Sidley successfully assisted its pro bono client, Jonathan Long, a retired U.S. Navy sailor, in receiving a presidential pardon in connection with a prior conviction under the Clean Air Act. This marks the third presidential pardon Sidley has helped secure for clients charged with Clean Air Act offenses.
Sidley previously defended Long against a six-count felony indictment for alleged Clean Air Act violations in the Eastern District of Virginia. Following early wins in motions practice, the team was able to resolve the matter with a single misdemeanor plea. Long was subsequently featured in congressional testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in which Sidley weighed in critically on the government’s felony charging theory as legally unfounded.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Justin A. Savagehttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJustin A. Savage2026-09-11 09:15:192026-09-11 11:21:59Sidley Secures Presidential Pardon for Pro Bono Client Jonathan Long
On September 3, 2026, the SEC proposed eliminating its investment adviser pay-to-play rule, Rule 206(4)-5, along with the related recordkeeping requirements. If finalized, the proposal would remove a compliance regime that can impose a two-year compensation ban for even relatively minor political contributions and has long presented advisers with complex questions about covered employees, government officials, placement agents, and public pension investments.
But rescission would not mean the end of pay-to-play risk. The SEC emphasizes that improper efforts to influence government investment decisions could still implicate the Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions and fiduciary duties, while state and local pay-to-play and procurement laws, federal bribery statutes, public pension rules, and parallel MSRB and FINRA requirements would remain. The proposal also raises important questions for exempt reporting advisers, foreign private advisers, and firms that have embedded Rule 206(4)-5 requirements into contracts and compliance programs.
Our latest blog post examines the SEC’s rationale for the proposed rescission, what would—and would not—change for advisers, and the practical compliance and enforcement implications if the proposal becomes final. Click here to read the full article.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Victoria A. Anglinhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngVictoria A. Anglin2026-09-10 15:02:112026-09-10 15:02:11SEC Proposes to Rescind Investment Adviser Pay-to-Play Rule
Financial institutions have long approached communications about suspicious activity with caution given the strict confidentiality rules governing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). New
guidance from FinCEN and the federal banking agencies provides welcome clarity: institutions may discuss the underlying facts of potentially fraudulent or suspicious transactions with customers and third parties, so long as they do not reveal the existence of a SAR.
The guidance also addresses account restrictions and closures, confirming that institutions may tell customers that such actions relate to suspected fraud or suspicious activity — even if the customer might infer that a SAR was filed.
In our latest blog post, we break down the new guidance and what it means for fraud investigations, customer communications, account closures, and BSA/AML compliance. Click here to read more.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/04/MN-18360_Updated-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-imagery_833x606_29.jpg606833Michael D. Mannhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngMichael D. Mann2026-09-08 10:05:322026-09-08 10:06:06Permission to Speak (and a Reason To): FinCEN and Banking Agencies Clarify SAR Confidentiality Rules for Customer Communications About Fraud and Account Closures
Private credit has grown rapidly — and enforcement authorities are paying attention. The Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has identified the private credit markets as an area of focus, with pending cases involving alleged borrower fraud, multiple pledges of the same collateral, and false financial information. Recent reporting also suggests scrutiny may extend to lenders themselves, including how private credit assets are valued and disclosed.
The enforcement risks extend beyond criminal investigations. SEC examination priorities include valuation practices, fees and expenses, conflicts of interest, and products with limited liquidity, while recent private litigation has challenged portfolio valuations, disclosures concerning credit quality, and adviser compensation. These developments highlight an increasingly important white collar and enforcement issue: the same valuation decisions, disclosures, diligence processes, and contemporaneous governance records can be tested by regulators, prosecutors, and private litigants.
In a new Sidley Global Finance Update, “The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Private Credit: Key Considerations for Lenders,” our colleagues examine the changing regulatory and enforcement environment and practical steps private credit firms can take to mitigate risk — including strengthening valuation governance, disclosure consistency, data controls, and collateral diligence. Click here to read the full Update.
When allegations of corporate misconduct surface, one of the first questions companies may face is who should oversee the response. In some circumstances, an investigation led by management or in-house counsel may be appropriate. But allegations involving senior executives or directors, mission-critical compliance risks, or questions about management’s independence may require the board — often through an independent committee — to take a more active role.
In a new article for Reuters Practical Law, Sidley partner Holly J. Gregory examines when a board-driven investigation may be warranted and how boards can structure those investigations to withstand scrutiny from regulators, prosecutors, shareholders, and courts. Click here to read the full post.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/06/AdobeStock_231231493.jpeg606833Holly J. Gregoryhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngHolly J. Gregory2026-09-02 12:32:152026-09-02 12:37:39Board Investigations of Potential Misconduct
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has signaled that it intends to take a tougher approach to claims of legal professional privilege, particularly where companies assert privilege broadly over internal investigation materials, documents collected during dawn raids, or materials responsive to compulsory regulatory requests.
The warning follows a recent Hong Kong court ruling rejecting privilege claims over an internal investigation report and related materials because their dominant purpose was found to be satisfying regulatory reporting obligations, rather than obtaining legal advice or preparing for litigation. The decision underscores that the involvement of lawyers, confidentiality labels, or even a limited waiver to a regulator does not itself establish privilege.
In this post, our colleagues examine the ruling, the SFC’s stated intention to “push back hard” against over-broad privilege claims, and the practical implications for companies conducting internal investigations and responding to regulatory inquiries. The post also considers how companies can preserve legitimate privilege claims while navigating investigations that may simultaneously involve fact-finding, legal advice, remediation, and regulatory engagement. Click here to read the full post.
On August 25, 2026, the Ohio Parole Board recommended executive clemency for Tyrone Noling, Sidley’s longtime pro bono client who has spent more than 30 years on death row while consistently maintaining his innocence. The Board’s majority recommended that Mr. Noling become eligible for parole beginning January 1, 2029, while one Board member recommended that Governor Mike DeWine grant him a full pardon.
The recommendation marks an important development in a case that has drawn sustained scrutiny over the reliability of Mr. Noling’s conviction. Key prosecution witnesses have recanted, evidence concerning alternative suspects was withheld before trial, DNA testing has excluded Mr. Noling from evidence recovered at the crime scene, and additional litigation remains pending over Brady claims and requests for further DNA testing.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Eamon P. Joycehttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngEamon P. Joyce2026-08-28 16:12:282026-08-28 16:15:20Sidley Team Helps Secure Executive Clemency Recommendation for Death Row Inmate
Sidley’s August Antitrust and Competition Bulletin examines five developments shaping merger review, private antitrust litigation, and regulatory investigations in the United States and Europe. Among them, the U.S. Department of Justice has revived an expedited “quick look” process for certain Second Requests, the European Commission is considering targeted simplifications to the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, and private plaintiffs are advancing information-sharing claims involving common pricing and data platforms. Click here to read the full post.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/04/GettyImages-1080626808.jpg400600Juan A. Arteagahttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngJuan A. Arteaga2026-08-27 10:41:052026-08-27 10:41:53August Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Five Global Developments to Watch
Sidley Secures Presidential Pardon for Pro Bono Client Jonathan Long
Sidley successfully assisted its pro bono client, Jonathan Long, a retired U.S. Navy sailor, in receiving a presidential pardon in connection with a prior conviction under the Clean Air Act. This marks the third presidential pardon Sidley has helped secure for clients charged with Clean Air Act offenses.
Sidley previously defended Long against a six-count felony indictment for alleged Clean Air Act violations in the Eastern District of Virginia. Following early wins in motions practice, the team was able to resolve the matter with a single misdemeanor plea. Long was subsequently featured in congressional testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, in which Sidley weighed in critically on the government’s felony charging theory as legally unfounded.
Click here to read more.
Justin A. Savage
Washington, D.C.
jsavage@sidley.com
Gordon D. Todd
Washington, D.C.
gtodd@sidley.com
Riley Desper
Washington, D.C.
rdesper@sidley.com
SEC Proposes to Rescind Investment Adviser Pay-to-Play Rule
On September 3, 2026, the SEC proposed eliminating its investment adviser pay-to-play rule, Rule 206(4)-5, along with the related recordkeeping requirements. If finalized, the proposal would remove a compliance regime that can impose a two-year compensation ban for even relatively minor political contributions and has long presented advisers with complex questions about covered employees, government officials, placement agents, and public pension investments.
But rescission would not mean the end of pay-to-play risk. The SEC emphasizes that improper efforts to influence government investment decisions could still implicate the Advisers Act’s antifraud provisions and fiduciary duties, while state and local pay-to-play and procurement laws, federal bribery statutes, public pension rules, and parallel MSRB and FINRA requirements would remain. The proposal also raises important questions for exempt reporting advisers, foreign private advisers, and firms that have embedded Rule 206(4)-5 requirements into contracts and compliance programs.
Our latest blog post examines the SEC’s rationale for the proposed rescission, what would—and would not—change for advisers, and the practical compliance and enforcement implications if the proposal becomes final. Click here to read the full article.
Victoria A. Anglin
Los Angeles
vanglin@sidley.com
W. Hardy Callcott
San Francisco
wcallcott@sidley.com
Chuck Daly
New York, Boston
cdaly@sidley.com
Ranah Esmaili
Washington, D.C., New York
resmaili@sidley.com
Kyle J. Fiet
Washington, D.C.
kfiet@sidley.com
Barbara Stettner
Washington, D.C.
barbara.stettner@sidley.com
Permission to Speak (and a Reason To): FinCEN and Banking Agencies Clarify SAR Confidentiality Rules for Customer Communications About Fraud and Account Closures
Financial institutions have long approached communications about suspicious activity with caution given the strict confidentiality rules governing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). New
guidance from FinCEN and the federal banking agencies provides welcome clarity: institutions may discuss the underlying facts of potentially fraudulent or suspicious transactions with customers and third parties, so long as they do not reveal the existence of a SAR.
The guidance also addresses account restrictions and closures, confirming that institutions may tell customers that such actions relate to suspected fraud or suspicious activity — even if the customer might infer that a SAR was filed.
In our latest blog post, we break down the new guidance and what it means for fraud investigations, customer communications, account closures, and BSA/AML compliance. Click here to read more.
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
David I. Monteiro
Dallas
david.monteiro@sidley.com
Paul M. Tyrrell
Boston
ptyrrell@sidley.com
Kristin Lee
New York
kristin.lee@sidley.com
Stanley J. Boris
Washington, D.C.
sboris@sidley.com
Alexa Poletto
New York
apoletto@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
Hunter Marrero
New York
hunter.marrero@sidley.com
The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Private Credit: Key Considerations for Lenders
Private credit has grown rapidly — and enforcement authorities are paying attention. The Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, has identified the private credit markets as an area of focus, with pending cases involving alleged borrower fraud, multiple pledges of the same collateral, and false financial information. Recent reporting also suggests scrutiny may extend to lenders themselves, including how private credit assets are valued and disclosed.
The enforcement risks extend beyond criminal investigations. SEC examination priorities include valuation practices, fees and expenses, conflicts of interest, and products with limited liquidity, while recent private litigation has challenged portfolio valuations, disclosures concerning credit quality, and adviser compensation. These developments highlight an increasingly important white collar and enforcement issue: the same valuation decisions, disclosures, diligence processes, and contemporaneous governance records can be tested by regulators, prosecutors, and private litigants.
In a new Sidley Global Finance Update, “The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Private Credit: Key Considerations for Lenders,” our colleagues examine the changing regulatory and enforcement environment and practical steps private credit firms can take to mitigate risk — including strengthening valuation governance, disclosure consistency, data controls, and collateral diligence. Click here to read the full Update.
Evan Palenschat
Chicago
epalenschat@sidley.com
Matthew Podolsky
New York
matthew.podolsky@sidley.com
Stephen L. Cohen
Washington, D.C., Boston, ...
scohen@sidley.com
James A. Snyder
Chicago
james.snyder@sidley.com
Board Investigations of Potential Misconduct
When allegations of corporate misconduct surface, one of the first questions companies may face is who should oversee the response. In some circumstances, an investigation led by management or in-house counsel may be appropriate. But allegations involving senior executives or directors, mission-critical compliance risks, or questions about management’s independence may require the board — often through an independent committee — to take a more active role.
In a new article for Reuters Practical Law, Sidley partner Holly J. Gregory examines when a board-driven investigation may be warranted and how boards can structure those investigations to withstand scrutiny from regulators, prosecutors, shareholders, and courts. Click here to read the full post.
Holly J. Gregory
New York
holly.gregory@sidley.com
Hong Kong SFC Signals Tougher Scrutiny of Legal Privilege Claims
The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has signaled that it intends to take a tougher approach to claims of legal professional privilege, particularly where companies assert privilege broadly over internal investigation materials, documents collected during dawn raids, or materials responsive to compulsory regulatory requests.
The warning follows a recent Hong Kong court ruling rejecting privilege claims over an internal investigation report and related materials because their dominant purpose was found to be satisfying regulatory reporting obligations, rather than obtaining legal advice or preparing for litigation. The decision underscores that the involvement of lawyers, confidentiality labels, or even a limited waiver to a regulator does not itself establish privilege.
In this post, our colleagues examine the ruling, the SFC’s stated intention to “push back hard” against over-broad privilege claims, and the practical implications for companies conducting internal investigations and responding to regulatory inquiries. The post also considers how companies can preserve legitimate privilege claims while navigating investigations that may simultaneously involve fact-finding, legal advice, remediation, and regulatory engagement. Click here to read the full post.
Dominic James
Hong Kong
dominic.james@sidley.com
David Kalani Lee
Hong Kong
david.lee@sidley.com
Sidley Team Helps Secure Executive Clemency Recommendation for Death Row Inmate
On August 25, 2026, the Ohio Parole Board recommended executive clemency for Tyrone Noling, Sidley’s longtime pro bono client who has spent more than 30 years on death row while consistently maintaining his innocence. The Board’s majority recommended that Mr. Noling become eligible for parole beginning January 1, 2029, while one Board member recommended that Governor Mike DeWine grant him a full pardon.
The recommendation marks an important development in a case that has drawn sustained scrutiny over the reliability of Mr. Noling’s conviction. Key prosecution witnesses have recanted, evidence concerning alternative suspects was withheld before trial, DNA testing has excluded Mr. Noling from evidence recovered at the crime scene, and additional litigation remains pending over Brady claims and requests for further DNA testing.
Sidley, together with the Ohio Innocence Project and Weil, has represented Mr. Noling for many years and continues to urge Governor DeWine to grant him a full pardon. Click here for the full update on the Parole Board’s recommendation and Sidley’s longstanding efforts to secure his release.
Eamon P. Joyce
New York
ejoyce@sidley.com
D'Juan B. Jones
Washington, D.C.
djuan.jones@sidley.com
August Antitrust and Competition Bulletin: Five Global Developments to Watch
Sidley’s August Antitrust and Competition Bulletin examines five developments shaping merger review, private antitrust litigation, and regulatory investigations in the United States and Europe. Among them, the U.S. Department of Justice has revived an expedited “quick look” process for certain Second Requests, the European Commission is considering targeted simplifications to the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, and private plaintiffs are advancing information-sharing claims involving common pricing and data platforms. Click here to read the full post.
Juan A. Arteaga
New York
juan.arteaga@sidley.com
Vadim Brusser
Washington, D.C.
vadim.brusser@sidley.com
Laura Collins
Washington, D.C.
laura.collins@sidley.com
Ken Daly
Brussels
kdaly@sidley.com
James W. Lowe
Washington, D.C.
jlowe@sidley.com
Carrie Mahan
Washington, D.C.
carrie.mahan@sidley.com
Mary K. Marks
New York
mary.marks@sidley.com
Benjamin M. Mundel
Washington, D.C.
bmundel@sidley.com
Benjamin Nagin
New York
bnagin@sidley.com
Corey Roush
Washington, D.C.
corey.roush@sidley.com
Jason C. Semmes
Washington, D.C.
jason.semmes@sidley.com
Lawrence D. Silverman
Miami
lawrence.silverman@sidley.com
Rosanna Connolly
London
rconnolly@sidley.com
Categories
Archives
Meet the Team
Douglas A. Axel
daxel@sidley.com
David H. Hoffman
david.hoffman@sidley.com
Joan M. Loughnane
jloughnane@sidley.com
Kenneth A. Polite Jr.
kpolite@sidley.com
Daniel D. Rubinstein
drubinstein@sidley.com
Yuet Ming Tham
ytham@sidley.com
Dave Anderson
dlanderson@sidley.com
Sheila A.G. Armbrust
sarmbrust@sidley.com
Ellyce R. Cooper
ecooper@sidley.com
Daniel C. Craig
dcraig@sidley.com
Alexandria Daugherty
adaugherty@sidley.com
Craig Francis Dukin
cdukin@sidley.com
Sara George
sara.george@sidley.com
Shu Min Ho
shumin.ho@sidley.com
Naomi A. Igra
naomi.igra@sidley.com
Kristin Graham Koehler
kkoehler@sidley.com
Scott R. Lassar
slassar@sidley.com
Michael A. Levy
mlevy@sidley.com
Geeta Malhotra
gmalhotra@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
mdmann@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Paige Holden Montgomery
pmontgomery@sidley.com
Julia G. Mirabella
jmirabella@sidley.com
Takayuki Ono
tono@sidley.com
Matthew Podolsky
matthew.podolsky@sidley.com
Alexa Poletto
apoletto@sidley.com
Karen A. Popp
kpopp@sidley.com
Jacqueline Pruitt
jpruitt@sidley.com
Doreen M. Rachal
drachal@sidley.com
Kevin Rubino
krubino@sidley.com
Leslie A. Shubert
lshubert@sidley.com
David A. Silva
david.silva@sidley.com
Michele Tagliaferri
mtagliaferri@sidley.com
Frank R. Volpe
fvolpe@sidley.com
Marisa S. West
marisa.west@sidley.com
Angela M. Xenakis
axenakis@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com