1. Home
  2. News and Insights
  3. Client Alert: Court Adopts SEC's New Unregistered Dealer Theory, Creates Risk of Disgorgement and Penalties for Anyone Trading Securities As Part of A Business

Client Alert: Court Adopts SEC's New Unregistered Dealer Theory, Creates Risk of Disgorgement and Penalties for Anyone Trading Securities As Part of A Business

Publications

July 18, 2023

By: Anthony Barkow, Gabriel K. Gillett, Charles D. Riely, Grace C. Signorelli-Cassady

A broad array of financial market participants—mutual funds, private funds, insurers, pension funds, family offices, individuals, and more—may be at risk after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) secured summary judgment in a case alleging an individual and an affiliated entity acted as unregistered securities dealers when they bought and sold securities for their own account.[1]

As a recent article explained, as a result of decisions like this one, a “Sword of Damocles now hangs over … just about anyone making a dime in almost any market.”[2] That is because, under the new theory the SEC advanced in this case and other recent enforcement actions, many market participants could be required to register as dealers, disgorge profits and pay interest and penalties earned from trading activity years ago that seemed perfectly legal at the time. The decision thus serves as a red flag for a wide range of entities that buy and sell securities—and in theory could ensnare any entity that trades or invests for its own account.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires those who act as securities dealers to register with the SEC. The Exchange Act defines a “dealer” as “any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities … for such person’s own account,” but exempts from that definition those who buy and sell securities “not as a part of a regular business.”[3] For nearly nine decades, that has meant that those who do not have customers, and thus cannot transact with their own customers, are not dealers. The SEC also published guidance highlighting various factors that indicate when someone is acting as a dealer.[4]

However, in a series of recent enforcement cases filed across the country, the SEC has been advocating a new and broad view—that a dealer can be anyone who is engaged in the business of buying and selling securities regardless of having customers and the presence of any factors.[5] In SEC v. Fierro, for example, the SEC alleged defendants acted as unregistered dealers when they bought convertible notes from corporate issuers, held them for at least six months, then converted the debt into equity and sold the resulting shares at a profit.[6] The district court granted summary judgment for the SEC. Relying largely on two recent district court decisions from Florida, the court held that because “Defendants were engaged in the business of buying and selling securities” they were “required to register with the SEC as dealers.”[7]

The defendants in Fierro offered reasons why the SEC’s theory should be rejected as contrary to the Exchange Act. For example, the definition of dealer historically has been understood as only applying to entities that buy and sell securities to execute customer orders—not traders or investors who take on risk—and that is how Congress understood the definition when adopting it in 1934.[8] Defendants also highlighted that they were not required to register as a dealer based on the SEC’s own rules and the SEC’s own guidance describing the relevant factors for dealer status.[9]

Still, the district court in Fierro agreed with the SEC and adopted its expansive interpretation of “dealer.” Whether that decision and others will hold up, and whether courts in other jurisdictions will follow suit, remains to be seen. But unless and until the SEC reverts to its prior and longstanding interpretation—voluntarily or via court order—traders, investors, and other participants in the financial markets would be wise to gauge the risk that their activities could be deemed to require dealer registration and disgorgement of past profits. 

Jenner & Block represents amici curiae that are encouraging courts to reject the SEC’s new theory for those reasons and others, including because courts are the wrong forum for the SEC to seek to alter its rules or to amend the statutory definition of dealer.[10]

[1] SEC v. Fierro, No. 20-cv-2104 (D. NJ June 29, 2023), ECF No. 50.

[2] Brandon Kochkodin, Forbes, The Government Is Quietly Suing Its Way To Broader Powers Over Traders (July 12, 2023), https://tradingmarketsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Government-Is-Quietly-Suing-Its-Way-To-Broader-Powers-Over-Traders.pdf.

[3] 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(5).

[4] SEC, Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (April 2008; revised Dec. 12, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/guide-broker-dealer-registration.

[5]  See, e.g., SEC v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC, No. 23-cv-11233 (D. Mass. filed June 1, 2023); SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022); SEC v. Carebourn Cap., L.P., No. 21-cv-02144 (D.M.N. filed Sept. 24, 2021); SEC v. GPL Ventures LLC, No. 21-cv-06814 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 13, 2021); SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 23, 2022); SEC v. Fife, No. 20-cv-5227 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 3, 2020); SEC v. Keener, No. 20-cv-21254 (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 24, 2020); SEC v. Fierro, No. 3:20-cv-2104 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 26, 2020); SEC v. River N. Equity LLC, No. 1:19-cv-1711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019).

[6] Slip op. 1-3.

[7] Slip op. 15 (relying on SEC v. Almagarby, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2020), appeal pending, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir.); SEC v. Keener, 2020 WL 4736205 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2020), appeal pending, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir.)).

[8] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 6-10.

[9] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 11-14.

[10] See Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-3353 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 39; Brief of Amici Curiae, SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), ECF No. 33; Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. Almagarby, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 60-1; Brief of Amicus Curiae, SEC v. Keener, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir. June 7, 2023), ECF No. 36.

Footnotes

[1] SEC v. Fierro, No. 20-cv-2104 (D. NJ June 29, 2023), ECF No. 50.

[2] Brandon Kochkodin, Forbes, The Government Is Quietly Suing Its Way To Broader Powers Over Traders (July 12, 2023), https://tradingmarketsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Government-Is-Quietly-Suing-Its-Way-To-Broader-Powers-Over-Traders.pdf.

[3] 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(5).

[4] SEC, Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (April 2008; revised Dec. 12, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/guide-broker-dealer-registration.

[5]  See, e.g., SEC v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC, No. 23-cv-11233 (D. Mass. filed June 1, 2023); SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022); SEC v. Carebourn Cap., L.P., No. 21-cv-02144 (D.M.N. filed Sept. 24, 2021); SEC v. GPL Ventures LLC, No. 21-cv-06814 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 13, 2021); SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 23, 2022); SEC v. Fife, No. 20-cv-5227 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 3, 2020); SEC v. Keener, No. 20-cv-21254 (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 24, 2020); SEC v. Fierro, No. 3:20-cv-2104 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 26, 2020); SEC v. River N. Equity LLC, No. 1:19-cv-1711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019).

[6] Slip op. 1-3.

[7] Slip op. 15 (relying on SEC v. Almagarby, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2020), appeal pending, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir.); SEC v. Keener, 2020 WL 4736205 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2020), appeal pending, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir.)).

[8] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 6-10.

[9] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 11-14.

[10] See Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-3353 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 39; Brief of Amici Curiae, SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), ECF No. 33; Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. Almagarby, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 60-1; Brief of Amicus Curiae, SEC v. Keener, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir. June 7, 2023), ECF No. 36.

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

Client Alert: Court Adopts SEC's New Unregistered Dealer Theory, Creates Risk of Disgorgement and Penalties for Anyone Trading Securities As Part of A Business

Publications

July 18, 2023

By: Anthony Barkow, Gabriel K. Gillett, Charles D. Riely, Grace C. Signorelli-Cassady

A broad array of financial market participants—mutual funds, private funds, insurers, pension funds, family offices, individuals, and more—may be at risk after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) secured summary judgment in a case alleging an individual and an affiliated entity acted as unregistered securities dealers when they bought and sold securities for their own account.[1]

As a recent article explained, as a result of decisions like this one, a “Sword of Damocles now hangs over … just about anyone making a dime in almost any market.”[2] That is because, under the new theory the SEC advanced in this case and other recent enforcement actions, many market participants could be required to register as dealers, disgorge profits and pay interest and penalties earned from trading activity years ago that seemed perfectly legal at the time. The decision thus serves as a red flag for a wide range of entities that buy and sell securities—and in theory could ensnare any entity that trades or invests for its own account.

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires those who act as securities dealers to register with the SEC. The Exchange Act defines a “dealer” as “any person engaged in the business of buying and selling securities … for such person’s own account,” but exempts from that definition those who buy and sell securities “not as a part of a regular business.”[3] For nearly nine decades, that has meant that those who do not have customers, and thus cannot transact with their own customers, are not dealers. The SEC also published guidance highlighting various factors that indicate when someone is acting as a dealer.[4]

However, in a series of recent enforcement cases filed across the country, the SEC has been advocating a new and broad view—that a dealer can be anyone who is engaged in the business of buying and selling securities regardless of having customers and the presence of any factors.[5] In SEC v. Fierro, for example, the SEC alleged defendants acted as unregistered dealers when they bought convertible notes from corporate issuers, held them for at least six months, then converted the debt into equity and sold the resulting shares at a profit.[6] The district court granted summary judgment for the SEC. Relying largely on two recent district court decisions from Florida, the court held that because “Defendants were engaged in the business of buying and selling securities” they were “required to register with the SEC as dealers.”[7]

The defendants in Fierro offered reasons why the SEC’s theory should be rejected as contrary to the Exchange Act. For example, the definition of dealer historically has been understood as only applying to entities that buy and sell securities to execute customer orders—not traders or investors who take on risk—and that is how Congress understood the definition when adopting it in 1934.[8] Defendants also highlighted that they were not required to register as a dealer based on the SEC’s own rules and the SEC’s own guidance describing the relevant factors for dealer status.[9]

Still, the district court in Fierro agreed with the SEC and adopted its expansive interpretation of “dealer.” Whether that decision and others will hold up, and whether courts in other jurisdictions will follow suit, remains to be seen. But unless and until the SEC reverts to its prior and longstanding interpretation—voluntarily or via court order—traders, investors, and other participants in the financial markets would be wise to gauge the risk that their activities could be deemed to require dealer registration and disgorgement of past profits. 

Jenner & Block represents amici curiae that are encouraging courts to reject the SEC’s new theory for those reasons and others, including because courts are the wrong forum for the SEC to seek to alter its rules or to amend the statutory definition of dealer.[10]

[1] SEC v. Fierro, No. 20-cv-2104 (D. NJ June 29, 2023), ECF No. 50.

[2] Brandon Kochkodin, Forbes, The Government Is Quietly Suing Its Way To Broader Powers Over Traders (July 12, 2023), https://tradingmarketsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Government-Is-Quietly-Suing-Its-Way-To-Broader-Powers-Over-Traders.pdf.

[3] 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(5).

[4] SEC, Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (April 2008; revised Dec. 12, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/guide-broker-dealer-registration.

[5]  See, e.g., SEC v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC, No. 23-cv-11233 (D. Mass. filed June 1, 2023); SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022); SEC v. Carebourn Cap., L.P., No. 21-cv-02144 (D.M.N. filed Sept. 24, 2021); SEC v. GPL Ventures LLC, No. 21-cv-06814 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 13, 2021); SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 23, 2022); SEC v. Fife, No. 20-cv-5227 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 3, 2020); SEC v. Keener, No. 20-cv-21254 (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 24, 2020); SEC v. Fierro, No. 3:20-cv-2104 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 26, 2020); SEC v. River N. Equity LLC, No. 1:19-cv-1711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019).

[6] Slip op. 1-3.

[7] Slip op. 15 (relying on SEC v. Almagarby, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2020), appeal pending, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir.); SEC v. Keener, 2020 WL 4736205 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2020), appeal pending, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir.)).

[8] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 6-10.

[9] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 11-14.

[10] See Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-3353 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 39; Brief of Amici Curiae, SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), ECF No. 33; Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. Almagarby, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 60-1; Brief of Amicus Curiae, SEC v. Keener, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir. June 7, 2023), ECF No. 36.

Footnotes

[1] SEC v. Fierro, No. 20-cv-2104 (D. NJ June 29, 2023), ECF No. 50.

[2] Brandon Kochkodin, Forbes, The Government Is Quietly Suing Its Way To Broader Powers Over Traders (July 12, 2023), https://tradingmarketsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Government-Is-Quietly-Suing-Its-Way-To-Broader-Powers-Over-Traders.pdf.

[3] 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(5).

[4] SEC, Guide to Broker-Dealer Registration (April 2008; revised Dec. 12, 2016), https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/guide-broker-dealer-registration.

[5]  See, e.g., SEC v. Auctus Fund Management, LLC, No. 23-cv-11233 (D. Mass. filed June 1, 2023); SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-03353 (E.D.N.Y. filed June 7, 2022); SEC v. Carebourn Cap., L.P., No. 21-cv-02144 (D.M.N. filed Sept. 24, 2021); SEC v. GPL Ventures LLC, No. 21-cv-06814 (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 13, 2021); SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 23, 2022); SEC v. Fife, No. 20-cv-5227 (N.D. Ill. filed Sept. 3, 2020); SEC v. Keener, No. 20-cv-21254 (S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 24, 2020); SEC v. Fierro, No. 3:20-cv-2104 (D.N.J. filed Feb. 26, 2020); SEC v. River N. Equity LLC, No. 1:19-cv-1711 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 11, 2019).

[6] Slip op. 1-3.

[7] Slip op. 15 (relying on SEC v. Almagarby, 479 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (S.D. Fla. 2020), appeal pending, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir.); SEC v. Keener, 2020 WL 4736205 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2020), appeal pending, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir.)).

[8] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 6-10.

[9] See Defs.’ Opp. to MSJ at 11-14.

[10] See Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. LG Capital Funding, LLC, No. 22-cv-3353 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 39; Brief of Amici Curiae, SEC v. Morningview Financial, LLC, No. 22-cv-8142 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), ECF No. 33; Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, SEC v. Almagarby, No. 21-13755 (11th Cir. July 13, 2023), ECF No. 60-1; Brief of Amicus Curiae, SEC v. Keener, No. 22-14237 (11th Cir. June 7, 2023), ECF No. 36.

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

News and Insights

Recognition

Chambers UK 2027 Ranks Jenner & Block’s London Office and Five Partners

Jenner & Block’s London office has once again earned a ranking in Corporate Crime & Investigations in the newly published Chambers UK 2027. The annual guide ranks leading law firms and lawyers across the United Kingdom, drawing on in-depth research and client feedback.

October 15, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Secures Another Win for Chance the Rapper Following Bench Trial on Fiduciary Duty Claim

On October 13, 2026, Cook County Circuit Court Judge James E. Hanlon, Jr. ruled in favor of Jenner & Block client Chancelor J. Bennett, known as Chance the Rapper, on his breach of fiduciary duty claim against former manager Patrick Corcoran, finding that Corcoran breached his fiduciary duties in multiple instances. The ruling closes a nearly six-year dispute.

October 15, 2026

Event

Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar

As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.

October 14, 2026

News

Helen Gilbert, Veteran Northern District of California Prosecutor and Former National Security Chief, Joins Jenner & Block in San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, October 14, 2026 – Jenner & Block is pleased to announce that Helen Gilbert, a former federal prosecutor and trial lawyer, has joined the firm as a partner in its San Francisco office. Drawing on more than 10 years in the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, including as Chief of the National Security, Cyber, and Special Prosecutions Section, Helen will guide clients through government investigations, white-collar matters, and corporate crises, with a

October 14, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Team Honored with The Legal Aid Society’s 2026 Pro Bono Publico Award

A Jenner & Block team was honored by The Legal Aid Society as a recipient of its 2026 Pro Bono Publico Award at an awards ceremony in New York on October 7.

October 9, 2026

News

Partner Lucy Blake Quoted in Forward Law Review on Litigation and Reputational Risk in Business and Human Rights

Partner Lucy Blake shared her insights with Forward Law Review on how pressure on companies over business and human rights issues is shifting from regulatory enforcement to litigation and reputational risk.

October 9, 2026

News

Partner Lucy Blake Quoted in International Employment Lawyer on Governance Lessons from Odey Ruling

Partner Lucy Blake was quoted in International Employment Lawyer on what financial firms can learn about independent governance from the Upper Tribunal's decision to uphold the FCA's lifetime ban on hedge fund manager Crispin Odey.

October 9, 2026

Event

Lindsay Harrison to Moderate Panel at IBA Annual Conference Copenhagen 2026

On October 8, Washington, DC Office Managing Partner Lindsay Harrison will moderate a panel at the International Bar Association (IBA) Annual Conference in Copenhagen.

October 8, 2026

News

London Office Managing Partner Christine Braamskamp Quoted in City AM on Government Plans for Judge-Alone Fraud Trials

London Office Managing Partner Christine Braamskamp shared her insights with City AM on the UK government's plans to hear "technical and lengthy fraud and financial offences" before a judge alone, without a jury, as part of efforts to reduce the record backlog in the Crown Court.

October 8, 2026

News

London Office Managing Partner Christine Braamskamp Quoted in Law360 on Criminal Probe Risk for Manchester City

London Office Managing Partner Christine Braamskamp shared her insights with Law360 on the hurdles any criminal investigation would face after an independent Premier League commission found that Manchester City used "sham" agreements to disguise owner funding as sponsorship income.

October 8, 2026

Publications

Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill

Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.

October 2026

Event

Partner David Kroeger to Speak on IBA Annual Conference Copenhagen 2026 Panel

Partner David Kroeger will join a panel at the International Bar Association (IBA) Annual Conference in Copenhagen on October 8.

October 8, 2026

Event

Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”

On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.

October 8, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Leads Washington, DC Legal Industry in Pro Bono Hours for 2025

On September 30, Jenner & Block's Washington, DC office was honored by Chief Judges of the District of Columbia federal courts at the "40 at 50" Judicial Pro Bono Recognition Breakfast. The breakfast, sponsored by the DC Circuit Judicial Conference Standing Committee, recognizes firms in which at least 40% of lawyers contributed a minimum of 50 hours of pro bono legal services in 2025. 

October 7, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Secures Preliminary Injunction Blocking Utah's Age-Verification Mandate for VPN Users

Jenner & Block secured a preliminary injunction on behalf of Aylo Freesites Ltd, the owner and operator of Pornhub, YouPorn, and RedTube, blocking Utah from enforcing an amendment to its age-verification law. On September 24, a federal judge held the amendment likely violates the dormant Commerce Clause.

October 7, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Wins Emergency Relief for Association of American Universities to Protect Donor Privacy

Jenner & Block won a temporary restraining order for the Association of American Universities (AAU) on October 1, hours before the US Department of Education was set to publish the names of foreign donors to American universities on its website.

October 7, 2026

Client Alerts

National Fraud Enforcement Division Issues New Memorandum Outlining Priorities, Capping Two-Year Evolution of Approach to Corporate Enforcement

Since last year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a series of memoranda and policies developing and refining its corporate fraud enforcement priorities. Recently, in April 2026, DOJ announced the creation of the National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED or the Division)—whose “core mission” is to “zealously investigate and prosecute those who steal or fraudulently misuse taxpayer dollars”—and it has been rapidly expanding ever since. In August 2026, the NFED issued a memo identifying f

October 7, 2026

Event

Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference

On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.

October 7, 2026

Publications

The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine

Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.

October 5, 2026

Publications

"When Do Personal Posts Pose Professional Problems?" FT Adviser

On September 1, 2026, around 37,000 non-bank financial firms became subject to FCA rules bringing serious bullying, harassment, and violence within their scope — rules broad enough to reach employees' personal social media activity. Partner Lucy Blake and Senior Associate Karam Jardaneh authored an article for FT Adviser examining new FCA guidance on how firms should handle employees' personal social media activity.

October 5, 2026

View All News and Insights