News

02 Nov, 2026

SEC Treasury Clearing Exemptions: What Broker-Dealers Need to Know

The SEC granted exemptive relief from the Treasury clearing requirement on October 30, 2026 (Release No. 34-106789). The relief operates by excluding two categories of repo from the definition of an eligible secondary market transaction, rather than by extending a deadline.The first covers certain repos with non-U.S. counterparties, subject to limits and conditions stated in the order. The second covers repos between a direct participant of a Treasury clearing agency and an affiliate, where the affiliate meets the affiliated counterparty definition in Rule 17ad-22(a) and is not an investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act.The relief is narrow and conditional, so the practical step is to run existing repo books against the order’s terms rather than to assume a category is out. A transaction that falls outside the exclusions remains subject to the clearing requirement on the current implementation schedule. What the SEC's Treasury Clearing Exemptions Cover The SEC issued exemptive relief excluding two categories of repurchase agreements from the definition of eligible secondary market transactions under its Treasury clearing framework. The first involves certain repo transactions with non-U.S. counterparties, subject to specified limits and conditions. The second involves certain transactions between direct participants of U.S. Treasury securities clearing agencies and qualifying affiliated entities. The exemptions are targeted and do not remove clearing obligations for transactions outside their scope. Why the SEC Issued Additional Clearing Relief The SEC adopted its Treasury clearing rules in December 2023 to expand central clearing of eligible U.S. Treasury securities transactions. Following implementation concerns raised by market participants, the Commission extended the original compliance deadlines in 2025. The October 2026 relief responds to additional questions concerning cross-border transactions and internal transactions between affiliated financial entities. Which Repo Transactions May Qualify for Exemption? The relief addresses two distinct transaction categories. Eligibility depends on the counterparties involved and the conditions specified by the SEC. Firms should evaluate their transaction structures against the applicable exemption terms rather than assuming that all cross-border or affiliated transactions are excluded. Non-U.S. and Inter-Affiliate Repo Transactions Certain repo transactions involving non-U.S. counterparties may qualify for relief, subject to specified limitations and conditions. Separately, certain repos between a direct participant of a U.S. Treasury securities clearing agency and an affiliated entity may qualify if the affiliate is not an investment company under Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and otherwise satisfies the affiliated counterparty definition in Rule 17ad-22(a). What Broker-Dealers Should Review Before Compliance Broker-dealers and other affected market participants should identify repo transactions involving foreign counterparties or affiliated entities, determine whether the applicable exemptions cover those transactions, and update their clearing implementation plans accordingly. Firms should also review counterparty classifications, transaction documentation, operational procedures, and remaining compliance obligations. The announcement does not establish a blanket exemption for all international or inter-affiliate repo activity. How SJKP Can Help SJKP can assist broker-dealers, investment managers, and financial institutions with securities regulatory compliance, financial transactions, and cross-border legal matters. Businesses evaluating Treasury clearing requirements can work with counsel to assess transaction eligibility, applicable exemptions, and compliance obligations under SEC regulations.

02 Nov, 2026

Lyft's $1.8 Million CCPA Settlement: What Businesses Should Know

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a $1.8 million settlement with Lyft on October 29, 2026, over the steps its app required of consumers who wanted to opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information. The claims were brought under the CCPA and the Unfair Competition Law.The operative standard is 11 CCR § 7004, which requires a request method that is easy to execute, takes minimal steps, and does not demand more information than necessary. Opting out cannot be harder than opting in. Why California Investigated Lyft's Privacy Practices California's investigation followed a March 2025 enforcement sweep examining how businesses collect and share consumer information, including geolocation data. According to the Attorney General, Lyft had been selling or sharing personal information for targeted advertising since mid-2023 without offering users a direct in-app method to opt out. Consumers instead had to navigate through the app's privacy policy to reach a separate webpage. What the CCPA Requires for Opt-Out Requests The California Consumer Privacy Act gives consumers the right to direct covered businesses not to sell or share their personal information. Businesses must provide compliant methods for exercising those rights and cannot impose unnecessary obstacles. California alleged that Lyft's process was unnecessarily burdensome because users had to leave the app and provide additional personal information despite already being logged into their accounts. Why an In-App Opt-Out Matters For a business operating primarily through a mobile application, the accessibility of privacy controls is an important compliance consideration. California's enforcement action emphasizes that businesses should evaluate how easily consumers can find and use privacy controls within the services they regularly access. What the $1.8 Million Settlement Requires The settlement includes $1.8 million in civil penalties and requires Lyft to provide an in-app option for consumers to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information. Lyft must also notify California consumers of their right to prevent their personal information from being sold. The agreement resolves the state's allegations concerning Lyft's previous opt-out process. What Businesses Should Review Companies that collect consumer information through mobile apps or digital platforms should review their privacy settings, advertising data practices, and opt-out procedures. Businesses should consider whether users can easily locate privacy controls, whether requests require unnecessary information, and whether the process works consistently across mobile apps and websites. The settlement demonstrates that providing a privacy policy alone may not satisfy applicable CCPA requirements. How SJKP Can Help SJKP can assist businesses with data privacy compliance, consumer protection matters, and regulatory risks involving personal information. Companies operating mobile applications, online platforms, or advertising services can work with counsel to review privacy policies, consumer opt-out procedures, and compliance obligations under the CCPA and other applicable privacy laws.

21 Oct, 2026

ICE Warrantless Arrests Challenged in Federal Appeals Court

California, the District of Columbia and Colorado led twenty-one states in an amicus brief filed October 19, 2026 in the D.C. Circuit, supporting the challenge in Escobar-Molina v. DHS to warrantless civil immigration arrests. The district court granted a preliminary injunction in part on December 2, 2025. The provision at issue is 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), which permits a warrantless arrest only where the officer has reason to believe the person is in the United States unlawfully and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The states argue that the second condition has not been applied as a separate determination, so the arrest proceeds on the first alone. Why States Are Challenging ICE's Warrantless Arrest Practices California joined a multistate coalition in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The coalition supports a legal challenge to DHS practices involving civil immigration arrests without warrants. The states argue that federal officers have conducted arrests without making the individualized determinations required under immigration law. When Can ICE Make an Arrest Without a Warrant? Under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), federal immigration officers may make certain warrantless civil arrests when they have reason to believe an individual is in the United States in violation of immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Courts have interpreted the reason-to-believe requirement as a probable cause standard. The litigation concerns whether DHS's arrest practices satisfy these statutory conditions. Why the Likelihood of Escape Matters The statutory requirement concerning the likelihood of escape is separate from the determination regarding immigration status. The plaintiffs and supporting states argue that officers must evaluate both conditions before conducting a warrantless civil immigration arrest. What Happened in Escobar-Molina v. DHS? The case challenges warrantless civil immigration arrest practices in the District of Columbia. On December 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted part of a motion for a preliminary injunction. The case subsequently proceeded to the D.C. Circuit, where the multistate coalition submitted its October 2026 amicus brief. A preliminary injunction is not a final determination of every issue in the litigation. What the Appeal Could Mean for Immigration Enforcement The appeal concerns how statutory requirements apply to warrantless civil immigration arrests and the extent to which officers must establish an individualized likelihood of escape. The states also describe effects on schools, workplaces, healthcare access, and local communities. The appellate court's decision will determine the issues before it, and any broader implications will depend on the scope of its ruling. How SJKP Can Help SJKP can assist individuals and businesses with immigration-related legal matters, administrative proceedings, and federal litigation. Individuals facing immigration enforcement actions can consult qualified counsel to understand their rights, available legal remedies, and the procedures applicable to their circumstances.

21 Oct, 2026

SEC and French AMF Agreement Resumes U.S. Investment Adviser Registration Processing

The SEC and France’s Autorité des Marchés Financiers announced a supervisory memorandum of understanding on October 20, 2026 (Press Release 2026-108), providing for consultation and the exchange of supervisory information on advisers and funds operating in both markets. The operative part is the registration path. The SEC said it will process new and pending applications from AMF-supervised asset management companies seeking to do business in the United States as investment advisers. An MOU of this kind is what allows the Commission to rely on the home regulator for information it cannot obtain directly, which is the condition for examining a firm whose books and records sit abroad. For a French manager this makes Advisers Act registration a practical option rather than a theoretical one, with the ongoing obligations that follow: Form ADV, the compliance rule under Rule 206(4)-7, the custody rule where applicable, and examination by the Division of Examinations. What the SEC and AMF Agreement Covers The SEC and France's financial markets regulator, the AMF, entered into a memorandum of understanding to support consultation, cooperation, and information sharing. The agreement concerns certain investment advisers and investment companies regulated by the SEC and investment service providers supervised by the AMF that operate in the United States and France. SEC to Resume Processing French Investment Adviser Applications A central development is the SEC's announcement that it will process new and pending registration applications from AMF-supervised asset management companies seeking to conduct business in the United States as investment advisers. The arrangement is intended to facilitate registration and ongoing supervision through cooperation between the two regulators. Registration remains subject to applicable U.S. requirements. How Cross-Border Regulatory Cooperation Will Work The MOU establishes a framework through which the SEC and AMF can consult and exchange supervisory information about covered financial firms. This cooperation is intended to support regulatory oversight of investment businesses operating across both jurisdictions. Information Sharing Between U.S. and French Regulators The agreement provides a channel for the regulators to share relevant supervisory information. The announcement does not specify new reporting deadlines or additional compliance obligations for individual firms. What French Asset Managers Should Consider AMF-supervised asset managers considering U.S. investment advisory activities should evaluate whether SEC registration is required, review applicable U.S. regulatory obligations, and prepare the documentation needed for the registration process. Firms already operating across both markets should also consider how coordinated regulatory supervision may affect their compliance procedures. How SJKP Can Help SJKP can assist investment advisers, asset managers, and financial services companies with U.S. securities regulations, investment management compliance, and cross-border business matters. Foreign financial firms considering entry into the U.S. market can work with counsel to evaluate applicable registration requirements and regulatory obligations.

19 Oct, 2026

California Sues ICE Over Immigration Arrests at State Courthouses

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a federal lawsuit on October 15, 2026, challenging ICE's policy and practice of conducting civil immigration arrests at state courthouses. The complaint alleges violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Tenth Amendment, raising questions about federal immigration enforcement authority and access to state judicial proceedings. Why California Filed the Lawsuit California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE in the Central District of California on October 15, 2026, challenging civil immigration arrests at state courthouses.The complaint pleads three Administrative Procedure Act claims and a Tenth Amendment claim. The statutory claim is the one to watch: that the Immigration and Nationality Act incorporated the common-law privilege against civil arrest at courthouses, so immigration officers were never granted that authority in the first place. What Legal Arguments Is California Making? California challenges the courthouse enforcement policy under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that ICE failed to adequately consider its effects on state courts and exceeded its statutory authority. The state also alleges that the policy interferes with powers reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment. The Historical Protection Against Civil Arrests The complaint relies partly on a longstanding common law privilege against certain civil arrests at courthouses. California argues that Congress did not eliminate this protection when authorizing federal civil immigration enforcement. Whether that protection limits the challenged ICE practices is a disputed legal question. How Courthouse Enforcement Has Changed According to California's complaint, civil immigration arrests near state courthouses increased substantially after ICE changed its enforcement policy in May 2025. The Attorney General reports that a previous directive was vacated in June 2026, but courthouse enforcement continued. California cites 28 reported incidents resulting in 28 civil arrests during July 2026. What Happens Next in the Federal Lawsuit? California seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the challenged courthouse enforcement practices from continuing. The federal court will need to consider the state's statutory and constitutional claims, along with the federal government's defenses. Filing the lawsuit does not itself prohibit ICE from conducting courthouse arrests or establish that the challenged policy violates federal law. How SJKP Can Help SJKP can assist individuals and businesses with immigration-related legal matters, federal litigation, and questions involving administrative agency actions. Individuals concerned about immigration enforcement in connection with court proceedings should seek legal guidance tailored to their circumstances and the applicable jurisdiction.

19 Oct, 2026

Fidelity Crypto Settlement: California's 28-Day Withdrawal Rule Explained

California announced a $500,000 settlement with Fidelity Digital Asset Services on October 16, 2026, resolving allegations that its former withdrawal restrictions violated the California Commodity Law. The company did not admit liability and disputes that it violated California law. The statute prohibits a commodity contract entered into primarily for speculation or investment unless the dealer delivers the commodity within 28 days of payment, and the Attorney General treats delivery of a digital asset as occurring only once the customer can move it off the platform. That reading reaches any platform that sells digital assets it does not allow customers to withdraw. Why California Investigated Fidelity's Crypto Platform California's Department of Justice investigated Fidelity Digital Asset Services after identifying restrictions on customers' ability to transfer cryptocurrency off its platform. From November 2022 through April 2025, California retail customers could buy and sell cryptocurrency but could not transfer those assets directly to external wallets. Fidelity explained that the functionality required approval from the New York Department of Financial Services. Fidelity Agreed to a $500,000 Settlement Under the agreement, Fidelity Digital Assets, National Association, as successor to Fidelity Digital Asset Services, agreed to pay $500,000 to resolve the California Attorney General's specified potential claims. The company denied wrongdoing and entered into the agreement without admitting any violation of law. How California's 28-Day Delivery Rule Applies to Crypto California's Commodity Law generally prohibits certain commodity contracts entered into primarily for investment or speculation unless physical delivery occurs within 28 days of payment. For covered cryptocurrency transactions, California regulators consider the customer's ability to withdraw purchased assets from the dealer's platform an important part of physical delivery. The rule does not establish a universal 28-day withdrawal deadline for every cryptocurrency transaction. What the Settlement Requires Fidelity's successor confirms that California customers can transfer eligible cryptocurrency to external wallets, subject to applicable laws and security restrictions. The agreement also addresses notice if retail transfer functionality is discontinued. It expressly recognizes exceptions involving certain tax-advantaged accounts, including crypto IRAs subject to applicable federal requirements. What Crypto Platforms Should Review Cryptocurrency platforms serving California customers should evaluate whether their products fall within the state's commodity contract requirements, how digital assets are delivered, and whether customers can transfer eligible assets outside the platform. Businesses should also review customer agreements, withdrawal disclosures, licensing requirements, and the interaction between state regulatory approvals and California commodity law. State Regulatory Approval Does Not Resolve Every Compliance Question The Fidelity investigation illustrates how restrictions connected to one state's regulatory approval process may create separate legal questions in another jurisdiction. Crypto businesses operating across state lines should evaluate applicable requirements in each market. How SJKP Can Help SJKP can assist cryptocurrency platforms, digital asset businesses, and financial services companies with regulatory compliance, securities and commodities matters, and state-level enforcement risks. Businesses reviewing custody arrangements, customer withdrawal policies, or digital asset operations can work with counsel to evaluate applicable legal requirements.