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.
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.
Wanna Make a Bet? What Businesses Should Know About Insider Trading and the Prediction Markets
Prediction markets are growing rapidly, bringing with them increasing legal and compliance risks for companies whose employees may have access to valuable nonpublic information.
In a recent episode of The Sidley Podcast, Sidley partners Sam Gandhi, Ian McGinley, and Matthew Podolsky discuss the expansion of prediction markets, recent insider trading allegations, and the potential enforcement implications for businesses and market participants. They also address practical steps companies can consider to mitigate the risk that employees misuse confidential information in prediction-market trading.
Read more and listen to the full episode.
DOJ Rule Filing Helps Make White Collar Fraud Enforcement Restructuring Final
On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice published a final rule formally establishing the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”) within DOJ’s organizational regulations and defining the authorities of its Assistant Attorney General. The rule largely formalizes changes announced since April, when DOJ created NFED and began reallocating fraud enforcement responsibilities between the new Division and the Criminal Division.
The final rule gives NFED broad authority over criminal fraud matters, including criminal tax, trade fraud, fraud involving federal funds, healthcare fraud, and related offenses. At the same time, the Criminal Division retains broad fraud authority, leaving DOJ with a more flexible jurisdictional scheme than the public sector/private sector division of labor described by Department leadership in recent months.
We examine how the final rule institutionalizes DOJ’s new white-collar enforcement structure, what it means for the allocation of matters between NFED and the Criminal Division, and the practical implications for companies facing potential exposure across both enforcement portfolios. Click here to read the full post.
DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues Inaugural Memorandum: Four Key Takeaways
On August 13, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Colin M. McDonald of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED) issued a memorandum outlining the Division’s mission, organizational structure, and enforcement priorities (the Memo). The White House established NFED in April 2026. As discussed in a prior Sidley update, NFED is tasked with leading a whole-of-government effort to combat fraud “no matter its size or complexity.”
The Memo provides the most detailed public account to date of NFED’s mission, structure and enforcement approach and further underscores the Administration’s focus on anti-fraud enforcement as a signature initiative.
This blog post highlights four key takeaways from the Memo and offers observations for companies navigating this evolving enforcement landscape. Click here to read the full post.
DOJ Renames Criminal Division’s Fraud Section as the “White Collar and Corporate Enforcement” Section
On August 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that the Criminal Division’s longstanding Fraud Section has been renamed the White Collar and Corporate Enforcement Section. The change follows the creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division, which absorbed more than half of the legacy Fraud Section’s personnel and its longstanding mandate to combat fraud against government programs.
The renaming marks a notable development for a Section that has played a central role in DOJ’s corporate and financial crime enforcement for decades. The Section’s roots date to the World War II-era “War Frauds Unit,” and its prosecutors have since handled significant matters involving securities and commodities fraud, health care fraud, foreign bribery, market manipulation, and other complex economic crimes.
The key question is whether the new name reflects a rebranding or signals broader changes in DOJ’s white collar enforcement strategy. Click here to read the full post.
DOJ (Re-)Expands Northeast Health Care Fraud Strike Force to Philadelphia and Charges 19 Defendants in Medicaid Home Care Schemes
On August 4, 2026, DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division (“Fraud Division”) announced a significant expansion of its Northeast Health Care Fraud Strike Force into Philadelphia. The expansion will reunite the Fraud Division’s Health Care Fraud Section with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; in 2018, the same teams launched what was then known as the Philadelphia-Newark Regional Strike Force, before reducing its operations to Newark-only in more recent years. Nationally, since its inception in 2007, the Health Care Fraud Strike Force program has been responsible for prosecuting more than 6,200 defendants who collectively billed federal health care programs and private insurers more than $45 billion.
DOJ Loosens the Whistleblower Program’s Bar on “Other Program” Claimants in Latest Revision
On July 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revised its Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, expanding the pool of individuals who may qualify for an award. Most notably, DOJ eliminated the prior rule that automatically disqualified whistleblowers who could have been eligible for an award under another U.S. government whistleblower program, such as those administered by the SEC or CFTC. Instead, a whistleblower is now disqualified only if he or she actually receives an award from another program for reporting the same or substantially the same misconduct, while DOJ retains discretion to reduce or deny duplicative awards.
The revised guidance also includes several administrative updates, including confirmation that the program is now administered by the Criminal Division’s Money Laundering, Narcotics, and Forfeiture Section (formerly the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section) and that submissions will be made through a dedicated online intake portal. The covered subject-matter areas remain unchanged from the May 2025 expansion and continue to include, among other areas, financial institution crimes, bribery, healthcare fraud, trade and customs fraud, procurement fraud, immigration offenses, and sanctions-related misconduct.
For companies, the revisions further strengthen incentives for whistleblowers to report directly to DOJ, including in matters that may also be eligible for other agency whistleblower programs. At the same time, DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy continues to provide a pathway to a declination for companies that promptly self-disclose, cooperate, and remediate misconduct, reinforcing the importance of effective internal reporting mechanisms and careful consideration of self-disclosure decisions in the face of potential whistleblower reports. Click here to read the full post.
