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.
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.
New SEC Unit Signals Continued Focus on Accounting and Auditing Misconduct
On August 5, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced it is establishing the Financial Reporting and Accounting Unit (Unit) as a new unit within its Division of Enforcement. The Unit will be led by Timothy Zimmerman, who served as Deputy General Counsel of accounting firm RSM US following twelve years in private practice. It will focus on investigations of accounting and financial reporting fraud and general accounting and auditing misconduct. Establishing the Unit institutionalizes a priority area that both Chairman Paul Atkins and Enforcement Director David Woodcock highlighted in their prior public remarks.
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 Grants First Healthcare Declination Under New Corporate Enforcement Policy While Indicting Founder
On July 29, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that, consistent with Part I of DOJ’s Department-wide Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (“CEP”), it declined to prosecute Campus Eye Management Holdings LLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Campus Eye Management LLC (collectively, “Campus Eye”), a management services organization that provided billing and other services to an optometry practice and ambulatory surgery center. DOJ had been investigating Campus Eye for alleged healthcare fraud, including illegal kickbacks. This is the first declination involving a healthcare company under the new, Department-wide CEP. And it is only the second healthcare fraud declination under any voluntary self-disclosure policy in DOJ history—the first being the HealthSun Health Plans, Inc. matter handled by the same team (i.e., the Health Care Fraud Unit) when they were part of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, prior to creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (“NFED”) earlier this year. Click here to read the full blog post.
DOJ Expands Trade Fraud Enforcement After $1 Billion Milestone
The U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security announced on July 14, 2026, that the Trade Fraud Task Force had surpassed $1 billion in criminal and civil recoveries, penalties, forfeitures, and publicly charged losses less than one year after its launch. The announcement confirms a fundamental shift in the federal government’s approach to customs and trade enforcement, reflecting increased emphasis on rigorous criminal prosecution and civil enforcement under the False Claims Act.
