Amendments increase the annual gift limit to $300, provide exemptive relief authority, codify existing guidance and clarify that the rule does not apply to gifts to individual retail customers

On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.’s (“FINRA”) amendments (the “Amendments”) to FINRA Rule 3220 (Influencing or Rewarding Employees of Others), which is designed to avoid improprieties, such as conflicts of interest, that may arise when a member or associated person makes a gift to an employee of another person, such as an institutional customer, vendor or counterparty with the hope of strengthening the business relationship.

The Amendments increase the gift limit from $100 to $300 per person per year, provide FINRA authority to grant exemptive relief from the rule, address valuation, aggregation, supervision, and recordkeeping requirements, codify certain exceptions, including for personal gifts, bereavement gifts, items of de minimis value, promotional or commemorative items, and donations due to federally declared major disasters. The Amendments also clarify that the rule does not apply to gifts to individual retail customers or to gifts from a member to its own associated persons. We highlight key aspects of the Amendments, including certain changes to gift valuation, in this Legal Update. FINRA will announce the effective date of the Amendments in a regulatory notice.

Continue reading this Legal Update.

For the fourth consecutive year, JD Supra has recognized Anna Pinedo as a Top Author for securities law topics as part of its 2026 Readers Choice Awards. This marks the sixth time in the last nine years that JD Supra has named Anna to its Readers Choice Awards, which honors thought leaders who achieve the highest visibility and engagement among readers in their area of expertise. Anna is ranked in the top 10 most read authors from a pool of 6,800 lawyers covering securities law. Read about the 2026 Readers Choice Awards and access Anna’s content on JD Supra.

Congratulations, Anna!

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced it will host its 45th Annual Small Business Forum (the “Forum”) on March 9, 2026 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET at the SEC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

The Forum, organized by the SEC’s Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation, brings together members of the public and private sectors to discuss and provide suggestions to improve policy affecting how small businesses and smaller public companies raise capital.  The Forum will include appearances by SEC Commissioners and discussions with various thought leaders ranging from early- to late-stage private companies and smaller public companies and will include the following sessions:

  • Funding for Founders: Empowering Early-Stage Entrepreneurs;
  • Investing in Innovation: Supporting Growth Stage Companies;
  • Public Company Perspectives: Considerations for IPOs and Small Caps; and
  • Open Mic: Audience Opportunity to Discuss Policy Recommendations.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins noted that “the annual Small Business Forum is a unique opportunity for innovators, investors, advisors, and policymakers to come together and help identify challenges in capital raising,” encouraging members of the public to “share ideas and have their voices heard on ways to improve capital formation.”

The Forum takes place against a backdrop of significant developments in small business capital formation policy.  Chairman Atkins has emphasized a “renewed focus on supporting innovation, capital formation, market efficiency, and investor protection,” with particular attention to deregulatory rule proposals to reduce compliance burdens and facilitate capital formation.

The Forum presents an opportunity for the public to suggest capital formation related policy recommendations that will be delivered to Congress. Participants – whether attending in-person or online – may submit policy recommendations in advance by emailing smallbusiness@sec.gov by 12:00 p.m. ET on March 5, 2026.  Registration information and the full agenda are available here. The Forum is open for public in-person attendance and is also available via webcast.

In the second update to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Corporation Finance’s Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations in less than a week, on February 17, 2026, the Staff turned its attention to exempt offerings, focusing on Regulation A (“Reg A”) and Regulation Crowdfunding (“Reg CF”).  All the guidance below, except where otherwise noted, is new, although it is consistent with positions the Staff has taken with respect to such offerings in the past, and, with respect to the Reg A guidance, is consistent with Staff guidance generally applicable to registered offerings.  Unless otherwise noted, all CDIs are included in the Securities Act Rules CDIs.

CDI ReferenceGuidance
CDI 182.05 (withdrawn)The CDI addressed Reg A eligibility for voluntary filers and was withdrawn because, as of January 2019, Exchange Act reporting companies are eligible to use Reg A.
CDI 182.24Extended the Division’s enhanced accommodations with respect to draft registration statements to Reg A issuers, clarifying that Reg A issuers may submit draft offering statements for non-public Staff review regardless of whether the issuer has previously sold securities under Reg A or pursuant to the Securities Act.
CDI 182.25A Reg A issuer may convert a qualified Tier 1 offering to a Tier 2 offering by post-qualification amendment (“PQA”).
CDI 182.26When an Exchange Act reporting company is filing or has filed a Form 1-A and has available interim financial statements or other information from its Exchange Act reports for a period more recent than specifically required in Form 1-A, the issuer should include in the Form 1-A such information necessary to “to make the required statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they are being made, not misleading.” An amendment to a qualified Form 1-A is necessary where the interim financial statements or other information in the issuer’s Exchange Act reports “individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change in the information set forth in the offering statement.”
CDI 182.27A Reg A issuer does not need to continually update the amount of offered securities on the offering circular cover page when filing a PQA to account for the actual amount of securities it can sell pursuant to Rule 251(a), although the issuer can do so voluntarily, and should do so if its adding a new class of securities or additional securities to a previously-qualified Form 1-A.
CDI 182.28Depending on the timing of an advertisement, a Reg A issuer can sometimes advertise the offering on TV or radio, or online: Before filing a Form 1-A:  Yes, so long as the advertisement complies with the conditions of Rule 255(b)(1)–(3), which require certain statements to be included in the communication.After filing a Form 1-A but before qualification:  Yes, so long as the advertisement complies with Rule 251(d)(1)(ii)(B) and (C), Rule 254, and Rule 255(b)(1)–(4).  In essence, because TV, radio, or online advertisements would be considered “written” offers, they must comply with Reg A’s communications rules.After qualification of Form 1-A:  No TV or radio advertising is permitted because post-qualification offers must be accompanied with or preceded by the most recent offering circular, which is not possible in a TV or radio format.  An issuer can advertise online if offers can be accompanied with or preceded by the most recent offering circular.
CDI 182.29“Testing the waters” materials for a Reg A offering need not be filed if they are substantively the same as previously filed testing-the-waters materials. 
CDI 182.30If the securities to be issued in a Reg A offering are convertible, exercisable, or exchangeable within one year of qualification or at the issuer’s discretion, the underlying securities must also be qualified at the time the overlying securities are qualified and any consideration to be received by the issuer initially and upon conversion, exercise, or exchange (for example, any warrant exercise price) should be included in the “aggregate offering price.”
CDI 182.31Reg A issuers cannot ask investors to put money into escrow before the Form 1-A for an offering is qualified, even if investors retain discretion as to whether to invest after qualification.
CDI 182.32In an ongoing Reg A offering, offers and sales must sometimes be suspended during the pendency of a PQA: Offers and sales both suspended when a PQA is filed to comply with Rule 252(f)(2)(i) (which requires annual updates to the financial statements) and the financial statements are stale.Sales, but not offers, must be suspended during the pendency of a PQA filed to comply with Rule 252(f)(2)(ii) (which requires amendments to reflect fundamental changes in the information in the offering statement).
CDI 182.33Issuers cannot attach exhibits to Reg A offering circular supplements.  However, issuers can file exhibits with Form 1-U and exhibits-only PQAs, providing a path for issuers to file such exhibits on EDGAR.
Reg CF CDI 100.03An issuer can move a Reg CF offering between intermediary platforms prior to making any sales in the offering.  The issuer must cancel the offering on the initial platform and make sure its offering materials are removed, and then file a new Form C for the offering on the new platform.
Reg CF CDI 100.04Former Exchange Act reporting companies can rely on Reg CF if they no longer have active Exchange Act reporting obligations because these obligations were terminated or suspended.
Reg CF CDI 100.05Reg CF issuers should use a rolling 12-month calculation from the date of each closing to calculate the maximum aggregate amount of securities the issuer can offer under Rule 100(a)(1).
Reg CF CDI 100.06The “annual period” used to calculate annual income for purposes of Reg CF Rule 100(a)(2)’s individual investment limit is a calendar year.
Reg CF CDI 201.03When (i) at least one “rolling closing” in an ongoing Reg CF offering has occurred and (ii) the offering is still ongoing more than 120 days after the issuer’s fiscal year end, the issuer must file a Form C/A with updated financial statements and an annual report on Form C-AR, along with progress updates under Rule 203(a)(3).

Find the new CDIs here.

On February 19, the staff of the Division of Trading and Markets of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued an FAQ, stating the staff will not object if a broker-dealer treats a proprietary position in a payment stablecoin (as defined in the FAQ) as having a “ready market” under SEC Rule 15c3-1 and takes a haircut of 2% of the market value of the greater of the long or short proprietary position in calculating its net capital. 

In a related statement, Commissioner Hester M. Peirce noted that “Rule 15c3-1 does not explicitly address payment stablecoins. I understand that some broker-dealers, out of an abundance of caution, have proposed to take a 100% haircut on payment stablecoins held in their inventory. In my view, a 100% haircut would be unnecessarily punitive given the underlying reserve assets that back payment stablecoins (generally, U.S. dollars, short-term U.S. Treasury securities and other similar instruments).  For context, a haircut of 2% aligns with the haircut imposed on registered investment companies that are money market funds, which hold similar instruments as payment stablecoin issuers. In fact, following the effective date of the GENIUS Act, the reserve requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers will be more limiting than the ‘eligible securities’ requirements that apply to registered money market funds, including government money market funds.”

Commissioner Peirce further stated that she would like to consider how SEC Rule 15c3-1 could be amended to account for payment stablecoins and that she would welcome input on other aspects of SEC rules that should be modified to address the use of payment stablecoins by SEC-registered entities.

The SEC’s Enforcement Division Director Margaret Ryan recently delivered her first public remarks which provide helpful insight into the division’s priorities under her leadership. Director Ryan outlined her guiding principles, approach to the enforcement process, and substantive priorities. These were her first public remarks since becoming Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division in September 2025.

Consistent with her military and judicial background, Director Ryan emphasized that the division would be “committed to providing transparent and appropriate process to individuals and to companies under investigation by Enforcement” and to “the fair and judicious use of the formidable power and resources” of the federal government. During her remarks, she addressed criticisms that the Enforcement Division received under the prior administration, some of which, she agreed, were valid points that warranted evaluation and course correction.

With respect to process, Director Ryan outlined several key points and changes that the division is making to the SEC’s Wells process. The SEC’s Wells process involves formal process under which a party receives notice at the end of an investigation of the staff’s intent to seek authorization to file an enforcement action against them and provides the recipient with an opportunity to make a submission explaining their positions on the merits before an action is filed. Director Ryan reiterated a previous change in the process announced by Chairman Atkins that Wells recipients will now have four weeks, compared to two, to respond to the notice as well as an opportunity to meet with senior enforcement leadership to make their case. She stressed that this is a meaningful opportunity for Wells recipients to address key issues of fact or law before an enforcement recommendation is officially made. Wells submissions will be reviewed by senior enforcement leadership and the SEC staff. Although Director Ryan cautioned parties and counsel that fairness should not be mistaken for weakness or leniency, and warned against the use of delay tactics to prolong an investigation because the staff has been tasked to move expeditiously, and to reach conclusions and make recommendations within reasonable time periods.

With respect to enforcement, Director Ryan outlined an enforcement approach focused on quality, effectiveness, fairness and impact rather than enforcement numbers. She also echoed Chairman Atkins’ prior statements about pursuing enforcement actions involving egregious fraud that causes substantial harm to retail investors and a more measured approach to non-fraud violations. Additionally, she emphasized a focus on targeting types of fraudulent conduct that undermines market integrity, such as accounting fraud, insider trading, wash trading and market manipulation.

Lastly, Director Ryan provided some insight into the Enforcement Division’s approach to non-fraud rule matters. While she stated that the SEC will take a less stringent approach to non-fraud violations, noting that many of these violations should not result in enforcement cases by the SEC, she firmly stated that there is a middle ground, and the Enforcement Division would focus on regulatory violations that are the result of compliance failures that pose extensive risks to investors, risks to the integrity of the market, or that would result in an unfair benefit to the market participant. To that end, the SEC will continue to bring certain actions involving non-fraud rule violations, including public company reporting, obligations to maintaining adequate books and records and adequate internal accounting control requirements, as well as actions to uphold applicable broker-dealer or investment adviser’s obligations to adhere to fiduciary duty and financial responsibility rules.

Read Director Ryan’s full remarks here.

While visiting Texas, Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Atkins addressed corporate law matters and disclosure reform issues.  Here, we address the Chair’s comments related to disclosure reform.  Chair Atkins once again emphasized the need to return to principles of financial materiality when considering disclosure requirements.  He noted as well that disclosure requirements should be tailored based on a registrant’s size and maturity.  In discussing the recently announced review of Regulation S-K, Chair Atkins identified several core guiding principles: 

  • rationalizing disclosure requirements, calibrating the level of disclosure taking into account its cost;
  • simplifying disclosures so these are easier for companies to prepare and also for investors to understand.  Here, he pointed to the pay-versus-performance rules as the opposite of this—it is disclosure that’s complex and has necessitated in some instances the use of specialized consultants and has failed to yield straightforward, comprehensible disclosure for investors; and
  • modernizing disclosures, such as, for example, addressing executive security given our current environment and the fact that executive security is increasingly a necessity and should no longer be viewed as a perk.

He also pointed to additional themes that relate to the reform of executive compensation disclosure and corporate governance related disclosure.  Chair Atkins noted the “SEC’s attempt to indirectly regulate, or set expectations for, matters of corporate governance through comply or explain disclosure requirements” and “regulation by shaming.”  He identified a number of disclosure requirements that are impractical, including related-party transaction disclosure requirements, which also were flagged by Commissioner Uyeda in a recent speech.

Finally, the Chair highlighted the need to rethink completely the approach to risk factor disclosure.  He suggested that possibly the SEC or companies might maintain a set of risks published separately outside of the annual report that broadly apply to most companies across most industries and are generally applicable to investments in securities.  These could be referenced rather than repeated in each company filing.  This way, each risk factor section in an offering document or a periodic report would be shorter, focusing on risks specific to, and material to, the company.  Chair Atkins noted that if the principal purpose served by risk factors is protecting companies from potential litigation then the appropriate remedy ought to be addressing our litigation environment and potentially offering a safe harbor from liability.  He noted that, “The Commission could adopt a rule stating that failure to disclose impacts from publicized events that are reasonably likely to affect most companies will not constitute material omissions for purposes of some or all of the federal securities laws’ anti-fraud rules. Such a safe harbor could incentivize companies to include fewer generic risk factors by shielding them from liability for events related to those generic risks. After all, if companies are not compelled to catalogue nearly every conceivable contingency to guard against hindsight litigation, then they can focus on risks that are more distinctive to their business.”  It’s an interesting approach.  Maybe this type of creative thinking will inspire commenters on the Regulation S-K reform initiative to be bold.  See the full text of the Chair’s remarks.

Mayer Brown analyzed 34 insider trading policies to understand how large financial institutions address the heightened insider trading risks they face relative to other public companies. We analyzed the insider trading policies of 24 publicly traded investment banks, nine publicly traded private equity sponsors and one publicly traded financial institution with substantial operations in both investment banking and private equity management (which institution we include in both the investment bank and private equity sponsor statistics herein). Since the nature of their business necessarily creates both frequent opportunity for insider trading (especially in other companies’ securities, including through “shadow trading”) and a large universe of employees with access to material non-public information, a survey of how these types of large financial institutions generally address such risks in their insider trading policies can be informative to financial institutions reviewing their existing policies.

Continue reading this article.

In what is developing into quite a busy time at the Securities and Exchange Commission, on February 11, 2026, the Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance (the “Division”) made updates and changes to the Division’s Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (“CDIs”).  The new and revised CDIs are consistent with the Division’s current deregulatory position, as detailed below:

Securities Act Rules CDIsRevised/New Guidance
CDI 139.03 (Revised)Revised to state that a merger by Company A with a new holding company formed by Company A in another state would qualify for the change in domicile exception in Rule 145(a)(2), assuming that the only purpose of the transaction is to change Company A’s domicile within the United States.  This is a reversal of the Division’s prior position, where the addition of a holding company would have led to Rule 145(a)(2)’s exception being inapplicable to a redomiciliation transaction. Note that under the revised CDI, Rule 145(a)(2) would not be available if the transaction caused Company A’s organizational structure, business operations, or regulatory regime to change significantly, other than as a result of differences in applicable state law.
CDI 212.32 (New)An issuer filed a Form S-3ASR for a secondary offering under Rule 415(a)(1)(i), then lost its WKSI status and filed a post-effective amendment to convert the registration statement to a non-automatic shelf on Form S-3.  Although the offering was initially registered on Form S-3ASR and so would expire three years after effectiveness per Rule 415(a)(5), in its amended form, it no longer fits into any category listed in Rule 415(a)(5) and therefore will not expire.
CDI 212.33 (New)Securities registered on Form S-8 may not be carried forward to a new registration statement in reliance on Rule 415(a)(6) because Form S-8 offerings are made pursuant to Rule 415(a)(1)(ii), and such securities are not described in Rule 415(a)(5), and therefore Form S-8s do not expire. In other words, there is no need to carry these securities forward because the registration statement remains effective indefinitely, subject to other regulatory requirements.
CDI 212.34 (New)When an issuer carries forward unsold securities from an expiring registration statement pursuant to Rule 415(a)(6) and the replacement registration statement is declared effective, the issuer does not need to file a post-effective amendment to deregister the unsold securities from the prior registration statement.

Find the new CDIs here.

Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins testified before the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs last week, presenting a comprehensive overview and update of the SEC’s priorities and initiatives. Consistent with his various remarks since the start of his tenure, Atkins’ remarks centered on capital formation, public company disclosure reform, digital asset regulation, and regulatory cost reduction. In addition to his prepared remarks, Atkins engaged in a broad discussion regarding proxy advisers, electronic delivery of documents, and other issues. This blog post summarizes key discussions from Atkins’ two days of testimony.

Capital Formation and IPOs

Chair Atkins identified reinvigorating the U.S. public markets as a central priority.  He repeated a data point used in previous speeches: the number of exchange-listed companies has fallen by approximately 40% since the mid-1990s, from more than 7,800 to roughly 4,761 as of September 2025.  The Chair attributed this decline to decades of “regulatory creep” and outlined a three-pillar plan to “make IPOs great again.”  His plan focuses on (1) re-anchoring disclosures in materiality, (2) de-politicizing shareholder meetings by refocusing on significant corporate matters, and (3) providing public companies with litigation alternatives to protect innovators from frivolous suits while preserving remedies for investors harmed by fraud.  Atkins expressed support for bipartisan legislation relating to capital formation currently under consideration in Congress, including the INVEST Act and the Empowering Main Street in America Act.

Disclosure Reform

A major theme of the testimony was the need to modernize and streamline public company disclosure requirements.  Atkins observed that public companies collectively spend approximately $2.7 billion annually to prepare and file their annual reports—money not reinvested in their businesses.  He emphasized that the SEC is not seeking to “gut” corporate disclosure, which he described as vital, but rather to modernize, rationalize, and streamline reports.

Proxy Advisors

Recent debate regarding the influence of proxy advisory firms, specifically Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass, Lewis & Co., was also raised during the testimony.  The President and lawmakers have scrutinized the influence of proxy advisers.  The Chair acknowledged that the SEC is “definitely looking at this whole ecosystem” of corporate governance and shareholder proposals.  However, he called proxy advisers “a symptom of the underlying problem, and that’s the weaponization of shareholder proposals.”

Digital Asset Regulation

Atkins focused on the SEC’s approach to digital assets, endorsing congressional efforts to enact the CLARITY Act.  A federal framework is long overdue, he said, while emphasizing that no SEC action would be more effective than nonpartisan market structure legislation.  The SEC is working in coordination with the CFTC to ensure there are no gaps in oversight while providing market participants with certainty regarding jurisdictional authority as between the agencies.

Lawmakers also asked for updates on the Chair’s previously announced “innovation exemption” related to digital assets.  Atkins explained that the SEC plans to provide guidelines for stocks that trade on blockchains this year.  It is unclear whether the innovation exemption would follow the required notice and comment period for new regulation.  “Notice and comment is important,” he said, “but the innovation exemption… would be… cabined, time limited, transparent and really anchored in strong investor protection.”

Enforcement

The Chair stressed that the SEC would be returning its enforcement priorities to root out fraud and remedy investor harm.  Since he became Chair, the SEC has brought enforcement actions to address offering frauds, insider trading, accounting and financial frauds, and breaches of fiduciary duty by investment advisers.  

Consolidated Audit Trail

Atkins addressed the SEC’s review of the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT), observing that as the agency modernizes oversight for digital assets, it must also reassess whether legacy tools for traditional markets remain appropriately aligned with regulatory need and the public interest.  He has directed SEC staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the CAT, covering governance, funding, potential cost-saving measures, scope, and security. The SEC has reduced originally-approved 2025 CAT operating costs by approximately $92 million, and additional CAT plan amendments would save approximately $7 million to $9 million annually.

Additional Updates

Throughout the hearings, Atkins indicated that the SEC is actively reviewing a number of additional matters, including the pending climate disclosure rule, an executive order on alternative investments in retirement accounts, Form PF reporting requirements for hedge funds, and efforts to reduce costs across the regulatory ecosystem.  On electronic delivery, the Chair confirmed that the Commission plans to write a rule allowing electronic delivery of financial documents as the default option for investors and that he has “instructed the staff to work on that.”

*  *  *

While the Chair outlined an ambitious agenda, many of the initiatives remain in the early stages of review.  We will continue to provide updates.