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

Podcasts

Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast

Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.

July 15, 2026

Client Alerts

Department of War Suspends CMMC Phase II—But Compliance Obligations Remain, As Does Enforcement Risk

On July 13, 2026, the Department of War (DoW) announced the immediate suspension of the Phase II requirements of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, which had been scheduled to take effect on November 10, 2026. The suspension, memorialized in a memorandum dated July 10, 2026, and signed by DoW Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies, also halts the pending Phase III and Phase IV implementation milestones and directs a comprehensive, 60-day review of the program.

July 14, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Launches Alumni Portal

Jenner & Block’s alumni program launched a new alumni portal for former firm lawyers, available now at jennerationsalumni.com.

July 14, 2026

Publications

Partner Joanna Ludlam Featured in City AM on Pressure for Wider ICO Overhaul

Partner Joanna Ludlam - Chair of Jenner & Block's London Public Law and Crisis Management Practice, Co-Chair of the firm's Global Hearing Preparation and Global Crisis Management and Strategic Risk practices, and Co-Chair of the firm's Investigations Department - was featured in City AM's examination of the mounting pressure for a broader overhaul of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) following John Edwards' resignation.

July 14, 2026

Event

Partner Karin Dryhurst to Speak at ABA In-House Counsel Session on Anti-Discrimination Laws

On July 14, Partner Karin Dryhurst will speak on a panel hosted by the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s In-House Counsel Committee titled "How to Handle Current Discrimination Risks Across Industries: What In-House Counsel Need to Know About the Evolving Landscape."

July 14, 2026

Publications

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report

Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

July 14, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Named a Top 3 Firm in Law360's 2025-2026 US Supreme Court Scorecard

Jenner & Block ranked among the top three firms in Law360's annual scorecard of which firms argued most frequently before the US Supreme Court during the 2025–26 term.

July 13, 2026

News

Partner Lucy Blake Featured in Forward Law Review on UK's Proposed Modern Slavery Report

London Partner Lucy Blake was featured in Forward Law Review, where she commented on the UK government's proposed overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015's corporate reporting regime - the biggest changes to section 54 since it was introduced. Lucy's insights highlight the shift toward mandatory disclosure, board-level accountability, and financial penalties for organisations and public authorities that fail to comply.

July 13, 2026

Publications

Katya Jestin Discusses Relationship Building and Her Path to Law in ABA Journal

In a recent "My Path to Law" profile, Partner Katya Jestin shares the experiences that shaped her career, from prosecuting the Mafia as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, to running a busy white collar defense practice, to representing Guantánamo Bay high-value detainee Majid Khan in a pro bono matter.

July 10, 2026

Publications

Ashely Callen Discusses Anticipated Uptick in Congressional Oversight of Companies in Global Investigations Review

Partner Ashley Callen spoke with Global Investigations Review about the likely uptick in congressional oversight of companies if Democrats retake a chamber of Congress in the November 2026 US midterm elections.

July 10, 2026

Recognition

Chicago Associate Christina Lopez Recognized with Chicago Bar Foundation’s Weigle Award

Associate Christina Lopez has been honored by the Chicago Bar Foundation with the Maurice Weigle Exceptional Young Lawyer Award at its Pro Bono & Public Service Award Luncheon.

July 10, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Named a Leader in Pro Bono by The American Lawyer

Jenner & Block has been named a leader in pro bono in The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Report, ranking in the top three nationally and #1 internationally for a second consecutive year.

July 8, 2026

Recognition

Tony Barkow Named Finalist for Office Managing Partner of the Year by New York Law Journal

Tony Barkow, Managing Partner of Jenner & Block's New York office, has been named a finalist for the Office Managing Partner of the Year award in the New York Law Journal's New York Legal Awards 2026.

July 8, 2026

Publications

Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law

Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.

July 7, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Secures Summary Judgment for Sexual Assault Survivor in Nearly Seven-Year Retaliation Suit

A Jenner & Block team secured summary judgment on behalf of a pro bono client who was sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after reporting a sexual assault and cooperating with law enforcement, bringing to a close nearly seven years of retaliatory litigation.

July 7, 2026

Client Alerts

The EU Anti-Corruption Directive: What You Need to Know

Directive (EU) 2026/1021 (the Directive) is the most far-reaching development in European anti-corruption law in more than two decades. It harmonises the criminal anti-corruption laws of the participating Member States by establishing a single set of criminal offences, penalties, and prevention duties.1 

July 7, 2026

Publications

In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision

Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.

July 1, 2026

Event

Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference

On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.

July 1, 2026

Recognition

Chief Justice Roberts Appoints Partner Catherine Steege to Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has appointed Partner Catherine Steege to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules. Cathy will serve a three-year term beginning October 1, 2026, on the committee that shapes and recommends changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure nationwide.

June 30, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 4 — US Supreme Court Term in Review

Jenner & Block's appellate lawyers review the most consequential cases from the 2025–2026 Supreme Court term. This session covers high-profile decisions and pending matters addressing presidential power, agency independence, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and other significant constitutional and federal law questions before the Court.

June 30, 2026

View All News and Insights