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.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Samir A. Gandhihttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngSamir A. Gandhi2026-08-26 09:06:552026-08-25 17:48:08Wanna Make a Bet? What Businesses Should Know About Insider Trading and the Prediction Markets
On August 10, 2026, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that executive privilege may protect certain presidential communications with private advisers who hold no formal government role.
The opinion establishes a generally applicable Executive Branch position that private status alone does not place communications outside the presidential communications privilege. Instead, the analysis turns on whether the communications concern official presidential decision-making, involve the President or his direct advisers, and remain confidential.
We examine the opinion’s reasoning, its limits, and the implications for congressional investigations seeking testimony or records from private presidential advisers. Click here to read the full post.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2025/12/MN-24015-Enhanced-Scrutiny-Blog-Imagery-Refresh_14.jpg606833Lisa H. Millerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngLisa H. Miller2026-08-25 11:53:332026-08-25 11:54:56DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel Broadens Scope of Executive Privilege to Apply to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers
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.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Lisa H. Millerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngLisa H. Miller2026-08-21 14:58:492026-08-21 15:00:33DOJ Rule Filing Helps Make White Collar Fraud Enforcement Restructuring Final
On August 3, 2026, the OCC proposed a significant overhaul of its rules governing the disclosure of non-public OCC information, including confidential supervisory information (CSI). The proposal would expand the circumstances in which financial institutions may share CSI without prior OCC approval—including with affiliates, service providers, M&A counterparties and certain advisers—and would remove the rules’ express reference to potential criminal liability for unauthorized disclosures.
While the changes could make navigating NPOI substantially easier, they may also create new compliance considerations. As institutions gain greater flexibility to share sensitive supervisory information, they may need to reassess contractual protections and controls designed to prevent recipients from misusing that information.
We examine the proposed framework, the OCC’s shift away from criminal enforcement, and the practical implications for financial institutions and their counsel. Click here to read the full post.
On August 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule rolling back prior regulations under the Corporate Transparency Act requiring U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information. Alongside the final rule, FinCEN announced that it will delete previously reported information by U.S. persons from the beneficial ownership information database.
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.
https://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/06/AdobeStock_330226534.jpeg606833Lisa H. Millerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngLisa H. Miller2026-08-14 11:35:412026-08-14 12:32:27DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues Inaugural Memorandum: Four Key Takeaways
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.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kenneth A. Polite Jr.http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKenneth A. Polite Jr.2026-08-12 11:38:192026-08-12 11:39:32DOJ Renames Criminal Division’s Fraud Section as the “White Collar and Corporate Enforcement” Section
On August 5, 2026, DOJ announced a $5.15 million settlement with a Taiwanese light-emitting diode (“LED”) manufacturer and its Texas-based subsidiary to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the common law, and the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, that the companies knowingly failed to pay additional tariffs on Chinese-origin LEDs imported into the United States. The claims stem from a qui tam suit filed by a former employee. See United States ex rel. Wang v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. TDC-21-cv-1607 (D. Md.). As we reported here and here, this settlement is the latest example of DOJ’s push to target trade fraud through its Trade Fraud Task Force.
http://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.png00Kristin Graham Koehlerhttp://whitecollarwatch.sidley.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2026/03/sidleyLogo-e1643922598198.pngKristin Graham Koehler2026-08-11 15:57:172026-08-11 15:57:17DOJ’s $5.15 Million FCA Settlement Reinforces Focus on Tariff and Customs Compliance
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.
Samir A. Gandhi
New York
sgandhi@sidley.com
Ian McGinley
New York
ian.mcginley@sidley.com
Matthew Podolsky
New York
matthew.podolsky@sidley.com
DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel Broadens Scope of Executive Privilege to Apply to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers
On August 10, 2026, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion concluding that executive privilege may protect certain presidential communications with private advisers who hold no formal government role.
The opinion establishes a generally applicable Executive Branch position that private status alone does not place communications outside the presidential communications privilege. Instead, the analysis turns on whether the communications concern official presidential decision-making, involve the President or his direct advisers, and remain confidential.
We examine the opinion’s reasoning, its limits, and the implications for congressional investigations seeking testimony or records from private presidential advisers. Click here to read the full post.
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael E. Borden
Washington, D.C.
mborden@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Joshua T. Asabor
Washington, D.C.
joshua.asabor@sidley.com
Asher J. Zlotnik
New York
asher.zlotnik@sidley.com
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.
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Asher J. Zlotnik
New York
asher.zlotnik@sidley.com
OCC Proposes Easing Non-Public Information Disclosure Rules and Removing Criminal Penalty References
On August 3, 2026, the OCC proposed a significant overhaul of its rules governing the disclosure of non-public OCC information, including confidential supervisory information (CSI). The proposal would expand the circumstances in which financial institutions may share CSI without prior OCC approval—including with affiliates, service providers, M&A counterparties and certain advisers—and would remove the rules’ express reference to potential criminal liability for unauthorized disclosures.
While the changes could make navigating NPOI substantially easier, they may also create new compliance considerations. As institutions gain greater flexibility to share sensitive supervisory information, they may need to reassess contractual protections and controls designed to prevent recipients from misusing that information.
We examine the proposed framework, the OCC’s shift away from criminal enforcement, and the practical implications for financial institutions and their counsel. Click here to read the full post.
Kristin Lee
New York
kristin.lee@sidley.com
Michael D. Lewis
Washington, D.C.
michael.lewis@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
David I. Monteiro
Dallas
david.monteiro@sidley.com
Alexa Poletto
New York
apoletto@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
U.S. FinCEN Issues Final Rule Ending Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirement
On August 11, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule rolling back prior regulations under the Corporate Transparency Act requiring U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information. Alongside the final rule, FinCEN announced that it will delete previously reported information by U.S. persons from the beneficial ownership information database.
(more…)
Victoria A. Anglin
Los Angeles
vanglin@sidley.com
Stanley J. Boris
Washington, D.C.
sboris@sidley.com
David C. Buck
Houston
dbuck@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Alexa Poletto
New York
apoletto@sidley.com
Paul M. Tyrrell
Boston
ptyrrell@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
Asher J. Zlotnik
New York
asher.zlotnik@sidley.com
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.
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Mallory W. Edel
New York
medel@sidley.com
Lucia Radder Quick
New York
lradderquick@sidley.com
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.
Kenneth A. Polite Jr.
Washington, D.C., New York
kpolite@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Brian C. Earl
New York
bearl@sidley.com
DOJ’s $5.15 Million FCA Settlement Reinforces Focus on Tariff and Customs Compliance
On August 5, 2026, DOJ announced a $5.15 million settlement with a Taiwanese light-emitting diode (“LED”) manufacturer and its Texas-based subsidiary to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), the common law, and the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, that the companies knowingly failed to pay additional tariffs on Chinese-origin LEDs imported into the United States. The claims stem from a qui tam suit filed by a former employee. See United States ex rel. Wang v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. TDC-21-cv-1607 (D. Md.). As we reported here and here, this settlement is the latest example of DOJ’s push to target trade fraud through its Trade Fraud Task Force.
(more…)
Kristin Graham Koehler
Washington, D.C.
kkoehler@sidley.com
Ted Murphy
Washington, D.C.
ted.murphy@sidley.com
Craig Francis Dukin
Washington, D.C.
cdukin@sidley.com
Aaron M. Applebaum
Washington, D.C.
aapplebaum@sidley.com
Jaime L.M. Jones
Chicago
jaime.jones@sidley.com
Lisa H. Miller
Washington, D.C.
lisa.miller@sidley.com
Michael D. Mann
New York
mdmann@sidley.com
Kenneth G. Coffin
Dallas
kenneth.coffin@sidley.com
Anna M. Schmitt
Chicago
anna.schmitt@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