While it is not so evident that the off-channel communications cases were based on a novel theory, FSI is quite right to criticize the fine amounts in these cases as unfair. This is because (i) the circumstances leading to the violations were the result of the introduction of novel communications technologies that leapfrogged communications retention technologies; (ii) the SEC never demonstrated any investor harm from the violations; (iii) the SEC never demonstrated that the purpose of the…

The regulators have made very clear that the use of the term "may" in a disclosure, where the firm knows that the reality is "does" or "will," is misleading and amounts to a red flag trigger for an enforcement action.  

The interested economic parties are lining up on opposing sides of how the GENIUS Act should be interpreted, particularly (though far from only) with regard to the prohibition on the paying of interest on stablecoins.  

The right approach to the regulation of consumer credit is a difficult issue. However, it is not infrequently the case that regulators and politicians who seek to do good or be protective of the poor end up adopting policies that discourage lending to those who need it. (See, e.g., .)

There is some inherent irony in the fact that the U.S. regulators repeatedly criticized the limited availability of financial services to low-income individuals and simultaneously attacked those…