforcement begins.

On October 6 2026 the Treasury, Department of Labor, and CMS finalized amendments to the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) rules for non‑grandfathered group health plans and insurers. The new regime replaces dozens of individual plan rate files with a single "in‑network rate file" per provider network, lowers out‑of‑network claim thresholds from 20 to 11, extends reporting periods, and introduces a new Taxonomy File that flags "ghost" rates and a Utilization File that lists reimbursed services without claim counts. These changes are designed to align TiC data with the Hospital Price Transparency framework, making cross‑dataset discrepancies easier to spot. The practical impact is heightened scrutiny of negotiated rates, increased data transparency, and a need for providers to ensure their NPI, TIN, specialty taxonomy, and network identifiers match payer systems. Firms should advise clients to validate payer records, review lease/rental/shared‑network arrangements, and establish monitoring teams to flag inaccuracies. The final rules take effect December 7 2026, with key provisions rollin

…

The UK Health and Social Care Secretary announced that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will adopt a sector‑specific regulatory framework for AI medical devices, a move that eschews the more sweeping EU AI Act. The national commission’s recommendation, released last year, prompted the MHRA to outline a tiered risk‑based system that will apply AI‑powered diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring devices within defined clinical classes. The framework is designed to allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance on a product‑by‑product basis, with the possibility of a 12‑month transitional period for existing devices. While the UK will not enact a single AI Act, the MHRA’s approach will still require detailed evidence of safety, efficacy, and data governance—an area that may impose new supply‑chain scrutiny on firms with multinational operations. Firms should review the draft guidance, assess their clinical‑risk exposure, and consider engaging with the MHRA before the upcoming review deadline to avoid regulatory gaps and potential market delays.

In a landmark opinion, the Third Circuit refused to apply a 30-year-old bright line rule that equated muted stock‑price reactions or rapid rebounds following a corrective disclosure with materiality in securities litigation. The court held that the rule, adopted by several other circuits, was too rigid and failed to consider the totality of information available to investors. The decision now forces firms litigating under the lower‑court precedent to reassess how they interpret and prove materiality in cases involving earnings restatements, accounting corrections, or misleading disclosures. Counsel should revisit pleadings, evidence strategies, and settlement calculations, and clients may expect higher scrutiny of post‑disclosure stock performance in upcoming proceedings. Key takeaways include: the bright line test is nullified on the Third Circuit, immediate recalibration in affected cases, and the broader implication that courts will favor a more nuanced, fact‑by‑fact materiality analysis.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, Gary Gensler, and a senior regulator—possibly a former CFPB chief or a Treasury official—have publicly asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the regulatory status of professional‑sports contracts. Their request stems from a recent SEC position that such contracts, which often include exclusive licensing, bidding, and restraint-of‑trade clauses, may fall within the scope of federal securities laws when parties are considered ‘public’ marketers or for investors in team‑related securities. If the Court agrees, its ruling could establish that sports‑event agreements are subject to SEC rules on disclosure, offering and solicitation, and even antitrust scrutiny. The decision would compel teams, sponsors, broadcasters, and lenders to re‑evaluate contract language, disclosure practices, and risk‑allocation clauses. Counsel should immediately review existing deals for compliance gaps and consider drafting new “SCOTUS‑compliant” provisions that avoid federal securities or antitrust exposure while preserving contractual flexibility.

The UK’s Health Secretary and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport today announced a comprehensive AI regulation strategy aimed specifically at the healthcare industry. The plan outlines ten guiding principles—including safeguards for patient data, transparency in AI decision‑making, and a phased rollout of “high‑risk” AI applications. The strategy is not yet a binding law but signals the UK’s intent to align with forthcoming EU AI Act provisions while addressing domestic concerns over clinical safety and accountability. Big‑law practice groups are advised to review their AI‑enabled tools for compliance, ensure robust data governance, and prepare clients for possible regulatory audits. Firms should also benchmark their current health‑tech contracts against these principles, documenting controls and liability clauses that reflect the new regulatory expectations. While the full legislative timeline remains uncertain, early alignment will position clients ahead of a likely requirement for formal certification within the next 12–18 months.

The Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD) recently issued guidance stressing stricter substantiation for performance‑based and comparative advertising claims involving AI‑enabled and health‑related products. NAD’s client alert indicates a shift toward a higher evidentiary standard: advertisers must now provide clear, objective data to substantiate any claims that their AI technology delivers superior results or meets specific performance metrics. Firms advising tech, healthcare, and consumer‑goods clients should review the updated guidance, assess current ad messaging, and gather empirical evidence or third‑party studies to support any superiority claims. Failure to comply could result in NAD penalties, public backlash, or legal challenges from competitors. Key actions include auditing ad content, tightening claim drafting, and implementing robust data‑collection protocols. The guidance is likely to impact cross‑industry digital advertising strategies and could set a precedent for future regulatory scrutiny in AI‑driven marketing.

EFRAG’s latest proposal introduces sustainability reporting standards for non‑EU undertakings that maintain significant activities within the European Union. Under the draft framework, such entities will be required to disclose key ESG metrics—ranging from greenhouse gas emissions and water usage to supply‑chain transparency—in a format aligned with EU sustainability reporting requirements. The move is designed to harmonise reporting across borders, ensuring non‑EU firms face comparable disclosure obligations to their EU counterparts. For counsel advising cross‑border companies, the first‑time reporting deadline under the proposed regimes is slated for 2028, with a phased implementation structure that allows firms to build internal reporting capabilities. Firms should assess current ESG data infrastructure, identify gaps in metric coverage, and consider engaging external auditors familiar with EFRAG standards to prepare robust disclosures ahead of the 2026 enforcement window.

The article highlights a growing risk that confidential documents—trade secrets, financial records, and other sensitive business information—may be shared with an AI platform during litigation if protective orders do not explicitly address AI usage. It urges counsel to revise protective orders to include AI‑specific clauses that restrict downstream sharing, enforce data‑deletion or data‑redaction protocols, and clarify confidentiality obligations to any AI system. Clients with data‑intensive litigation must ensure that vendors, discovery tools, and legal tech platforms comply with the new language. This guidance has immediate practical implications: it can prevent inadvertent leaks, mitigate sanctions risk, and protect trade secrets. Lawyers should review existing orders, collaborate with IT and data‑privacy teams, and implement AI‑focused protective strategies before filings or deposition exchanges.

In late September 2026 the Department of Justice announced that Independence Blue Cross (IBX) had agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA). IBX was accused of submitting false or misleading claims to Medicare and Medicaid, a violation that can trigger substantial civil penalties and potential criminal liability. The settlement is significant because it underscores DOJ’s willingness to pursue FCA claims against large health‑insurance payers and signals that insurers must rigorously audit and verify the accuracy of claims data, especially in high‑volume environments. The payment resolves the lawsuit without an admission of wrongdoing, but it imposes both a financial penalty and, implicitly, a requirement for heightened compliance controls. For other insurers, the case highlights the importance of robust data validation, claims review protocols, and training to avoid FCA exposure. The next watchpoint is whether additional insurers, particularly those with similar claim‑processing practices, face increased FCA scrutiny in the coming mo

…

Smart glasses equipped with AI can capture audio, video, and biometric data while an employee wears them. Because the devices can record without obvious indicators, traditional smartphone‑centric policies may not prevent inadvertent violations of one‑party or all‑party consent recording laws that vary by state. The technology also raises fresh trade‑secret and confidentiality concerns, as captured material may be automatically uploaded to cloud‑based AI services, exposing proprietary processes or sensitive personnel data. Biometric privacy statutes such as Illinois’ BIPA are triggered when the glass captures faces or voices, while the NLRA protects employees’ rights to record evidence of workplace injustices, meaning blanket bans could be deemed presumptively unlawful unless narrowly tailored. Employers must draft device‑neutral rules that identify covered functions—recording, image capture, AI transmission—link restrictions to specific legitimate business interests, preserve NLRA savings, and allow ADA interactive process accommodations. Implementing these policy updates today can h

…

The recent decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) expands the scope of class action relief that can be pursued in disputes over IEEPA‑enforced duties. By certifying a class composed solely of non‑litigant importers, the court reaffirmed that importers who were not parties to the original suit may still seek duty‑refund relief if their interests are aligned with the solicited class. This ruling carries significant implications for trade attorneys representing importers, creators of retrospective audit mechanisms, and parties assessing the viability of class actions in future IEEPA‑related tariff disputes. Counsel should reassess the eligibility of their non‑litigant import clients for similar class‑action relief, especially in cases where IEEPA duties were imposed without a clear legislative mandate. The decision may influence how parties structure future litigation strategies, negotiate settlements, or defend against class actions as the doctrine regarding non‑litigants in trade disputes continues to evolve.

On October 13 2026 the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced amendments to its Corporate Cooperation Guidance, superseding the version first published in April 2025. The key change permits a company’s legal representatives to engage in early dialogue with the SFO while the firm is still deciding whether to self‑report a potential violation. The move is intended to encourage transparency and allow companies to resolve concerns before formal investigations. Yet the guidance still leaves the self‑reporting decision in the firm’s hands, so the dilemma remains. For counsel, the update means that early outreach can now be a defensible strategy, but it also requires careful assessment of the material and the potential regulatory consequences. Firms should review the revised guidance, evaluate clients’ exposure, and advise on whether early discussion is appropriate while weighing the impact on sanctions, reputational risk, and future liability.

On October 14, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED) released a corporate enforcement priorities memo that delineates its focus areas for the coming year—ranging from money‑laundering compliance failures to deceptive billing practices. The memo follows a prior broad overview of NFED’s priorities and signals heightened scrutiny of companies whose internal controls are deemed defective. In tandem, the federal government announced the creation of a 16‑agency Eastern Pennsylvania Fraud Task Force, converging law‑enforcement, regulatory, and finance‑specialists to investigate fraud networks that span state lines. The partnership, modeled after successful task‑forces in other regions, underscores the DOJ’s willingness to coordinate across jurisdictions to disrupt organized fraud. This development is vital for corporate counsel: the memo clarifies which conduct attracts the most rigorous DOJ pursuit, and the task force’s coordinated approach could mean earlier notice and expansive investigative power for firms operating in or targeting the implicated re

…

In a recent proposal, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) asked to amend Rule 17a‑7, the governing standard for cross‑trading among registered investment funds. The changes would broaden the classes of trades eligible for cross‑trading, tweak the method of calculating trade pricing, and—most notably—transfer day‑to‑day oversight responsibilities from fund senior executive staff to the fund’s chief compliance officer. For asset‑management firms, the proposal means a more concentrated compliance function will be responsible for ensuring trades are fair, properly priced, and compliant with both SEC and investment adviser regulations. Firms already conducting cross‑trading will need to review internal controls and staff training to meet the new reporting and oversight obligations. If adopted, the rule will tighten regulatory scrutiny of intra‑fund trades, potentially affecting liquidity strategies and client disclosures. The proposal is in the rulemaking phase, so firms should monitor its progress closely and prepare to adjust compliance workflows accordingly.

On Oct. 12, 2026, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Corporate Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Climate‑Related Financial Risk Disclosure Initial Regulation, the first rule under Senate Bill 253 (SB 253). The regulation, promulgated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and codified at Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, requires all reporting entities to submit a GHG inventory by a fixed deadline and to disclose the financial impact of climate risks. The rule applies to large corporate reporters, covering roughly 90% of California’s statewide GHG emissions. For firms with California clients, the change forces a rapid adjustment to ESG reporting frameworks and internal data collection processes. Firms should verify whether their clients already meet the reporting thresholds, establish or update GHG‑counting procedures, and prepare disclosure narratives for the new deadline. CPA, ESG, and sustainability counsel will likely see a surge in demand for compliance advisement and audit services as the industry races to meet the new requirement.

The Treasury Department has unveiled a proposal to implement statutory amendments from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) that would impose pro‑rata rules on controlled foreign corporation (CFC) income for U.S. shareholders. Under the current scheme, shareholders can allocate CFC income between business, passive, and attributable categories; the proposal mandates a uniform “pro‑rata” calculation intended to simplify compliance but could increase the U.S. tax burden for entities that previously benefited from preferential treatment. The rules would also broaden the definition of eligible CFCs and tighten reporting requirements, reducing flexibilities regarding income shifting and foreign asset ownership. Major multinational clients—especially those with subsidiaries in low‑tax jurisdictions—will need to reassess their CFC structures and potentially adjust transfer pricing, tax reserve calculations, and carryback/ carryforward strategies. Key takeaways for counsel include studying the impact on existing CFC elections, preparing for increased compliance costs, and lobbying for legis

…

California’s latest legislation signals a bold shift in the state's approach to antitrust enforcement, broadening the scope of activities subject to scrutiny and tightening review thresholds for certain mergers. The amendments to the Cartwright Act now expand the definition of competitive harms and require earlier disclosure for businesses engaged in potentially anti-competitive conduct. Meanwhile, the new mini-HSR Act establishes a streamlined regulatory pathway for smaller, cross-border transactions that were previously exempt, subjecting them to expedited review and public commenting. These changes have immediate implications for firms advising clients on mergers, joint ventures, and other marketplace arrangements in California. Counsel should update compliance protocols, assess existing transactions under the new thresholds, and advise clients on potential filing obligations or strategic adjustments. Staying abreast of the shifting statutory base will be critical for anticipating enforcement trends and mitigating antitrust risk across a broad spectrum of clients.

California’s Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) imposes an upcoming emissions‑reporting deadline on U.S.‑organized public and private firms that do business in the state and exceed a $1 billion annual revenue threshold. On November 10, 2026 companies must either submit Scope 1 and Scope 2 data for the preceding fiscal year via CARB’s voluntary platform, or, if the firm cannot collect that data, send a statement of non‑reporting on company letterhead. CARB will not require third‑party assurance for the first reporting year, and Scope 3 reporting will not commence until 2027. The rules apply regardless of whether the firm is already providing similar disclosures under other programs. Litigation challenging SB 253 is still pending, and the related Climate‑Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) remains stayed by the Ninth Circuit. Firms should assess whether they meet the revenue test, gather or verify available emissions data, and decide whether to file a report or a non‑reporting statement before the Nov. 10 deadline. Future developments to watch include the court’s decisi

…

On September 30, Governor Gavin Newsom signed four bills regulating artificial intelligence in the California workplace, according to King & Spalding's client alert. The package governs worker monitoring and how AI-assisted discipline and termination decisions are made, framed as rules for "robo bosses" and AI-driven layoffs. The excerpt does not identify the four bills or their operative dates, so requirements and effective dates should be confirmed against the enacted text.

Why counsel should care: California is the most employee-protective jurisdiction in the United States, and new employment statutes are typically echoed by other states and by local rules on algorithmic decision tools, such as New York City's. Exposure reaches any employer with California workers, and notice, transparency, and consent obligations flow through vendor AI tools used in recruiting, performance management, and termination. A vendor's "decision support only" label may not suffice if employment decisions rely on model outputs.

…

After Congress failed to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the CFTC issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to bring retail leveraged or financed spot crypto trades within the Commodity Exchange Act via two regimes. Regulation CTX would define a "covered offer" across accounts, exchanges, and product classes, and define actual delivery as transfer of meaningful possession or control — private keys or credentials, not an internal book entry — potentially including unfettered governance participation or staking without intermediary fees. Regulation CAM would create a tailored DCM subcategory for exchanges listing CTXs, with tailored Core Principles; the CFTC preliminarily believes FCM intermediation should be required for all CTXs, though a stand-alone CAM could use separately registered FCMs and DCOs.

…

Per Fried Frank's client alert, in In re Saama Technologies Litigation (Del. Ch., Sept. 26, 2026) the Court of Chancery ruled for the buyer — an affiliate of a private equity firm that acquired a controlling stake in Saama Technologies — in a dispute over the founder's earnout, awarding the buyer damages rather than leaving the earnout obligation unpaid; the alert excerpt states the buyer "does not owe the Company" the sums in question. The truncated record available here does not confirm the size of the award, the precise standard applied to efforts covenants, or how each claim was disposed of.

Why sophisticated M&A counsel should care: earnout and efforts-covenant disputes are among the most common post-closing claims in controlling-stake transactions, and Delaware remains the default forum. A ruling crediting a buyer's aggressive post-closing approach — and permitting a buyer to recover against the seller — bears directly on how efforts clauses, milestone definitions, and related-party latitude are negotiated and later litigated.

…

The California Office of Administrative Law approved CARB's Initial Regulation under SB 253 and SB 261 on October 12, 2026, effective the same day and codified at Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. It fixes November 10, 2026 as the first annual GHG reporting deadline under SB 253, defines applicability concepts, and sets recordkeeping requirements and an annual fee framework. CARB's optional 2026 Report Intake Platform accepts Scope 1 and Scope 2 reports; entities may alternatively email CARB. Under CARB's enforcement discretion, 2026 submissions are accepted whether or not limited assurance has been obtained, and entities neither collecting nor planning to collect Scope 1 and Scope 2 data as of December 5, 2024 must file a statement of non-reporting to obtain first-year relief. Counsel should care because the applicability definitions drive disclosure obligations and fee liability for large US and multinational corporates with California operations, while litigation challenges both statutes: the Ninth Circuit has temporarily enjoined SB 261 enforcement but not SB 253. I

…

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s October 9, 2026 proposal expands Rule 17a‑7, the reporting framework that governs securities trade trails for investment companies. Under the amendment, a larger basket of fund‑type securities—including those previously excluded or limited—would be authorized for cross‑trading, meaning they could be bought and sold between portfolio managers of the same fund on a trailing‑data basis. The change is designed to improve liquidity, reduce transaction costs, and broaden the applicability of the rule to modern fund structures such as closed‑end and offshore funds. For large‑firm counsel, the move means a reassessment of compliance systems, data capture workflows, and broker‑dealer agreements. Firms with significant investment‑company clients should convene compliance, trade‑capture, and risk teams to evaluate the coverage, update trading manuals, and report any new licensing or disclosure obligations. The SEC will invite comments until at least November 24, 2026; the final rule could take effect in 2027, making timely review essential.

According to a single Skadden client alert dated 14 October 2026, the SEC approved Nasdaq's proposal on 10 April 2026 to extend trading to 23 hours per day, five days per week (23x5). The same item signals that NYSE Arca is moving on an extended-hours launch as well, though the excerpted text does not describe the Arca proposal, its approval status, or its effective date, and the April approval date sits well before the alert's publication, so the current implementation timeline is unclear.

Why sophisticated counsel should care: overnight sessions shift the windows in which material information can move a security without continuous human coverage. Disclosure controls, Regulation FD practices, insider-trading windows, earnings-release sequencing, and the interaction with limit-up/limit-down and volatility pauses all need re-examination. Broker-dealer and market-operator members face new surveillance, clearing and risk-management expectations, and issuers with foreign listings will have to reconcile overnight US prints with home-market trading hours and time zones.

…